## Frfday August 11, 

## 1984



# -

Part III


# Department of 

# Ene.rgy

.Office of Conservation and Renewable

Energy

.



## 10 CFR Part 430 Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; State Petitions for Exemption From Federal Preemption of State Standards for Refrigerators and Refrigerator-Freezers, Freezers, Water Heaters. Room Air Conditioners, Central Air Conditioners, Furnaces and Kitchen Ranges and Ovens; Proposed Rulemakings and Public Hearings

### Federal Register / Vo!' 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Office of Conservation and Renewable Energy

10 CFR Part 430

(Docket Nos. CE-CP-SPRM-AROO6, VAOO7, FLOO8, PAOO9. WI010. SC012. NM013, GA014. RI01S. NH016; MA017, CA018,

. OR019, NY020. M002l.TX022. NJ023, IL024, UT02S. IA026, WV027. MN028. WA029, KS030, HI03l.TN032)
Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products; State Petitions for Exemption From Federal Preemption of State Standards for: Refrigerators and RefrigeratorFreezers, Freezers, Water Heaters, Room AirConditioners, Central Air Conditioners. Furnaces and Kitchen Ranges and Ovens

AGENCY: 

### Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. DOE.

ACTION: 

### Notice ofproposed rulemakings and public hearings.

SUMMARY:

### The Energy Policy and Conservation Act. as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act. requires that the Department of Energy prescribe an energy efficiency standard for each of13 majorhousehold appliances unless it 

### determines. by rule. that a standard will not result in significant conservation ofenergy. is not technologically feasible. or is not economicallyjustified.

On December 22. 1982. DOE published

a final rule with respect to clothes dryers andkitchen ranges and ovens in which DOE determined that energy

. efficiency standards for these products

.would notresult in a significant conservation ofenergy andwould not be economicallyjustified. In addition. the final rule set forth the procedures by which States may obtain exemption for State or local efficiency standards that

are statutorily preempted as a result ofa final rule with respect to energy efficiency standards: and procedures by which manufacturers may obtain a rule
to preempt State or local efficiency standards for which there is no Federal final rule.

On August 30, 1983. DOE published a final rule with respect to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water heaters. room air conditioners. central airconditioners and furnaces in which. for each ofthese products. except central air conditioners. DOE determined that an energy efficiency standard would not result in a . significant conservation ofenergy and would not be economically justified. With respect to central air conditioners. DOE determined that an energy efficiency standard would result in a significant conservation ofenergy bul would not be economicallyjustified.

DOE has received petitions'from Z6 States requesting. in each case. that one

ormore State or local energy efficiency standards pertaining to one or more of the eight covered products be exempted from Federalpreemption. 1



### The Department ofEnergy is today proposing to grant each Stale's petition. Therefor. DOE is

### proposing to amend Title 10. Part430 ofthe Code ofFederal Regulations to include a determination ofexemption from Federal preemption for each State's applicable standard pertaining to the energy efficiency or energy use ofrefrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers. freezers. water heaters. room airconditioners. central airconditioners. furnaces and kitchen ranges and ovens.

The.purpose ofthis notice ofproposed rulemakings is to provide interested persons an opportunity to comment on the proposed rules and to invite interestedpersons to participate in the rulemaking process.
DATES: 

### Written comments on the proposed rules must be received by the Department by November 15. 1984.

Oral views. data and arguments may be presented at any ofthe public hearings listed in the supplementary information section.

ADDRESSES:

### Written comments. statementsandrequests to speak at the hearings are to be submitted to: U.S. Department ofEnergy. Office of Conservation andRenewable Energy. Office ofHearings andDockets. Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products. Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM- (appropriate State code). Mail Station 68-025. ForrestalBuilding, 1000 Independence Avenue. SW;. Washington. DC 20585. (20Z) 252-9319.

The hearings will begin at 9a.m.• and will be held at the locations listed in the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 

### section.

Copies ofthe State petitions. transcripts ofpublic hearings. and public comments Ti!ceived may be obtained from the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room: U.S. Department ofEnergy. Freedom of Information. Public Reading Room. Forrestal Building. Room lE-190. 1000 IndependenceAvenue. SW.• Washington. DC 20585. (202) 252-£020.

Formore information concerning public participation in these rulemaking

'DOEhaa received petitions from: Arkansas. Virginia. Florida. Pennsylvania. Wi8consin. South Carolina. New Mexico. Georgia. Rhode Island. New Hampshire. Massachusetts. California. Oregon. New York. Missouri. Tex

..... New/8

...ey. lIIinoi•• Utah. Iowa. Weal Virginia. Minne8ota. Washington. Kiln

..... Hawaii andTennassee. 

### proceedings. see section IV "Public Comment Procedures" ofthis notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

### Michael 

### J. McCabe. U.S. Department of

Energy. Office ofConservation and Renewable Energy. Mail Station CE113. 

### Room GF-Z17. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. SW.• Washington. DC 20585, (ZOZ) 252-91Z7 Lona Feldman. Assistant General

Counsel fOT Conservation and Renewable Energy. U.S. Department ofEnergy. Mail Station GC-33. Room 6B-144. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. SW

.. Washington. DC 20585. (Z02) 252-9507.

or Eugene Margolis.**E~q**

### .• U.S. Department

ofEnergy. Office ofGeneral Counsel. Mail Station GC-33. Room 6B-128. Forrestal Building. 1000 Independence Avenue. SW.• Washington. DC Z0585. (202) 252-9513 U.S. Department ofEnergy.

Conservation and Renewable Energy. Office ofHearings and Dockets. Room 68-025. Forrestal Building. 1000 IndependenceAvenue. SW.• Washington. DC 20585. (ZOZ) 25Z-9319

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

LIntroduction

a. Authority b. Background 

### n. Discussion

a. General b. Summary oCState Petitions 

### m. Environmental. Regulatory Impact. and Regulatory flexibility Reviews

a. Environmental Review b. RegulalOry Impact Review

c. Small Entity Impact Review IV. Public Comment Procedures

a. Participation in Rulemaking b. Written Comment Procedures

c. Public Hearings

I. Introduction



### o. Authority

Part BofTiUe III ofthe Energy Policy and ConservationAct (£PCA) (Pub. 

### L. 94-163). as amended by the National Energy Conservation Policy Act (NECPA) (Pub. 

### L. 95-619).2 created the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products OtherThan Automobiles. The consumer products subject to this program (referred to hereafter as "covered products") are: Refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers: freezers: dishwashers: clothes dryers;
water heaters: room air conditioners; home heating equipment. not including furnaces: television sets: kitchen ranges and ovens: clothes washers; humidifiers

Pari BofTitle ill ofEPCA. ao amended by NECPA. 42 U.S.c.**6291~.** ia referred 10 In Ihis notice liS the "Act."

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. 

### August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32945



### and dehumidifiers; central air condilioners: and furnaces. as well as any other consumer product classified

as a covered product by the Secretary of Energy. 

### ifthe product uses a specified minimum amount ofenergy. Section 322. The Secretary has not 80 

### classified any additional products.

Under the Act. tile program consists essentially ofthree parts; testing. labeling. and energy efficiency standards.

For each ofthe covered products. DOE is required to establish energy. efficiency standards iliat are designed to achieve the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economicallyjustified. Section 325 (a){1) and

### tel. The Act provides. however. that no standard for

a product is to be established 

### ifthere is

no lest procedure for the product. or.if DOE determines bv rule either that a standard would not result in sitnificant conservation ofenergy or that a standard is not technologically feasible

or economically juslified. Section 325(b).

Section 327 ofthe Act addresses ilie effect offederal rules concerning testing. labeling. and standards on State laws or regulations concerning such matters. Generally. all such State laws or regulations are superseded by ilie Federal rule. Section 327(a). A rule by DOE that an efficiency standard is not technologically feasible. economically justified. or likely to save significant
amounts ofenergy is a rule ilial supersedes any State standard. Section 325(b). If, 

### because there is no Federal rule. a State efficiency standard is not superseded, persons subject to it 

### may petition DOE to have it 

### superseded on the basis that there is no significant State or local interest sufficient to justify ilie regulation and such regulation unduly burdens interstate commerce. Section 327(b)(l). A State whose energy efficiency standard is superseded may petition the Department for a rule iliat it


### not be superseded, on the basis that there is a significa,,! State orlocal interest to justify 

### the standard and the State standard is a stricter standard. However. DOE cannot issue the requested rule 

### if the Slate standard would unddy burt!en interstate

commerce. Section 327(b)[3).

b. Background

On December 2:. 1982. 

### DOE published

a final rule in which DOE determined that energy efficiency standards for clothes dryers and kitchen ranges and

ovens would not result in a significant conservation ofenergy and would not be economicallyjustified. 47 FR 57198. (Referred to hereafter as the December 1982 rule.) The December 1982 rule also established procedures governing petitions to DOE both by States to obtain exemption from preemption of State or local energy efficiency standards and by manufacturers to obtain exemption from State or local
energy efficiency standards.

Pursuant to the procedures established in the December 1982 rule. DOE received petitions from five States requesting. in each case, that ilie State energy efficiency standard requiring intermittent ignition devices (lIDs) for clothes dryers and!orkitchen rangll,; and ovens be exempted from Federal preemption. DOE published proposed rules granting the five Slate Petitions on August 1. 19a3. 48 FR 34858. On March 27. 1984. DOE published final rules granting each State's petition for exemption ofSiale standards for clothes dryers and/orkitchen ranges**and~bvens.** 

### 48 FR 11764. 3



### On August 30. 1983. DOE published a final rule with respect to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers, freezers. water heaters. room air conditioners, central air conditioners andfurnaces. 48 FR 39376. (Referred to hereafter as the August 1983 rule.) For each product. except central air conditioners. DOE determined iliat a standardwould not result in a significant conservation of
energy and would not be economically justified. With respect to central air conditioners. DOE detemlined that an energy efficiency standard would result in a Significant conservation ofenergy but would not be economicallyjustified.

II. Discussion

a. 

### General

Section 327(a)(2} ofilie Actprovides ilia! any Federal standard applicable under section 325 supersedes any non- identical Slate orlocal standard. Section 325(b) explicitly requires iliat a determination by DOE iliat no federal energy efficiency standard for a particularproduct is warrantedwould also supersede any State or local energy efficiency standard. Section 3Z7(b)(3). however. provides that a State may petition for, and DOE may issue. a rule exempting a State or local standard from Federal supersession.

The petitions received from the 26 Statesgenerally request exemption for three generic types ofenergy efficiency standards: (1) State and local building code requirements pertaining to the efficiency ofequipment installed in new

'The five States are: California. New York. Wi&conlin. Minnesota end Oregon. Each Sla'e WI/S granted an exemption for it. State standard for kitchen ranges and ovena. Wisconsin. MinnellOta and Oregon also sought and weregranled exemption, for thejr sttlndarch for cIothe8 dry

...... 

### construction or substantial renovation. (2) regulations which prohibit the sale or distribution ofcertain products in a State**~hich** 

### do not meet prescribed levels ofefficiency. an i 

### (3) reguiations requiring intermittent i,;nition devices on gas appliances. For ilie first two types of Slate energy efficiency standards. i.e

.. building code requirements and bans on sales and distribution oflow efficiency products. each State's standards for each product type consist ofa prescribed minimum energy efficiency level for such product (or 

### levels in 

### cases where the product type is broken down into product classes and/or more than

one State standard is applicable to the

same product type) and a prescribed
test method applicable to such product for determining wheilier manufactured units meet or fail to meet the minimum efficiency level(s) preSCribed by the State.The third type ofState energy effiCiency standard is prescr:ptive in
nature. As such. no energy efiiciency levels or test methods need be specified.

Since the first two types ofState energy efticiency standards consist of boili prescribed minimum energy efficiency levels and test methods. DOE has. in examining each State's standards. considered the preSCribed
testmethods as part ofilie State standard for which exemption from preemption is being sought. In proposir:g
to grant the States' petitions as they pertain to State energy efficiency standards ofthese two types. DOE is proposing. as a condition ofilie grant. iliat only the test method prescribed in each State standard be used by the Slate to determine compliance with the associatedminimum energy efficiency levels prescribed in iliat standard.

-Many ofilie petitions submitted to DOE request exemption from preemption ofState and local building codes. Most ofiliese building codes incorporate. either directly orby reference. the equipment energy efficiency requirements specified in the American Society ofHeating. Refrigerating. and Air-Conditioning Engineers. Inc. (ASHRAE) Standard lor "Energy Conservation in New Building Design." first published as ASHRAE Standard 90-75 and later updated as ASHRAE Standard OOA-1980. Both versions ofthis consensus standard (referred to hereafter as ilie ASHRAE Standards) specify energy efficiency requirements for furnaces. water heaters. room air conditioners and central air conditioners. These requirements consist ofa prescribed minimum energy efficiency level for each product (or levels in cases where

. the product type is broken down inlo

### 32946 Federal Registel' 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday, August·17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

product classes andlormore than one

measure ofenergy efficiency is specified) and a prescribed tesl method applicable to each product for**u~e** 

### in determining compliance with the minimum energy efficiency levels prescribed.

Each State's waterheaterenergy effiCiency standard references either the DOE waterheater test procedure. ASHRAE Standard 90-75 orASHRAE Standard OOA-19OO. The ASHRAE Standard OOA-19OO energy efficiency requirements for water heaters reference the DOE waterheater test procedure. However. the ASHRAE Standard 90-75 energy efficiency requirements for waterheaters reference the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) Standard C72.1-72. "Household Automatic Electric Storage-Type WaterHeateni" and Al\1S1 Standard Z21.10.3-74. "Gas Water Heaters, Vol.

# m. Circulating Tank. Instantaneous andLarge Automatic Storage Type Water Heaters". Both ofthese ANSI test methods differ from the DOE water heatertest procedure. As discussed. below. DOE is proposing to grant those petitions where the State or local water heaterenergy efficiency standards reference ANSI Standard C72.1.-72 or ANSI Standard Z21-10.3-74 test methods.

Each State's room air conditioner
energy efficiency standardreferences either the DOE room air conditioner test procedure, ASHRAE Standard 90-75 or ASHRAE Standard OOA-1980. The energy efficiency requirements for room air conditioners found in bolli ASHRAE Standards reference American National Standards Institute/Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers (ANSI/ AHA.\1) Standard Z234.1-1972, "Standard for Room Air Conditioners". DOE has adopted this standardby reference as the DOE room air conditioner test procedure. Therefore. all State energy efficiency standards for

room air conditioners do, in effect. reference the DOE room air conditioner
test procedure.

Each State's central air conditioner energy efficiency standard references eitner the DOE central air conditioner
test procedure, ASHRAE Standard 90-75

orASHHAE Standard 90A-1980. The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 energy efficiency requirements for central air conditioners refp.rence Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute fARI) Standard 210-75. "Standard for Unitary Air Conditicr:ing Equipment". while the ASHRAE Standard 90A-1980 requirements are based on a more recp.nt version ofthis standard, ARI Standard 210-78. The test methods of ARl Standard 210-15 and 210.:.78 are the

same as those found in Test A ofthe DOE central air conditioner test procedure. A8 discussed below. DOE is proposing to grant those petitions where the State \ r local central airconditioner
energy efficiency standards reference ARI Standard 210-78 or ARI Standard 210-75 test methods.

Each State's furnace energy efficiency standard references either the DOE fUrnace test procedure. ASHRAE Standard90-75 or ASHRAE Standard OOA-1980. The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 energy efficiency requiremenls for fUrnaces reference ANSI Standard Z21.13-1974. "Gas-Fired Low-Pressure Steam andHot WaterBoilers"; ANSI Standard Z21.47-1971. including Addenda Z21.47a-1974. "Gas-Fired Gravity and Forced-Air Central Furnaces"; ANSI Standard Z91.1-1972, "Performance Requirements for OilPowered Central Furnaces"; and Hydronics Institute (HI) 

### Standard 6.6 "Testing andRating Standards for CastIron and Steel Heating Boilers". ASHRAE Standard9OA-1980 references the DOE furnace test procedure. As discussed below. DOE is proposing to grant those petitions where the State or local furnace energy efficiency standards reference ANSI Standard Z21.13-1974; ANSI Standard Z21.47- 1971. includingAddenda Z21.47a-1974; ANSI StandardZ91.1-1972: orHI Standard 6.6 test methods.

Most State and local building codes incorporate the ASHRAE Standards in a two-step process. These codes are based

on building codes published by one of several major building code organizations. which in turn incorporate the ASHRAE Standards. The Building Officials and Code Administrators International, Inc. (BOCA) is one such organization and is responsible for the documents entitled "The Basic Building Codes." Anotheris theInternational Conference ofBuilding Officials (ICBO) which is responsible for the documents entitled "The Uniform Building Codes." A third is the SouthernBuilding Code Congress International. Inc. (SBCC) which is responsible for the documents entitled "The Standard Building Codes." In 1977. BOAC. ICBO. SBCC and the National Conference ofStates on Building Codes and Standards (NCSBCS) jOintly developed the document entitled "Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction". Finally. the document entitled "TheModel Energy Code." which Originally wasjointly developed under a DOE contract by BOCA: lCBO. 

## sacc and NCSBCS. is now maintained and updated annually by the Council of American Building Code Officials (CABO). The equipment energy efficiency requirements found in all of these building codes-theBOCA Basic code, the ICBO Uniform code. the SBCC Standard code. the Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction. and the CABO Model Energy Code-arebased on the ASHRAE Standards.

The second type ofrequest submitted
to DOE involves those State regulations which prohibit the sale or distribution of certain products in 

### the State which do
not meet prescribed levels ofefficiency. The levels ofperformance prescribed in these regulations vary from state'to
state since they are based on each particular State's needs. In most cases, these levels are more stringent than those specified in 

### the ASHRAE Standards.

The third type ofenergy efficiency standard represented in the petitions are those State regulations requiring intermittent ignition devices on gas appliances.

In the process ofreviewing the 26 petitions. DOE found a number of instances where States requested exemption from preemption ofState regulations which are not subject to preemption by the August 1983 rule. These requests usually involved State regulations establishing energy efficiency standards for equipment not coveredby the DOE test procedures for the six covered products that are dealt with in the August 1983 rule. Any product which is not covered by a DOE
test procedure. for instance, central air conditioners with cooling capacities greater than 65.000 Btu/perhour. is automatically exempt from any energy efficiency standard promulgated under the Act. including the preemptive effect ofa Federal Standard. Accordingly. DOE has not considered these products in its discussions ofspecific State petitions.

In the December 1982 rule. DOE established the effective dates upon which supersession ofState and local standards would take place and the general procedures by which States could Petition for rules exempting their State or local standards for all covered products. DOE determined that State and local laws for a particular product would be superseded 180 days after Federal Register publication ofa final rule governing that particular product unless Within 60 days ofpublication of the rule. a State had filed with the Department a notice ofintent to petition DOE for an exemptionJor that product. The full petition itselfhad to be filed

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday. August li. 

### 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 32947

within 120 days ofpublication ofthe rule. When such a submission is made. the Slate or local rule remains in effect until DOE reaches a final determination

on the Slale petit m.

Petitions filed in response to the August 1983 

### final rule for six products

were required to be submitted to DOE by December 28. 1983, 

### in orderfor the· applicable State or local standard to remain in effect until the Department reaches a final determination on the petition. However. a particular Slate's standards were superseded as of February 27. 

### 1984. when the Department's standards became effective if

### that State had not filed a petition by December 26, 1983. 

### The supersession ofthese State and local regulations will remain in efC.-c! 

### until DOE issues a final rule gnmting a State's petition.

.New standards for a particular covered product (or new levels ofenergy efficiency for a particular product enacted by 

### States or local governments that hod pre\"iously implemented standards), are also subject to the requirements of 10

### CFR 430.34. 

### The new standard would have 10 

### have been enacted within 60 davs ofa Federal rule for the product**suLie~t** 

### to the standard and a notice ofintent to petition an4 the petition itselfshould have been filed in a timely fashion. After this period of time has expired. Slates may submit petitions for exemptions. However, Slate or local
energy effiCiency standards for the six products subject to the August 1933 

### rule

were superseded as ofFebruary 27, 1984. 

### and no new standard can be implemented until DOE grants the Stale's pe:itioll. Furthermore. any changes in State or local building codtls whif.h set forth energy efficiency standards for covered products are subje.:.! 11.1 

### Federal preemption. even if

### a prior standard level for the same covered product was granted an exemption from preemption. Thus. States must submit petitions to DOE for such exemptions each time a new standard level is formulated.

In irs petition. a Slate is required to present information which would appear

on its face to show thaI the Slale's regulation is more 

### stringent than the Federal standard and that there is a significant Stale or local interest in the State or

### local regulation. However. DOE cannot issue the requested rule ifthe State standard would unduly burden interstate commerce. A party opposing the State's petition mny present information to rebut the State's initial submission. Information presented by

. both the State and opposing parties

would be open for comment and rebuttal.

In reviewing the petitions. DOE will evaluate and analyze all factual and legal material presented by the petitioners and all other interested parties. It is DOE's intention in applying Section 327 

### to determine whether a State standard unduly burdens interstate commerce by balancing the significant State interest in having a standard with tlle burden. ifany. on interstate commerce created by the standard.

Because section 327{b)(3} 

### ofthe Act requires DOE to consider each State petition individuallybefore DOE can issue a rule exempting the State orlocal standard from preemption. DOE cannot issue a rule that makes a blanket determination for all 26 States.

The Department musttreat such petitions as requests for rulemaking and
must adhere to general rulemaking procedures. The DOE must conduct an environmental review pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. 42 

### U.S.C. 4321. 

### to determine whether or not the adoption ofthe proposed rule will be a major Federal action having a significant impact on the quality ofthe environment. The DOE
must also consider the impact ofthe proposed regulation on small businesses pursuant to the Regulatory Flexibility Act,S U.S.C. 501 et seq. Finally. 'Under Executive Order 12291 

### (46 FR 1393. February 19.1981). DOE is required to 

# -

prepare a regulatory impact analysis if DOE determines that the proposed rule is a majorrule. as that term is defined in the Order.

Twenty-six States have petitioned the Department for a rule to allow the States
to maintain their applicable energy efficiency standard for one ormore of the six.covered products as shown in Table 1.<



### Each ofthe States has met the filing requirements set forth in the December 1982 rule.' Each petition also presented information demonstrating that its regulation is more stringent than the Federal standard and that there is a significant State or local interest to justify the energy efficiency standard. Moreover, DOE has made a preliminary determination that there does not appear to be any undue burden on interstate commerce resulting from the State and local regulations and statutes. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to amend § 430.33 

### to pe:mit each of the 26 Slales
to maintain applicabie applian:e energy efficiency standards for kitchen ranges and ovens. refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and/or furnaces.

•Rhode Island also has petitioned for**e~er.;p!'cn** from preemption o(its slandltrd (or kitchen rangr• and ovena.

• A. mp.nlioned above. Slates may Suomit petitions at any time. However. for Slale**sland~,,!. pertainin~**  to one or more ofthe six p-odurts covered in the AU[i!US11983 rule to remain in err.cl until DOE issues a final rule granting a S!ale's petilion. a State would have had to me a peljtion toy December 28. 1983.

TABLE I.-STATE PETITIONS

### 32948 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday, August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules



### b. Summary of State Petitions

ARKANSAS (AROO6). The petition submitted by Arkansas seeks 

### a rule exempting from Federal preemption Sections 503.4 and 504.2 ofthe 1979

. Arkansas Rules andRegulations for Energy Efficiency Standardsfor Nl1w Building Construction as they pertain to water heaters, room air conditioners, central air conditioners and furnaces. The Arkansas law is based on ASHRAE Standard 90-75.

1. State Standard Levels



### WaterHeaters. Section 504.2 of Arkansas' law provides that electric stot'age waterheaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding4.0 walts per square foot oftank surface area. Section 504.2 ofArkansas' law provides that
gas- and oil-fIred storage waterheaters shall have a recovery effiCiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3

### +67/V, expressed in percentperhour ofthe stored thermal energy, where V equals the rated volume ofthe water heater in gallons. 6



### RoomAirConditioners andCentral AirConditions. Section 503.4 of Arkansas' law provides that room air conditioners and central air conditioners with cooling capacities of65,000 Btu per hour or less shan have an energy

. efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour.'



### Furnaces. Section 503.4 of

### Arkans~s' law provides that gas- and oil-fired furnAces shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 per cent at

. maximum rated output. 8

•Arkansas' waterhealer standa:'d. refe

....nce the A!',SI Standard C"2.1-7Z lest method and Ihe ANSI Sta!1dard·Z21.10,3-74 test method. DOE has

. r"vlewed thcse test methods and finds Ihat they dlfler from the DOE waterheater Ipsl procedure. The Department Is lreating**Ihes~** test methods a. an**mte~ral** part ofArkansas' water heater standards for whICh exemption from preemption I. being sought.

•Arkan""" room air cOnditioner standard ref"

...nces the ANSI Standard Z234.1-n test melh"d which DOE adopted 8S il! test procedure for room airconditioners. Arkansas' central air conditioner slHndard references the ARI standard 210-7. test method. DOE "as reviewed this test method and finds that it dIffers from the DOE central air conditioner test procedure. The Department i. treahng the

...tesl methods as an int€gl'Hipart ofArkan

..... room air condition

.... end cen::.i air conditioner standards for which exemptIOn from preemption

... being souSht.

•**Ark~nsas'** furnace &Ianda:'ds rerl/rence the ANSI Stannard 2::1.13-74 test method. Ihe ANSI Standard Z21.47-71 test method, the ANSI Standard 291.1-72 lest method, and the HI Standard 6.6 te.t method. DOE has reviewed these test methods and flnds that they differ from the DOE furnace test procedure. The Department is treating tb.se le.t methods**a~** an integral part ofArkan

..... furnace standards for which e"emption from preemption is being sought. 2. Significant State Interest

The petition states that there.has been considerable building construction in Arkansas designed and built in**a~ordance** with the State's regulations

smce they became effective in 1979. The petition also stales that Arkansas is consideringreviSing its appliance standards to upgrade them to the requirements in ASHRAE Standard 9OA:-1980 to obtain additional energy savmgs.
3. AdditionalInformation

The petitionerstates that the State's regulations are more stringent than DOE's, that some appliances are available in the marketplace that do not comply with the State's regulations. and thatinterstate commerce is not adversely affected. Arkansas adds that manufacturers, distributors, and retailers have not commented that the Stale'sregulations unduly burden interstate commerce.
4. Proposed Determination

. DOE has reviewed Arkansas' petition

10 accordancewith the requirements of Section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based onits analysis.. DOE has determined thatArkansas has provided prima facie evidence showing that § § 503.4 and 504.2 ofthe 1979 Arkansas Rules andRegulations for Energy Efficiency Standards for New Building Construction are more stringent thanDOE'srule for waterheaters, room air conditioners, central air conditioners and furnaces: arejustifiedby a significant State interest: and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting § § 503.4 and 504.2 of the Arkansas Rules and Regulations for Energy Efficiency Standards for New Building Construction from the preemptive provisions ofSection 327(a)(2} ofthe Act.

VIRGINIA (VA007). The petition submitted by Virginia seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption sections M-1303.2, M-1303.6. and P1506.3.5 ofthe 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code as they pertain
to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces, The Virginia law as it applies to water heaters, room air conditioners and central airconditioners is based on**ASH~E Sta~dard**  90-75. The Virginia law as It appbes to furnaces is based on ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1980.

1. State Standard Levels



### WaterHeaters. Section P-1506.3,5 of Virginia's lawprovides that electric storege waterheatel'$ shall have a standbyloss not exceeding 4 watts per square foot oftank surface area. Gasand oil-fired storage waterheaters with input ratings of75,000 Btu perhour or less arerequired to have a recovery efficiencynotlest than75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3 

### + 67/V, expressed in percent per hourofthe stored thermal energy, where V equals therated volume ofthe water heateringallons.'



### RoomAirConditioners andCentral AirConditioners. Section M-1303.2 of Virginia's law providesthat room air

# conditioners andcentral air conditioners

with cooling capacitiesof65.000 Btu per hour or less shall have anenergy

. efficiencyratio not less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour."



### Furnaces. SectionM-1303.6 of Virginia's law provides that gas- and oilfired furnaces with input ratings of 225.000 Btu perhour orless and gas- and oil-fired boilers with input ratings of 300.000 Btu perhour orless shall have a steady state efficiency not less than 74 percent with the exception ofgravity furnaces which shall have a steady state efficiency not less than 69 percent."

2. Significant State Interest

In itspetition. Virginia states that appliance energy efficiency standards have beena part ofVirginia's Uniform Statewide Building Code since 1978 and that itintends to adopt the 1984 edition ofthe Building Officials and Code

. Administrators' (BOCA) "Basic Mechanical and Plumbing Code" in 1984." The 1984 BOCA "Basic Mechanical and Plumbing Code" specifies more stringent levels for room air conditioners and central air conditioners and are based on ASHRAE Standard9OA-1980.

• Vlf'lIinia's water heater standards fP!erence the ANSI StlUldard C"2.1-72 test method and the ANSI Stand"rd ZZl.10.l-74 lest method. DOE hilS reviewed the

... test methods and finds that they differ !Tom the DOE waler heater test procedure: ThE' Department i8 treating the.e test methods as an integral part ofVirginia'. waterheater standards for which exemption from preemption is being sought.

,.Virginia's room air conditioner**st~ndard** references the ANSI Standard ZZ34.1-7Z test method which DOE adopted as ita test procedure (or room air conditioner •. Virginia's centr

..1air conditionerstandardreferences the ARI Stand

..rd 210-75 testmethod. DOE hasreviewed this lest method andfinds that it differs from the DOE central air conditionerlest procedure. The Department is Il'eating these test methods as an integral part ofVirginia', room air cond,tioner and central air conditioner .tangard! for wllleh e"emption froll> preemption i. being sought.

.. Virginia's furnace atandards**ref~rence** the DOE furnace leal procedure.

IINo determination i. proposed in today's notice regarding Virginia's use of the 1964 BOCA Code since at !his time Virginia has not adopted th. 1984 edition.

### Federal Register 

## f Vol. 49. No. 161

, Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 32949

The petition refers to a State study- of the existing and potential energy coniervation requirements ofVirginia's law. In the study, a review ofexisting voluntary energy conservation programs by private industryrevealed that heating and cooling systems that were energy efficient and surpassed the minimum requirements ofthe building code were cost effective, and the payback period for these devices ranged from fIVe to seven years. Further. the study found that considering the projectedlife-span ofthese devices. as opposed to the initial cost. the energy efficient devices proved to be 

### a savings 

### ofenergy and consumercapital.

3. Additional Information

The petition states that Virginia's regulations are more stringent than Federal requirements. that some appliances are available in the marketplace that do nol comply with the State regulations. and that interstate

-
commerce is not adversely affected. Virginia states that manufacturers, distributors. andretailers have not commented that the Stateregulations undulyburden interstate commerce.
4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Virginia's petition in accordance with the requirements 

### ol section S27 (b)(3) ofthe Act and § 4S0.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined that Virginia has provided prima facie evidence showing the sections M-1303.2. M-1S03.6 and P1506.3.5 ofthe 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code are more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners, and furnaces; are justified by a significant State interes4 and do nol appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes fo issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting sections M-1303.2, M-1303.6 and P1506.3.5 ofthe 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327 (a)(2) ofthe Act.

FLORIDA (FL008). The petition submitted by Florida seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption sections 503.4(c), 503.4(e) 504.2(a). 901.I(e}. 903.2(a). 903.8(c). 903.8(e). H903.2 andH903.8 ofthe 1982 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction (1982 Florida Code) as they pertain to waterheaters.

room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. The pemwn also seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption sections 503.4{cl. 5OS.4(e). 504.2(a) 903.2(a), 903.8(c] 9OS.8Ie) and l002.1(b) ofthe 1984 Florida ModelEnergyEfficiency Code

### ror Building Construction (1984 Florida Code) as theypertainto waterheaters.

room air conditioners. central air

.conditionersandfurnaces.The 1984 Florida Code was adoptedonDecember 21.**1~83.** to become eIfecfive onJune 1. 1984.**l~The** Florida Codes are basedon the ASHRAE Standards00-75 and 

### SOA1980.

The 1982Florida 

### Coda has two secti?os that addressminimum energy efficency standuds.Section &is

### a. prescriptive section that sets standards 

### for waterheaters,room and

### central air conditioners. andfurnaces. Section9 is

a residential pomtsystem method. the EnergyPerfonnanceIndex (BPI). which requires that the energy consumption 

### of the entire structure not exceed a - specified level. This is determinedby totating the- pointscores assigned to certain design features 

### ofthe structure
to insure 

### that theydo not exceed a certain specifiedvalue.

The 1984 Fronda Code has three sections that address minimum energy efficiency standards. Section 5 is a prescriptive section andis similarto Section 5 

### ofthe 1982 Florida Code and pection 9 is similar to Section 9 ofthe 1982 Florida Code. The 1984Florida Code has a new section (Section 10) that is a residential prescriptive compliance method which al&o specifies minimum
energyefficiency standards. Section 10 ofthe 1984 Florida Code is for new construction ofsingle family detached bousiBg and for renovation ofexisting single family and multi-familyhousing:. Section 10specifiesminimum energy efficiency levels for room and central air conditioners.

1. State StandardLevels



### WoterHeaters. Section 504.2(a) ofthe 1982 Florida Code provides that electric storage waterheaters shall have a standbyloss not exceeding 4.0 wattsper square foot oftank surface area. Thia Section arso provides thatgas· andoilfired storage water aeaters shall have a recovery efficiencynotless than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity oC2.8+67/V. expressedin percentperhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals

..Since the 1984 Fronda Codewas not adopted until December

### n. 1983. more than

### eo days after publication ofthe Department'srmal role setting fortIt the Federal standard. thoe 1984 standan:lll
cannot be exemptedfrom preemption during theperiod beginning with the effective date ofthe Department'. standards (February Z7. 1984) and ending 30 day. afterthe publicatiOtr ofs: imal rule granting theState'spetillon rorthe 1984 Florida Code. (See 111Cf'R 430.34(b

### rand discussion at4"FR 512'l4. ('December 22:. 1982). the ratedvolume ofthe waterheaterin gallona. M

Section903.2(aJ (or iingle family housing

### and Section H903.2 for multi

### f81TI11y nousit18 ofthe 1982 Florida Code specify minimum energy efficiency stand'8l!ds for electric. gas-fired and oil

### fired storage water beaten.These requirements are the same as those specified in 504.2{a) ofthe. 1982 Florida Code.

Sections504.2{a) and903.2(a) of the 1984 Florid.a Code provide that electric
storasewaterheaters shall have a standby 10s8 not exceeding4.0 watts per lQuarefoot of\ank surface 

### uea. Sections504.2(a} and 903.2{a) ofthe FlerldaCodealsoprovide that gas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters shall have a recovery efficiency not less than
75 percent.and a standbyloss not exceeding the quantity of2.S 

## + fff/V. expressed inpercent perhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the rated volume ofthe waterheater in gallons.'·



### RoomAirConditionersandCentral AirConditioners. Section 503.4{e) ofthe 1982 Florida Code provides thatroom air conditioners and central air conditioners with cooling capacities of 65,000 Btu perhour orless shall have an energy efficiencyratio not less than 8.0 Btuperwatt-hour.'"

Sections 901.1{e). 903.8(e). and H903.8 ofthe 1982 Florida Code provide that

room air conditioners and central air conditioners shall have an energy efficiencyratio not less than 8.0 Btu per watt-hour.'''''

Sections 503.4(e) and 903.8(e) ofthe 1984Florida Codeprovide that room air conditioners shall have an energy efficiencyrationot les8 than 7.5 Btu per watt-hour. Sections503.4(e) and 903.8(e) ofthe 1984 Florida Code alsoprovide that central air conditioners shall have a seasonal**en~rgy** efficiencyratio or an

_energyeffiCiencyratio notless than 7.8

Btu perwatt-hOUT.,aB

..The waterheater standards in the 1982 Florida Coda reference the ANSI Standard Cn.1-12lest method andthe ANSl StandardZ21.10.3-74 leat method. DOEhaareviewed these test methods and find. thafthey differfrom theDOE waterheater test procedure. The Department is treating these test methods as an integral part ofFlorida's _ter healer standard. for which exemption from preemption is beinl! sought.

sa The waterheaterstandards in the 1984 f"lorida Code reference the DOE water heater lesl procedure.

..The room airconditioner standard. in both the 1982 and the 1984 Florida Codesreference the DOE
tast procedurefor room air conditioners. The central airconditioner standards in both the 1982 andthe 1984 FlOrida Code. refarence the DOE central air coodilionerprocedure•.

-fd. "'lel.

### 32950 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. 

### No. 161 / 

### Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

The 1982 and 1984 Florida Cudes divide the State into nine zones or climatic regions. Section l002.1(b} 

## ofthe 1984 Florida Code provides that room air conditioners 8hall have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 7.5 Btu per watt-hour. Section l002.1(b) ofthe 1984 Florida Code also provides that central air conditioners shall have a seasonal
energy efficiency ratio or an energy efficiency ratio not less than 7.8 Btu per walt-hourfor zones 1 through 6 and not less than 8.5 Btu per watt-hour for zone8 7 through 9.teC

.

Furnaces. Section 503.4{c) ofthe 1982 Florida Code provides that gas- and

# oilfired furnaces shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 percent.

..

Sections903.B(c) and H903.8 ofthe 1932 Florida Code provide that gas- and oil-fired furnaces shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 74 percent.nA

.

Sections 503.4(c) and 903.8(c) ofthe 1984 Florida Code provide that gas- and oil-fired furnaces shall have a combustion efficiency not les8 than 74 percent or not less than 69 percent for gravity central furnaces.to
2. Significant State Interest

The petition states that the 1977

. FloridaLegislature passed two laws requiring local governments to adopt
energy efficief'!t building standards in
response to EPCA. In effect. this precipitated the local adoption ofan energy code for residential buildings for which building permits were issued after December 31. 1978. The two laws enacted by the Florida Legislature were the "Florida Thermal Efficiency Code" ICh. 553.900. F.S.) and the "Florida Lighting Efficiency Code" (Ch. 553.908. F.S.I. which were combined in 1980 as the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction.

. .

The petition states that petroleum and natural gas accounted for 50 percent ofthe fuel used to generate electricity for Florida in 1982. Due to a State population increase of43.6 percent during the 1970-1980 decade. Florida expects a continually increasing demand for oil for generating electricity. To meet the growing demand for electricity. planned new generating capacity over the 1980-1990 decade is expected to be about 12,660

,.c Id.
"**Th~** furnace sl"ndards in the 1962 Florida Code indude a test method. DOE has reviewed Ihis les' • method and

## fino. thaI il diffurs from the DOE furnace test procedure. The Department is treating thIS t".t method as ao integral part

### or Fiorid.·s furnace standards for which e"emption from preemption i. being sought.

t1'A Id.

•• The furnace standards in the 1984 Floridu**Cod~** reference DOE furnace tell procedure. megawatts-a 80 percent increase over existing generating capacity. Florida also is planning three new high voltage transmis8ion lines from Georgia to meet future electricity demands. The petition
states that the rising costs oCpetroieum and construction ofnewpower plants have made it imperative that the State implement energy conservation

measures. In F1orida. almost 25 percent of

### all energy Is for residential use. 

## or that amount. about 60 percent is used for air conditioning. space heating and
waterheating.Therefore, the petition states, minimum energy efficiency standards for waterheaters. room and central airconditioners. and furnaces

are an effective means for resolving the unique energy situation in F1orida.

3. Additionallnformation

Originally. the Florida State law referenced minimum standards for construction to meet orexceed national standards such as those ofASHRAE (e.g.• ASHRAE Standard90-75). However. nationally recognized energy codes or standards such as ASHRAE

were designed primarily for climates where heating is more important than cooling. Consequently, the Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction was developed to be climate-specificfor Florida.

TheBuilding Code is reviewed at least biennially. As part ofthis review. the
most cost-effective. energy-saving equipment and techniques available for buildings construction are identified. Then a determination is made whether
to update the Code to incorporate such equipment and techniques. Under the continuing reviewprocess, Florida has revised its 1982 Code and published its 1984 Code. The petition includes a report recommending cost-effective minimum energy efficiency standards for 

### wom and central air conditioners. fa These recommendations were incorporated intoFlorida's Code.

4. ProposedDetermination

DOE has reviewed Florida's petition in accordance with therequirements of Section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOEhas determined that Florida has prOVided prima facie evidence showing that sections 503.4(c). 503.4(e). 504.2(a}. 901-1(e). 903.2(n). 903.8(c). 903.8(e). H903.2 and H903.8 ofthe 1982 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction are more stringent than DOE's rule for waterheaters, room air cofiditioners. central air conditioners

••Florida Public Service Commi.sion. Slale of F/vrido Investor Owned Utilities recommendation fnr a Cost Effective Levelof ResidentialBuildins ConstructionforEnergy Conservation. April 1963. and furnaces; and are justified by a significant State interest. DOE has determined that there does not appear to be an undue burden on intereslate

commerce. Accordingly DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting sectiuns 503.4(c). 503:4[e), 504.2(a}, 9OU(e). 903.2(a). 903.8Ic). 903.8(e). H903.2 and H903.8 ofthe 1982 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction from the preemptive provisions ofSection 327(a) (2) of the Act.

DOE was further determined that Florida has provided prima facie evidence showing the sections 503.4 (c) and (e). 504.2{al. 903.2(a). 903.8 (cl and (e) and.1002.1 (b) of the 1984 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction are more stringent than DOE's rule for waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces: are justified by a Significant State interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE
proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting sections 503.4 (c) and (e). 504.2(a). 903.2(e). 903.8 (c) and (e) and 1oo2,1(b) ofthe 1984 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act. Since the 1984 Florida Code will not become effective until DOE issues a finnl determination on Florida's petition. the standard levels specified in the 1982 Code remain in full force and effect.

PENNSYLVANIA (PA009). The petition submitted by Pennsylvania seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption 16 Pa. Code section 30.32(4). 16 Pa. Code section 30.32(6). 34 Pa. Code section 38.3 and 16 Pa. Code section 30.33 as they pertain to waler heaters.

room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces.

16 Pa. Code sections 30.32 (4) and (6J establish minimum efficiency levels for
waterheaters and furnaces installed in

new residential buildings.

34 Pa. Code section 38.3 adopts ASHRAE Standard 90A-1980 energy efficiency requirements for water heaters. roem air conditioners. central air conditioners. and furnaces that are to be installed in new commercial and industrial buildings.**~**

Pennsylvania's petition also seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption 16 Pa. Code section 30.33. a performance desigri alternative which does not speCifically prescribe minimum

..Although F.PCA. as amended. i. mtenued tu**d~al** only with residential equipment. commercial

..nd industrial Statebuilding codes. which include residential size equipmenf in their coveraile. would be ,up"rseded.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. 

### No.. 161 

## I Friday, August 11. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 32951

efficiency fevels (or Dufding equipment. Such type ofStateregulation is not superseded bythe Mno sfandard'" standarddetermination. As such. no 

### needexists for a determination regarding exemption from Federar preempfion.

1. State Standard Levels



### WoterHeaters. 16 Pa. Code section :ro.3'2(4) provides that gas- and oil-fired
waterheaters with input ratings Wlder 75.000 Btu perhour shall have a . recovery efficiency not less than 75 pel'Clmt. Additionally. 16Pa. Code section 30.32(4) provides that water**heat~rs** shalleitherhave a tank with a thermal resistance of at least R=5; or have 

### a standby lossnot exceeding4 walts per square foot oftank surface

area in the case ofelectric storagewater hea.ters ornot exceeding the quantity of 2.3 

## + 67/V, expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy, where V equals the rated volume in gallons, in the case ofgas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters.21

.

34 Pa. Code section 38.3 provides that electric storage water heaters shall have

a standbyloss not exceeding 4 watts per square foot oftank surfaca area, or43 watts, whichever is greater and gas- and oil-med storage water heaters with input ratings less than 75,000 Btu per hour shall have a recovery efficiencynet less than 75percent and a standby loss JIOt exceeding the quantity of..2.3 

## + 67/ V, expressedin percentperhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals Ihe rated volume in gallons. Additionally, 34 Pa. Code section 38.3 provides that oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings greater than 75,1)0() Btuperhour, butless than 4.000 Btu per hourpergallon ofrated volume, shan have a combustion efficiency not less than SO percent and a standby

### loss not exceedingthe quantity of2.8 

## + 67/V. expressed in percent perbourofthe storedthermal energy. where V equals the rated volume in ganons. Oil-fired
waterheaters with input ratings greater than 75.000 Btu per hour and greater· than4,000 Btu perhour pergalJon of rated volume shan have a combustion efficiency not less than SO percent.%]A



### RoomAirConditioners andCentral AirConditioners. 34 Pa. Code section 38.3 provides that room air conditioners andcentral air conditioners are to have

anenergy efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 Btu per wattbour.22

..Pennsylvania'. walerhealer standards reference the DOE waterheater lest procedure.

:MId.

:nPennsylvania's room airconditioner standard referenees the ANSI Standard Z234.1-n test methodwhich DOE adopted as its test procedure for room airconditioners. Pennsylvania'. central air 

### Fumaces. loPa. Code section 3().32(6) provides thatgas- and oil-fired furnaces shanna.ve a steady state efficiency not less than 74 percent. 34Fa. Code**~tion** 38.3 provides thatgas- 

### and**oi.I-fi~ed** furnances shaH have Ii steady tate combustion efficiency not 

### less ,han 69 pexent.23

Z. Signifieant StateInterest

Pennsylvania', petition Mates that !he GeneFal Assemblyofthe Commonwealth has determined tha1 it is in 

### thi! interest

### ofits citi2:mlS that minimllm energy conservation standards exist for newly constructed and substantiallyrehabilitated bUildings and**~at** energy shortages in the domestic supplypresentfar-reaching prob1-ems thatpromise to persist. These energy shortages affect the continued efficient operation ofthe Commonwealth's""
economy and social strnct11re. The Pennsylvania legislature'S response to these energy shortages was to institute

an energy conservation policy through regulation ofbuilding design and construction standards.

The petition states thatuno standards were inexistence, home buyers maypurchase homes containing inefficient equipment. resulting inhigher
energy costs (0 the consumer. Because Pennsylvania is located in a relatively cold climate, significant savings of
energy will result from requirements that furnaces andwaterheaters meet certainminimum standards. The Commonwealth estimates that the preemptionofits standard by the DepartmentofEnergy's "no-&taooard" rule with respect to furnacas and water heaters

### will result in 

### the use ofat least

an additional 1..2 milliongallons 

### offuel oil 

### a yearinthe Commonwealth. Because oftheCommonwealth's heavy

use offossil fuel and electricity generatedby fossil fuels, a need exists bothto conserve such energy and to protect the environment. Pennsylvania
asserts thatits standards are directed toward such an objective. In 1983, the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commis&ion (PUC} initiated a rulemaking that requires new and rehabilitated residentialbuildings to complywith the standards outlined in the State's regulations. The PUC stated that it desired to "improve the efficiency of
energy consumption in Pennsylvania in order to reduce the utilities' future costs ofsupplying energy," and ultimately, to "reduce the potelltialburden of

condl1ioner .tand'ard'references the DOE central air conditionertestprocedure.

·Pennsylvania·.rumance standards**r~(erence** the DOE fumace rest procedure. inc1easingenergy costs on 

### IMl conswne.ra."

3. Additionaiinformation

Thepetition states thatenergy efficienthomes are potentially more ma:rk.etabie lhan

## those not built in**acc:o~dance** with conservation atandards.Pennsylvania mortgage lendershave indicated that they view prospective bome buyers a:s better risks whenthotle buyers are l,ooking to purchase barnes buill in accordance withPennsylvania'senergy conservation standards. Specifically, lenders will allow It buyer to assume a larger monthly mortgage payment in proportion to thebuyer', income if the home is energy efficient.

Thepetition also states

### tlmt Pennsylvania'aeconomy stands tf> gain from its energyconservation standards. A recent study ofappliance efficiency

measures instinrted in existing commercial buildings determined that Pennsylvaniawould spend neaTly $76 million less per year on imported energy

resources were those measures implemented. That study estimated savings based 

### on measures completed in onlyone-halfofexisting commercial buildings and itisreasonable to assume that comparable savings would result should conservation standards continue
to apply to newcommercialbuildings as weH.

.

Finally, fhe' petitionersuggests that the Commonwealth's energy conservation standards do not impose

an Wldue burden on interstate

commerce. Atpnblie hearings held prior
to adoption ofthe current standards, manufacturers 

### did not oppose implementation on the grounds that they wouldbeunableto market their products in Pennsylvania. Further. manufacturers have met theminimum standards.set forth inPennsylvania's regulations.

4. Proposed Determination

DOEhas reviewed Pennsylvimia's petitionin accordance with the requirements of section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on this analysis, DOE bas determined that Pennsylvania has provided prima facie evidence shOwing that 16 Pa. Code section 30.32(4}, 16 Pa. Code section 30.32(6) and ;W Pa. Code secfion 38.3 are

more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners, central air conditioners and furnaces: are justified by a significant State interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting 16 Pa.

### 32952 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. 

### No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

Code section 30.32(4), 16 Pa. Code I'ection 30.32(6) and 34 Pa. Code secth;m 38.3 from the preemptive provisions of section 32i(

### aJ(

### 2) ofthe Act.

WISCONSIN (WI010). The petition submitted by Wisconsin seeks a ru'!! exempting from Federal preemptior. Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) and Wisconsin Administrative Code: lnd 22.12. lnd 22.13. lnd 63.20 and PSC 136.04

as they pertain to room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. The petition also seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption Wisconsin Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 as it 

### pertains to room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. Wisconsin Administrative Code lLHR 63.20 was adopted in December 1963 to become effective on January 1. 1984 and to supersede WisconsinAdministrative Code lnd 63.20. 24

### Wisconsin Statute 101.655 requires intermittentignition devices on all new gas appliances :

.... Wisconsin Administrative Code lnd 22.12 prescribes minimum energy efficiency requirements for room air conditioners. central airconditioners. and gas- and oil-fired furnaces to be installed in one- and two-family dwellings. Administrative Code lnd 63.20 and Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 prescribe minimum energy

. efficiency requirements for these same types ofequipment when installed in public buildings. places ofemployment. and buildings consisting ofthree or more family units. 2' 

### Administrative Code lnd. 63.20 adopts the January 1. 1980 minimum energy efficiency requirements ofASHRA.E Standard 9O-i5. 

### Administrative Code lLHR 63.20 adopts**t~e** 

### January 1. 1984 minimum energy efficiency requirements ofASHRAE Standard9OA-1980. Administrative Cooe Ind. 22.13 establishes energy effiCiency requirements for gas- and oil-

..SInce Wisconsin Administrative Code lLHR 63.20 was not adopted until December 1963. more· than 60 days after publication ofthe Department's Final rule setting forth the Federal standard. it does
not get the benefil ofexemption from preemption during the period beginning with the effective date ofthe Department'. standards (February 2:7, 1984) and ending 30 days after the publication ofa final rule granting the State petition for Administrative Code lLHR 63.20. (See 10CFR 43O.34(b) and discussion found at 47 FR 51214. December 22. 1982.)

...By notice published In the Federal Register on March 2:7. 1984 (49 FR 11764). DOE exempted Wi&consin Slatute 1ot.655 88it pertains to kitchen rang

... and ovens aod clothes dryers (rom preemption from the Federal "no standard" sli,nd"rd (or those products. Therefore. today's proposal addresses Wisconsin Statute lot.63:; only

as il applies to furnaces.

"In a telephone call to the petitioner for the purposes ofclarification ofIhe coverage ofIhe State rules and regulalions in question. it was delermined that Adminislrative Code Ind 63.20 and Administrative Code IlJ-IR 63.20 apply to buildill88 consisting oC three ormore (amil)' units as well 8S to pubiic buildings and places ofemployment. 

### fired furnaces installed in one- and twofamily dwellings. Administrative Code PSC 138.04 prohibits certain utilities from rendering natural gas service to existing residential structures converting
to gas space heating service unless certain energy conservation requirements are met. One such requirement is that new central heating units shall comply withAdministrative Code lnd 22.13. Administrative Code PSC 136.04 pertains only to the following investor-owned utilities: Lake Superior District Power Company; Madison Gas and Electric Company; Northern States Power Company; Superior Water. Light and Power Company; Wisconsin Fuel and Light Company; Wisconsin Gas Company; Wisconsin Service

, Corporation; and Wisconsin Southern Gas Company.

1. State Standard Levels

RoomAirConditione111 and Central AirConditioners. 

### For airconditioning equipment, Administrative Code lnd 22.12 prescribes a minimum energy efficiency ratio of8.1 Btu perwatt-hour for units installed in one- and twofamily dwellings. 26

### Administrative Code lnd 63.20 prescribes a minimum energy efficiency ratio of6.8 Btu perwatt-hour for units installed in other structures.2&\ 

### Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 would supercedeAdministrative Code Ind 63.20 to require a minimum energy efficiency ratio of7.8 Btu perwatthour.:1

Furnaces. 

### Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) prohibits the sale. distribution or installation ofany new gas furnace or heaterrequiring an electrical supply for operation that is not equipped with a State-certified intermittent ignition device. Forgas- and oil-fired heating equipment. a minimum combustion efficiency of75 percent at maximum rated output is prescribed by Administrative Code Ind 22..12."

"Wisconsin'sroom airconditioner standard references the ANSI standard Z234.1-12 le81 method which DOE adopted sa ita te.t procedure for room air conditioners. Wisconsin'. central air conditioner standard references the ARl Standard 210-7S test method. DOE has reviewed this teat method and finds that it difrers from the DOEcentral air conditioner lest procedure. The Department is treatill8 these test methods a8 anIntegral part of Wisconsin's room sirconditioner and central air conditioner standards for which exemption from preemption i.8 being 10ught.

-Id.

..Wisconsin's room air conditioner standard references the ANSI StandardZ234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted as ita test procedure for room air conditioners. Wisconsin's central air conditioner standardreferences the DOE central air conditioner test procedures.

..Wisconsin's furnace .tandardsreference the ANSI Sh.ndard Z21.13-74 test method. the ANSI Standard ZZl.47-71 lest method. the ANSI Standard Z91.1-7Z test method. and the HI Standard 6.6 test 

### Administrative Code Ind 22.13 provides that all combustion space-heating equipment to be installed in one- and two-family dwellings shall be provided with an intermittent ignition device. In addition. with the exception of sealed combustion equipment or equipment located in enclosures and prOVided with combustion air. all such equipment shall be provided with an automatic flue damper. Administrative Code lnd 63.20 provides that all gas- and oil-fired heating equipment shall have a combustion.efficiency not less than 

## is percent at maximum rated output.!"" Administrative Code IU-lR 63.20 would supersede Administrative Code lnd 63.20 to require the same level of efficiency but to reference a different
test method. 29

### Administrative Code PSC 136.04 implements the requirements of Administrative Code lnd 22.13 in cases where new gas-fired combustion space heating equipment is to be installed in existing residential structures coverting
to gas space heating service.

2. 

### Significant State Interest

Wisconsin states that it 

### has a long history ofsupporting activities and technologies aimed at conserving natural resources. Since the State is without Indigenous fossil fuels. all natural gas. oil and coal must be imported. The State's current annual fuel bill is estimated to be $8

### billion with 78 percent ofthis expenditure leaving the State

.. Wisconsin cites these circumstances as causing its citizenry to be especially conscious ofways to

conserve fuel. to reduce energy waste•. and to provide protection from shortages which are beyond the State's control. The State asserts that its energy conservationregulations serve these interests'ofits citizenry. Energy and cost savings estimates were presented for three or the six. regulations that are the subject ofWisconsin's petition. In the

case ofWisconsin Statute 101.655 [1981) (gas furnaces). the State estimates the
upper bound oftolal annual energy savings to be 0.215 Quads per year. 30

### For Administrative Code Ind 22.13 (furnaces). the upper bound oftotal annual energy savings is estimated to be

method. DOE has reviewed these te.1 methods and finds that they differ from the DOE furnace test procedure. TheDepartment is treating these lesl methods as an integral part ofWisconsin's furnace slandards for which exemption from preemption is beill8 sought.

"'lei. aWisconsin's furnace standards reference the OOE furnace lest procedure.

....

)OThis ••Iimate is based on 33.000 gas apace heating equipment unit sales per year and an annual energy sa,ings of6.5 million Btu peryearper unit.

### Federal**Re~ister** 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17, 

### 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32953

0.054 Quad per year.:" For Administrative Code PSC 136.04 (g<lS furnaces1. the upper bound of oftotal annual energy savings is estimated to be 0.11 Quad per per. 32In the cases of

. Administrative Codes lnd 22.12. lnd 63.20. and lLHR 63.20. the Slate did not venture estimates of the energy savings attributable to these regulations. Wisconsin acknowledges that normal market mechanisms might have achieved some portion ofthe energy savings which the State attributes to.its
energy conservation regulations if the regulations had not been adopted. but finds that there is no reliable method
upon which to base an estimate. Wisconsin notes that market failures exist..which limit the market's ability to respond to price signals alone.

3. Additional Information

\'\'isconsin comments Ihat ils Statute 101.655 (1981) banning pilot lights and Administrative Code PSC 136.04 requiring intermittent igr.ition devices, and in many cases flue dampers. on gas space heating equipment installed in existing residential buildings that were converted to natura! gas service have been in effect since 1978 and. in that time. no manufacturer has appealed to the State to re\'erse its ruling on the basis ofloss of sales or inability to ship products across Slate lines. Further. public hearin!!s held in the State in September 1980 to review alleged problems with the requirements of**Adminjst~ati\'e** Code lod 22.13 led the Wisconsin the Wisconsin Department of Industry. Labor and Human Relations to conclude that the alleged problems were llnfounded. the requirement saves· energy. sufficient quantities of complying furnaces were a\'ailable to meet consumerneeds. and manufacturers supported the regulation.

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Wisconsin's petition in accordance with the requirements ofsection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on its anlilvsis. DOE has determined that Wi5cl1nsin has provided prima facie evidence showing that Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1!)81) and Wisconsin Administration Code: lnd 22.12. lnd 22.13. In:::l 63.20 and PSC 136.04 are more stringent than DOE's rule for room air conditioners. central air conditioners.



### '1 This estimate is**ba~ed** on 4.425 comhustion
space heating equipment unit soles pp.r yp.ar and an annual energy sa\"lngs of 12.2 miiHun

### a.u per year pcr unit.

37This**~slimate** is based on**9.t~)** existing resiclenlial homes eo,wcrling Itl !las "pace healing equipm.ml peryear and an annu»1 ene1'l!Y ""vinga of 12.2 million Btu per year per uni!. and furnaces: are justified by a significant State interest and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE
proposes to issue a rule amending Section 430.33 exempting Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) and Wisconsin Administrative Code: lnd 22.12. Ind 22.13. Ind 63.20 and PSC 136.04 from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2} ofthe Act.

DOE has further determined that Wisconsin has provided prima fdeie evidence showing that Wisconsin Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 is more stringent than DOE's rule for room air conditioners, central airconditioners and furnaces; isjustified by a significant Siaie interest: and does nol appear to impose an undue burden on interstate

commerce. Accordingly. DOE proroses to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempling Wisconsin Administrative Code ILHR 63.20 from the preempth'e provisions ofsection 327(a)(2} ofthe Act. Since Wisconsin }I,dm:nistrative Code ILHR 63.20 will not become effective until 30 days after the publication ofa final determination by DOE granting the State's petition for Administrative Code ILHR 63.20. Wisconsin Administrative Code Ind 63.20 will remain in full force and effect until such time.

SOUTH CAROUNA (SCOn). The petition submitted by South Carolina seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption sections 6-10-10, 

### et. seq .• Code ofLaws ofSouth Carolina. 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.) as they pertain to waterheaters. central air conditioners and furnaces. In particular. section 6- 10-30 ofthe South Carolina 1a'.'I' adopts

as the State standard the current edition ofAppendix

## J(Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction) to the Standard Building Code ofthe Southern Building Code Congress International Inc. The current edition ofAppendix

## Jis the 1983 edition ofthe "Mode! Energy Code" as published by the Council ofAmerican Building Officiaill. The 1983 Model Energy Code is based on ASHRAE Standard SOA-1980.

The 1983 Model Energy Code presents three approaches for compliance: a systems approach (Chapter 4); a component performance approach (Chapter 5); and a specified acceptable practice approach (Chapter 6). Minimum
energy efficiency standards are specified in the component performance and the specified acceptable practice approaches. 1. State Standard Levels


### WaterHeaters. For electric storage water heaters. Sections 504.2.1.1 and 604.1.1 ofthe adopted code specify a maximum standby loss of4.0 wa:ts per square foot oftank surface area. For gas- and oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings of75.000 Btu per hour or less. sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 ofthe adopted code specify a maximum standby loss ofthe quantity 2.3 

### + 6i!V. expressed in percent perhour of the stored thermal energy, where V equals the rated volume in gallons. For oil-fired
water heaters with input ratings of greater than 75.000 Btu perhour. sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 specify a minimum combustion efficiency of 80 percent; and if the inputrating ofthese oil-fired waterheaters exceeds 4.000 Btu perhour per gallon of self-stored water. the shmdby loss shall not exceed the quantity 2.8 

## + 67!V. expressed in percent perheur ofthe stored thermal
energy, where V equals the rated volume in gallons."



### CentralAirConditioners. For centra-I air conditioners. sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 ofthe adopted code specify a minimum energy efficiency ratio of6.8 Btu perwatt-hour."



### Furnaces. Sections 503.4.3 and 603.2.2 ofthe adopted code specify a minimum steady state efficiency of74 percent of forced air furnances, lowpressure steam boilers, and hot waterboilers and a minimum steady state efficiency of 69 percentfor gravity central furnaces."

2. Significant State Interest

In its petition. South Carolina states that it is without indigenous fossil fuels and must import all its coal. oil. and natural gas. that the above mentioned appliances represent the largest energy

users in most buildings: that to retrogress to a "no-standard" standard would be to waste the time. effort and
money expended on energy conservation by both the public and private sectors; and that with the hillh
cost ofconstruction ofelectrical

- generating units. a serious setback to .load management pohcies would result. 3. Additional Information

South Carolina asserts that since enactment, inJuly 1979, no manufacturer. wholesaler. or relai!er hilS appealed to the State to amend its law based on loss ofsales or inability to ship products across State lines.

..South Carolina', waterheater standards reference the DOE waterheater te.t procedure.

..South Carolina'. centra! air conditIoner atandard references the DOE central air condilll}oP'
test procedure.

"South Carolina's furnace standards rderencp the DOE fUnlace lest procedure.

# .' 

### 32954 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. 

### No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 

### 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed South Carolina's petition in accordance with the requirements ofSection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on its analysis, DOE has determined that South Carolina has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections 504.2.1.1.504.2.1.2. 503.4.3. 503.4.5, 603.2.1. 603.2.2.. and 604.1.1 

### ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code adoptedby section 6-1()-10 

### et. seq .• Code ofLaws ofSouth Carolina. 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.) are

more stringentthan DOE'srule for water heaters. central airconditioners and furnaces: arejustified by a significant State interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate

commerce.Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting sections504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2. 503.4.3. 503.4.5. 603.2.1. 603.2.2. end 604.1.1 ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code adopted by section 6-1()-10 

### et. seq.• Code ofLaws ofSouth Carolina. 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.) from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

NEW MEXICO (NM013). The petition submitted by NewMexico seeks a rule ' exemptingfrom Federal preemption section 5301 ofChapter 53 ofthe 1979 Uniform Building Code adopted by the State ofNew Mexico onApril

## a. 1980. as itpertains to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central airconditionerJl andfurnaces. Section 5301(b) ofthe 1979 Uniform Building Code adopts the requirements ofthe December 1977 Code for Energy Conservationin New Building Construction. These

. re.quirements specify, among o.ther
matters. minimum energy efficiency levels for waterheaters. room and central air conditioners. and furnaces. These levels are essentially identical to therequirements specified in ASHRAE Standard9()-75.

1. State StandardLevels



### WaterHeaters. Section 504.2(a) ofthe adopted Code provides that electric storage waterheaters shallhave a standby loss not exceeding4 watts per square foot oftank surface area, and

.that gas- and oil-fired storage water

. heaters shall have a recovery efficiency
notless than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of 2.3+67/V. expressed in precent perhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the rate volume in gallons.

# 3.

""New Mexico's walerheater standards reference the ANSI Standard C72.1-72 test method and the ANSI Standard ZZ1.1..o.3-74 test method. DOE haa reviewed these test methods and finds that they differ from the DOE waterheater test procedure. TheDepartment is treating these test methods as an 

### Room Air

### Conditioners andCentrol Air

### Conditioners. Section 50.34(e) ofthe adopted Code provides thatroom air conditioners andceniral air conditioners shan have an energy effiCiency ratio nol less than 6.1 Btu perwatt-hour. l1



### Furnaces. Section 503.4(c) ofthe adopted Code provides that gas- and oilfired furnaces shall have a combustion efficiencynot less than75 percent.38
2. Significant StateInterest

The petition states that NewMexico's standardsproduce life-cycle cost savingsfor consumers: provides reasonablepaybacks on the additional first cost ofpurchasing regulated products: does not degrade the performance ofthe products; saves substantial amounts offossil fuels (stated to be a significant concern in New Mexico); will not Jessen competition for sales ofregulated products from current levels 

### ifexempted from Federal supersession: and does not create an undue burden on.interstate

commerce.
3. Additional Information

New Mexico asserts that the great majority ofits citizens want their economic interestsprotected by the existing standards for waterheaters.

room airconditioners, central air conditioners and furnaces. and that since their initiation no written or verbal objections to the standards havebeen received by the New Mexico Energy and Minerals Department from consumers, manufacturers. distributors. or the building industry. The petitionfurther
states that the Codeplaces no undue burden on interstate commerce and neither adversely affects competition

nor lessens the utility or the performance ofthe coveredproducts and that the overall impact of the Code

integrarpart ofNew'Mexico's waterheater standards for which exemption far preemption is being 8ought.

.,New Mexico's room airconditioner standard references the ANSI Standard ZZ3U-72\est method which DOE adopted as its test procedure for room air conditionel'!!. New Mexico's centra! air conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 21()"75 test method. DOE haa reviewed this test method and finds that it differs from the DOE central air conditioner test procedure. The Department is treating these test methods as an inlegral pari ofNew Mexico's room aircondilioner and central air conditioner slandards for which exemption from preemption is being sought.

,.New Mexico's furnace standards reference the ANSI Standard Z2l.13-74 lest method. the ANSI Standard ZZl.47-71 lest method. the ANSI Standard Z21.1-72 test metbod. and the HI Standard 6.6 test method. DOE has re\'iewed these test methods and finds that they differ from the DOE furnace test

.**procedur~. Th~**  Department is treating these test methods as an integral purt ofNew Me'<lco's furnace standards for which exemption from preemption is being soughl. is to increase dollar savings for the

consumer andto conserve energy.

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed New Mexir.o·s petition in accordance with the requirements ofSection 327(b]{3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on this analysis. DOE has determined that New Mexico has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections 503.4(c). 503.4(e) and 504.2(a) ofthe 1977 Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction adopted by section 5301 ofChapter53 ofthe 1979 Uniform Building Code adopted by the State ofNewMexico on April 8. 1980.

are more stringent than DOE's rule for
water heaters. room air conditioners, central airconditioners and furnaces:

arejustified by a Significant Stale interest: and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting sections 503.4{c), 503.4(e) and 504.2{a} of the 1977 Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction adopted by section 5301 ofChapter53 ofthe 1979 Uniform building Code the State ofNew Mexico on April 8, 1980. as they pertain
to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces from the preemptive provisions of section 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

GEORGIA (GA014). The petition submitted by Georgia seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the Georgia StateEnergy Code for Buildings. 1981. Edition. O.C.G.A. Sec. 6-2-20, e/ 

### seq, as it pertains to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners. and furnaces. The Georgia Code is based on ASHRAE Standard 90.'\-1980

as ofthe Code's last revision. adopted

on November 18. 1981.

1. State Standard Levels



### WaterHeaters. Section 504.,2{a) of the Georgia StateEnergy Code for Buildings specifies the energyefficiency

. requirements for water heaters. Electric storage waterheaters are required to have a standby loss not exceeding 4
watts per square foot of tank surface

area. or43 watts. whichever is greater. Gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters with input ratings of75.000 Btu per hour

orless are required to have a recovery effiCiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3 

### + 67/V. expressed ill percent per hour of the stored thermal energy. where V equals the volume ofthe water heater in gallons. Oil-fired water heaters with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Blu per hour are required to have a combustion efficiency not less than 60 percent.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday, August 17, 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32955

Additionally, oil-fired water heaters with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu
perhourbut less than 4.000 Btu perhour
pergallon of self-slored water are required to have a standby loss not· exceeding the quantity of2.8 

### + 0.002Q/ V, expressed in percent perhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the rated volume of the waterheaterin gallons. and Q equals the rated input of the water heater in Btu per hour. 39



### RoomAirConditioners andCentral Air Conditioners. Saction 503.4(e) ofthe GeorgiaStateEnergy Code for Buildings provides that room airconditioners and central air conditioners with cooling capacities of65.000 Btu perhour or less shall have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 Btu perwatt-hour

.....



### Furnace,;. Section S03.4(.;} ofthe

. Georgia SlaIe Energy Code for Buildings provides that gas- and oil-fired residential furnaces will1 input ratings 'under 225.000 Btu per hour and gas- and oil-fired residential boilers with input ratings under 300.000 Btu perhour are required 10 have a steady state combustion efficiency not less than 74 percent. except in the case ofgravity central furnaces which are required to have a steady slate combustion' efficiency not less than 69 percent.· 1

2. Significant State In!erest

Since its Energy Code became effectivE in 1978, Georgia estimates the total energy cost savings associated with the installation ofnew g<l5 and oil
water heaters to be $12,000,000 with electric water heaters accounting for an additional $4,750.000.'2For central air conditioners. Georgia**e~!irr.ates** the total
energy cost savings since its Energy Code became effeclh-e to be $151.200.000."For furn.'!ces. Georgia**ltClh"')~<.1·S** '!.\i:;Itqr**h~u:er** &hmda!"ds reft:'rencc the DOE**wn!~r L~a!er**  lest procedure.**.uG~O!"g;d** r; room air**cond~ti(\ner standa~**  references tl,.

...o,;SI Slardard z.:!.34.1-n test melh"d which DOf: adup!ed a. ils teil procedure for rOQr:1 air**COT!~lilioners.** Ceoroj'fticentn:tJ air conditioner .Iandal'd**rerere"~e.** Ih" DOE een!ral air ccndilioner tesl procedure.

41 Gf:nrgia's furnace standards reference the DOE fomdce test procedure.

dThp.se ene;gy cn,' fta\'!ngs**e5!imat~s** are**b~8t:d** on the assumptions !hat the**G~"""'~ia** F.nergy C:...'l(je resu!!s in an ar,nua! energy cost ".ving! fGr electric

wa:er**h~9tt!rs t.lfs.~**  ncr Vf"ar (the norr..:naJ**~nnuaJ** operating co,t**O,iferenc~·**between a unit with an energy fac'or of0.89 and one with ao**enar~v** factor of O.:7) and an ar::nuitl**~nr.-rgy** cest**savin~'** io!" gas w(jter heifters of$32 per YPiii i:hf' nominal ann;;aJ ope:-atirrg c.oet difff"::"enct' bct\\cer. a unit with an**ene~y** fa:':tor of0.53 and onf whh ar.**em~rg~** far-tor of0.4-1).

(JTh!s**er.p~:~'** cos! savings estirna!€;! bused on the aS5umpt;un that the Gel'!!::ia Ene1"RY Code results :n an annudl**~ne:-gy** l:n-st**s'!\'in8~** ior ce"I:-8J air conditioners ofS1.:!6 per year ffl'\e nomindJ annual**opf'raHn~** CC5t diHp.rence betweer. a unit wilh an SF.ER of7.5 and one wilh an SEF.F. of6.0J estimates the total energy cost savings since its Energy Code became effective
to be $80.000.000.••
3. Additional Information

George asserts that the numerous public hearings held'in 1977 regarding the then proposed Georgia Energy Code produced concurrence from both manufacturers and consumers regarding the equipment energy efficiency specifications. Further, the standards have not lessened the utility or performance ofwaterheaters, room air conditioners. central air conditioners or furnaces or the competition among manufacturers ofthese products. Finally. Georgia asserts that it imports 97 percent of the energy it consumes: hence. any savings in energy consumption benefits its citiz"ns and industries by freeing capital for -. commitment to otherpurposes.
4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Georgia's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b)(3) of the Act and §430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined that Georgia has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections 503.4 (cl and (e) and 504.2(a) of the Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings, 1981 Edition. O.C.G.A. Sec. 8-2-20. 

### et

### seq. are more stringent than DOE's rule for water heater". room airconditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant Sidte interest; and do not appear to impose an u.l'ldue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exemption sections 503.4 (cl and (e) and 504.2(a) of the Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings. 19()1 Edition. O.C.G.A. Sec. 8- 2-20. 

### et

### seq. from the preemptive provisions of section 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

RHODE ISLA."lD (RI01S). The petition submitted by Rhode Island seeks a rule exemptil'lg from Federal preemption sections 503.4 (c) and [e), 504.2(a) (l) and (2),603.2 (a) and (b). 604.1(a) and 702 of the Rhode Island State Building Code. revised as ofJuly 1. 1983, as they pertain
to waterheaters. room airconditioners. central air conditioners. furnaces and kitchen ranges and ovens.46The Rhode

and tin associated annual energy savh'iS& of 1000 kilowall-hours per year.

"This enel'l!Y coat savings estimate i. based on

an estimated 65.000 new furnace installations per year since the Gaol'llia Energy Code beclime**effeGtiv~.**

..Since DOE's D<!cember 1982rolF required State petitions for exempt jon Crom preemption for kitchen rang'" and oven. 10 b. submilled by April 21. lQl\3. Rhude 1.land·, standard for kitchen ranges and 

# -

Island State Building Code adopts by reference the December 1977 Code of Energy Conservation in New Building Construction.This adopted Code incorporates three alternative approaches for compliance: a systems analysis approach. a component performance design approach and an acceptable practice approach applicable
to conventional residential buildings and other small buildings which IDeet certain requirements. The provisions of the latter two approaches found in this Code incorporate minimum energy efficiency requirements for space heating and cooling and waterheating equipment based on ASHRAE St(;mlard 90-75. Further. section 702 of the Rhode Island Stale Building Code requires intermittent ignition devices on certain
gas appliances.

1. State Standard Levels



### t-'VaterHeaters. Sections 504.2(al (1) and (2) and 604.1(a) provide that electric stora;;;e waterheaters shall have a slandby loss not exceeding4.0 watls p.er square foot oftank surface area and that
gas- and oil-fired storage waterheate!'s shall have a recovery efficiency net less than 75 percent and a standby less nol exceeding the quantity of2.3 

### + 67/V, expressed in percent perhour ofthe slored L"1ermal energy. where V is the. rated volume ofthe waterheater in gallons:"



### RoomAir Conditioners andCentral AirConditioners. Sections 503.4[1:) and 603.2(0) provide that room air conditioners and central air conditioners with cooling capacities of65.000 Btu per hour orless shall have an efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per walthour.•1



### Furnaces. Sections 503.4(c) and 603.2(b) provide that gas- and oil-fired fumances shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 percent at

ovens i.preempted until 30 dB)'! arter DOE issu

.... final rul" wllh regard to the g:-anting of lhe j)9,tilJon.

"Rhode Island's water heater standards referencp. the ANSl Standard CiZ.1-72 test method and the }o_"51**Stand~rd** z.."1.10.3-74 test method. DOE haa reviewed these test methods and finda that they t!Hier from the DUE water heater test procedure. The O"par!ment is treating Ihes. test method. as an integra; paM of Rhode Is!and', waier heater standards for which exemption from preempt!on i.twins .ought.

.,Rhod.: Island's room air conditioner star.do:"d references**t.~.** ANSI**St~ndard** ZZS';.l-;: test method which DOt adopted as its res!**pro::~J\l:'E!** for room dir conditioners. Rl,ode lsl.:;.nj s cen!ral alt conditioner standard rde,.nce. the ARI Stan::in:d**21~7S** te.! method.lJOE**ha~** l'evi.".d !h:s 

### ",!
method and finds thdt 1:**djf{~:,s** f:crn the O:.JE**c"nt~al** .ir conditioner te", p,oceLl"r•.**T~~** Department is treating these test mcth0.is as an lnlegnli part ofRhode holand's room air rO'ld!!i,)nt'r and cer!tral air conditioner stendarc. re, which exemption from preempt;.,," is being**.o~g~t.**

### 32956 Federal 

### Register' VoL 49. 

### No. 161 

## I Friday, August 17, 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

maximum rated 

### output.<MIn 

### addition. the Rhode Island State Building Code. Section

### 7O.Z. provides 

### that all gas furnaces manufactured after January 1. 1985, except those fueled by Iiquified petroleum gas. shall bein talled with an intermittentignition device.

KitchenRangesandOvens. Section 102 provides that all gaskitchen ranges and ovens manufactured afterJanuary 1. 1985. except those fueled by liquified petroleum gas. shall beinstalled with an intermittent Ignition device.

2. Significant State Interest

Rhode Island points out that a review ofcurrently available equipment shows that there are some models ofproducts covered by the State Building Code which do not meet the energy efficiency requirements ofthe Code. Without its equipment energy efficiency

, requirements. Rhode Island contends that energy costs to consumers and
energy resource consumption within the State would be expected to increase. Rhode Island states that it

### is not in iii 

### position. norhas the resources to conduct a lengthy analysis ofenergy savings attributable to these regulations. However. an estimate ofthe energy cost savings. associated with its pilot light ban. of$27 perpilot light peryearwas made."RhodeIsland estimates that there are about 500,000 to 600.000 gas pilot lights operating in the State at the present time.

S. Additional Information

In 

### its petition. Rhode Island asserts that its effiCiency regulations are not a burden on interstate commerce. After**~eviewing** 

### the records ofthe State ' Building Commissioner's office. the State found that no manufacturer. retailer or distributor ofthe products covered by the Code has ever opposed the Code criteria. Thus. the State concludes that manufacturers. retailers and distributors ofthese products ha.ve notbeen adversely affectedby the regulations and. therefore. the regulations are not a burden on interstate commerce.

In its petition Rhode Island llso states that in 1984 it

### will adopt the 1984 edition ofthe Building Officials and Code

"Rhode Island's furnace standards reference the ANSI Standard ZZ1.l3-74 test method, the ANSI Standard z.."1.47-71 tesl method, the A."'SI Standard Z91.1-72 test method. and the HI Standllrd 6,6 leat method. DOE haa reviewed IheseJest methods and Ilnds that th"y differ from tbe DOE furnance test procedure, The Department is treating these teal methods aslin integral part ofRhode Island', fumaee standards for which exemption from preemption is being BOught

"This C08t savings estimales i8 based on 1982. dollars and gaa priees and a typical pilbt light
energy consumption of"million Btu peryear. 

### AdminLstrators Basic Mechanical and Plumbing Codes which contain criteria for room air conditioners and central air conditioners based on ASHRAE Standard9OA-1980 at the January 1. 1984 levels. The State will be

### required to submit a 

### new petition

### for exemption from preemptionfor any changes in its 

### regulatory standardsonce such changes

are adopted.

. . 4. 

### Proposed Determination

DOEhasreviewed Rhode Island's petition in 

### accordance with the requirements ofsection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and §

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

onits analysis. DOE has determined that Rhode Island has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections 503.4 (cl and (el, 504.2(a) (1) and (2). 6OS.2 (a) and (bl. 604.1(a) and 702 ofthe Rhode Island State Building Code. revised a8 

### ofJuly 1, 1983 .• are more stringent that DOE's rule for water heaters. room air E:Onditioners. central air conditioners. furnaces. andkitchen
ranges and ovens; arejustified by a significant State interest; and do not appearto impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE
proposes to issue a rule exempting Sections 503.4 (c) and (e). 504.2(a) (1) and (2). 6OS.2 (a) and '(b). 604.1(a) and 702 ofthe Rhode Island State Building Code, revised as ofJuly 1.1983. from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2} ofthe Act.



## r..'EW HAMPSHIRE (NH016). The petition submitted by New Hampshire seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the State Regulation RSA 155:D as it

### pertains to waterheaters.

room air conditioners, central air conditioners andfurnaces.

1. State StandardLevels

WaterHeaters. Section 504.2(a)(1) of New Hampshire's regulation RSA 155:D provides that electric storage water heaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4.0 watts per square foot of tank surface area. Part 504.2(a)(2J

, pro\ides thatgas- andoil-fired storage waterheaters shall have a recovery efficiency-not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3+67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy, where V equals the rated volume in gallons.s.o

"New Hampshire's waterhealer standards reference Ihe ANSI Standard Ci2.1-72 I".t method and the ANSI Standard ZZUD,3-74 tesl method. DOE htl. reviewed these test methods and finds that th"y differ from the DOE water heater tes' procedure. The Department is 'reating these test methods .a an integral part ofNew Hampshire', walerheater standards for which exemption from preemption is being IOught. 

### These walerheater provisions are identical to those ofASHRAE Slandard 90-75, effective January 1. 1977.



### RoomAirConditioners and Central AirCollditioners. Section 503.4(ej of RSA 

### 155:D provides that room and central air conditioners shall have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 

### Btu per watt-hour.·1

### This provision is identical to the room and central air conditionerprovisioll "f

### ASHR.4,.E Standard 90-75. effective January 1. 

### 1980.

Furnaces. Section 50S.4(cJ orRSA 155:D provides that gas- and oil-fired furnaces shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 percent at maximum rated output.uThis pfovision is identical to the furnace provisions of ASHRAE Standard 90-75, effecth'e January 1. 1977.

2. Significant State Interest

The petitioner submits that there is Significant State interest in support of the State's minimum performance standards and therefore the standards should not be superseded. Because of rising fuel costs and heavy petroleum dependence, theimposition ofminimum efficiency standards represents a reasonable method ofreducing energy consumption.
S, AdditionallnCormation

The petitioner states that to the best ofNew Hampshire's knowledge, State standards have not created any situation in which a customer or companyhas had to pay any additional product cost due to Code compliance, In addition. no manufacturer or retailer has reported any lessening ofthe utility or performance ofcentral air conditioners,
any lessening or competition l;Jetween companies, or any burden on lnterst<1te



### commerce.

..New Hampshire's room air conditioner standard references the ANSI Standard**Z234,1-~2** leal method which DOE adopted as its test prot;edure for room air conditioners, New Hampshlre's cenlral air condilloner standard references the ARI Standard 210-75 test meth",!, DOE has reVIewed this teat me!hod and finds Ihdt il differs from the DOE central oir condit,oner test procedure, The Uepartment is Ireatlll8 these Ipst method. as an inlegral pdrt of New**Hamps~lTes** room air conditioner and central air conditioner standards for which exemption from preemptIOn IS being BOu;thL

..New Hampshire's furnace standards reference Ihe ANSI Standard ZZU3-74 test method, th. A:-;Sl Siandard 91.1-72 test method and the Hl Standard 6,6 lest method, DOF. has re"iewed the

... lest mf!thvda and finds that they difler from the DOE furnace lest procedure. The De:pHrtmnnl19 tretitlng the.e teoI method. a. an integral part ofNow Hampshire'. fUEfl8C1! standards for which .xempli(1n from preemption is being sought.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday. J\ullust 17. 1984 / Proposed Rules 32957

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has re,viewed New Hampshire's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b}(3) of the Act and § 

### 430.47 of the regulation. Based

on its analysis. DOE 

### has.determined that New Hampshire has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections SOlA 

### (c) and (e) and 504.2{a} (1) 

### and (2) ofl"ew Hampshire Regulation RSA 155:D are more stringent than DOE's rule lor 

### water heaters. room airconditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces;

are justified by a significant State interest; and do not appearto impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a final rule amending § 

### 403.33 exempting Sections 503.4 (cl and Ie) and 504.2(a) (1) 

### and (21 

### ofl"ew Hampshire's Regulation RSA 155:0 from the preemptive provisions ofSection 327(a)(2) of the Act.

MASSACHUSE'ITS f}..1A017). The petition submitted by Massachusetts seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption Article 17. section 2.14.8(a}. and Article 20. section 2010.6.1 and, 2010.6.3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code as they pertain to water heaters. room air conditioners. central airconditioners and furnaces.

1. 

### Slate StandardLevels

WaterHeaters. 

### Article 17. section 2.14.8(a) of the Massachusetts State Building Code provides that electr'ic &torage water heaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per square foot oftank surface area and that gos- and oil-fired storage water heaters shall have a recovery efficiency not less than i5 

### percent and a standby loss not e:-.ceeding the quantity of2.3 + 

### 67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the rated ,,"o/ume in gallons. '3

Roam

### Air CondWollers 

### and Central Air Conditioners. 

### Article 20. section ::010.6.3 ofthe Massachusetts State Building Code provid!!s that room air conditioners and central air conditioners shall htive a energy efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hour for units wHh cooling capacities uncler 65.000 Btu perhour. 54

.,' t\,lassrit:husf-tfs wu!er**h~(Jter** stundards**refp~'(1cP t~f'**  ANSI SHlOciau1 Ci:!.1-iZ**t~·!>t** Olt!hrnJ ant! 'he A!'iSI Stann

.."l Z:UO**3-~4** te't me:h"d DOr has N!vipw"d the•• test method. and fmd. th"t thp.y differ from th

.. ODE water heM'''' tpst procedure, The Op!'.'tm"!ll i. f,

...ting Ih"o" test mf'lt\ods as «In**intt?~rHI** parf of**~v1assnchusPtt'r** water heufpr !'-ltandards for which {"xrrr.:ption fnml prf'"f"mption is being sought.

;.**M~:;sAchu~eU':;** room air conditiunpf stHndl:1rd

....rerence. the A!\'SI Stannard Z!34,1-:-Z leM**m~lh!ld** which DOE adopled as its test procedure for roum air conditioners. MaSSLtl:husett's centrai air rt",ditioner stHndard references the ARI StHndard Furnaces. 

### Section 2010.6.1 ofthe Massachusetts State Building Code provides that gas- and oil-fired comfort heating equipment shalfhave a combustion efficiency not less than 75 percent at 

### maximum rated outpuL"

2. Significant SlateInterest

Massachusetts states that a review of currently available U.S. equipment shows that there are covered products manufactured that do not meet the minimum criteria ofthe Massac.husetts State Building Code. Without such minimum criteria. the energy costs to

consumers and energy resource consumption within the Stale would be expected to increase due to any new constuction containing less efficient products. ;"
3. Additional Information

Massachusetts states that since these regulations became a part of the Massachusetts State Building Code in 1978, no manufacturer. retailer. or distributor ofthese products has indicated opposition to the Code criteria: therefore. the Code criteria are not a burden on interstate commerce and have not adversely impacted the building construction community. Massachusetts considers maintenance ofthe current criteria in its Code as a significant State and'local interest because ofthe confusion that would be created ifthe Commonwealth had to eliminate the criteria.

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Massachusetts' petition in accordance with the requirements ofsection 327(bj(3) ofthe Act and § 

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on this analysis. DOE has determined that Massachusetts has provided prima facie evidence showing that Article 17. section 2.14.S(a) and Article 20. section 2010.6.1 and 2010.6.3 of the Massachusetts State Building Code are

more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room airconditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant State interest:**21(}-~5** lest method. DOE haa reviewed this lesl melhod Hnd finds thaI it diffrrs from the DOE cenlr,,1 air condiltuner lest**pru~edure.** DOE i. trealing Ihese test method

... s an inl"8rol part of Massachuselt's room air conciitioner and central air conditioner standards fOf which eAemptwo from preemption is being sought.

"MlIssachuaetfsfurnace otanJ"rds**rer~rence** the ANSI Standard Z21.t3-74 te.t method. tho ANSI St&ndUld Z21.47-71 test method. Ihe A!':SI Standard Z\I1.1-7Z teo' method. and**th~** HI Standard 6,1\, test method. DOE hloS reviewed ti.ese !PSI methods and finds thntthey differ from the DOE furnace test procedure. The Department is treating**th~.e** le.t methods as an inlrlgral part of Mnssachllsett'. furnace standards for which exemption from preemption is being sought. 

### and do not appear to impose an undue burden 

### on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending §

### 430.33 exempting Article 17. section 2.14.8(a) and Article 20. 

### sections Z010.6.1 and 2010.6.3 ofthe Massachusetts Building Code as they pertain to water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

CAllFORNlA (CA018). The petition submitted by Calitornla seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption all ofthe State's appliance efficiency regulations regarding refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. &0



### California seeks exemptions from Federal preemption for three different State regulations. First. California seeks exemption for Sections 1604 and 1605 of Title 20 ofthe California Administrative Code prohibiting the sale oflow efficiency appliances by establishing minimum efficiency levels (referred to herein as "the appliance efficiency sale regulations"). Second. California seeks exemption for Sections Z-53os'(a) and Ic). 2-5307(a). and 2-5337 ofPart 2 of Title 24 ofthe California Administrative' Code prohibiting the installation oflow efficiency appliances in new buildings (referred to herein as "the building regulations"). Third. California seeks exemption for Sections 25960 and 25964 ofthe California l?ublic Resources Code prohibiting the sale ofgas appliances with pilot lights (referred to herein as the "11D regulations").

1. State Standard Levels

Refrigerators andRefrifZerotorfreeze!'S. andFreezers. 

### i. Section 1604!a! provides that the annual energy consumption ofall new refrigerators. refrigerator-freezers and freezers offered for sale in the State ofCalifornia shall
not exceed the values derived from the following formulas. where V is the total refrigerated volume in cubic feet and EC is the annual energy consumption in kilowatt-hours peryear: $1

..Although thl! title ofCalifornia's petition aliudes to e"emp!ion for "gas space heater" regulatiolls. tbe r.<,ulations outhnea in the petition have sppr.ific provislUn.

### r"r ga.· and oi!·fired fmnaceo, Thus, lodA)'" propc.lij pertains to those prav;"'"n. of th

.. California regulatinn. regarding
ga,- and oil·fired h

..meets.**~':**C&Jifomiu·. refrtpprator.**refrip:erator~rree7:er**. and freezer standards reference the 00£ tesl pl'Ocedures for rt!frigerators and rcfriger;"orfreezers and for freezers. aa appropriale,

### 32956 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules



# -

(A) Refrigerators-Be:-1,87-+ 30..lZV IB) Refrigerator-freezers with aulomilfic

defrost systems and anti-sweat heater $1 5wilches-EC=487=55V (C) Refrigerator-freezers with automatic

defrosl systems and without anti-sweat heater switches-EC=-l,87-i-60.8JV (D) Refrigerator-freezers without automatic

defrost systems-EC=487+48.(\7V (E) Upright freezers with automatic defrosl

systems and anti-sweat heater switchesEC=460+65V IF) Upright freezers ""ilh automatic defrost



### systems and Without 

### anti-sweat heater ' swilches-EC=460+6e.94V (G) Upright freezers without aul(lmlltic

defrost systems-EC=460

### +45.96V (H) Non-upright freezers-EC=379+37.85V

WaterHcat'Jrs. i. 

### Section 1604 (e) provides that: 59



### (Al All new electric storage water
, heoters offered for sale in the State of California shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4 watts per square foot of tank surface area or 35 walts whichever is greater: except for mobile home types. where 4 watts per square foot oftank surface area is the only requirement.

(B) All newgas storage water heaters offered for sale in the State ofCalifornia excepting those designed expressly for

use ill

### mobile homes. must satisfv one of
two alternative requirements. They must eitherhave a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2_3+67

## iV. expressed in 

### percent perhour ofthe stored thermal energ:J, where V equals the volume of the

.....ater heaterin gallons. and a recovery efficiency nol less than 76 percent: or. a standby 105$ 

### not exceeding the quantity of 1-3

## +67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal
energy. where V equals the volume of the water heater. in gallons. and a recovery efficiency not less than 74 percent.

(C) All new gas storage water heaters offered for sale in the Stale orCalifornia expressly designed for use in mobile homes shall have a recovery efficiency
not less than 75 percent; and. a standby loss no greater than 7.5 percent for units with storage capacities Jess than 25 gallons. no greater than 7.0 percent for units with storage capacities ofat least 25 gallons but less than 35 g;;!Jons, or no greater than 6.0 percent for units with storage capacities of35 gallvns ormore.

it 

### Section 2-5307(a] adopts by reference the energy efficier:cy requirements for water heaters fuund at section 1604l,,) ofTille 20 ofthe

"An anli·sweat healer i.a device that prevenls the accumulatlOr. of mOisture on the eX'eMur surfaces ofa re!rigeratcl, refMgNator-frcezer, or fre•• er 'lnder c!'>ndit:nr.s ofhigh amCler.l humiJily. The anti#SW8at !leak!"**u!u~Hj' cont.dl!~**  eh,'Clric resislence heating clemen,,-,

"California's waler heater**slandd,d~** referenr.e the DOE waler heatel test pl'",)ccdure. 

# -

California Administrative Code for units installed in new buildings. Section 2- 5307(a) further requires that oil-fired storage waterheaters installed in new buildings shall have a recovery efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3

## +67

### IV. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy, where Vequals the volume

# Dr the water heater in gallons. 80 '

RoomAirConditioners. 1. 

### Section 1604(b) provides that: 6) 

### (A) All new'

room air conditioners with heating capability offered for sale in the State of California shall have a thermal efficiency not less than 90 percent.



### (BJ All new room airconditioners deSigned for operation with an electrical supply ofless than 200 volts offered for sale in the State ofCalifornia shall have

an energy efficiency ratio not less than 6_2 Btu perwatt-hour.

(C) 

### All new room air conditioners designed for operation with an electrical supply ofless than 200 volts offered for sale in the Slate ofCalifornia shall have

an energy efficiency ratio not less than 6.7 Btu per watt-hour.

[DJ All newroom air conditioners designed,for operation with an electrical supply ofat least 200 volts and which

are capabJe ofperforming a heating function offered for sale in the Slate of California shall have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 8.3 Btu per watt-hour.

ii. 

### Section 2-5306(a) adopts by reference the energy efficiency requirements for room air conditioners found at section 1604(b) ofTitle 20 ofthe California Code for u."'llts installed in

new buildings.

CentralAir CondUioners. i. 

### Se(;tion 1604(cJ provides that all new central air conditioners offered for sale in the Stale ofCalifornia shall have a sed!l;)nal energy efficiency ratio not less than 8_0 6tu 

### per watt-hour.62

ii. 

### Section 2-5306(a) adopts by reference the energy efficiency requirements for central air conditioners found at section 1604(c) ofTille 20 ofthe California Code for units installed in



### new buildings.

"California's oil-fired walerbeate' standard references the ANSI Standard ZZl,lO,3-1981 test method, DOE has reviewed this lest method and finds that it dm"rs from the DOE water hca:er lest procedure, The Department is Ireuling this If>SI method as an integtal part ofCilifomia's oil-fired water healer standard for which exemplion from preemption is being sought,

.,California's room air conditioner standards reference the DOE room air conditioner le.1 procedure,

"California's central air conditione! standard. reference thE DOE centra; air conditioner lesl procedure. , Furnaces. i. 

### Section 1604(d) provides that: 83

(AJ All 

### new gas fan-type central furnaces with input ratings less than 175.000 Btu per hour ofre ed for sale in the State ofCalifornia sh,lll have a seasonal efficiency not less than 71 

### percent.

(B) All 

### new gas fan-type central furnaces with input ratings of 175.000 Btu perhour or greater offered for sale in the StateofCalifornia must satisfy

one oftwo alternative requirements. Furnaces falling in this category must either have a seasonal efficiency not less than 71percent: or. a steady stale efficiency not less than 75 percent and a

. standby loss not exceeding 147 watts in

the case ofunits designed expressly for

use with Iiquified petroleum gases including propane. and 25 watts in all other cases. Effective December 22, 1984. this latter alternative requirement will no longer be applicable_ At that time. all furnaces falling in this category will be required to have a seasonal efficiency not less than 71 percent.

(e) 

### All new gas boilers shall have a thermal efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding 293 watts in the case ofunits designed expressly for use with liquified petroleum gases induding propane. and 147 watts in all other cases_

ii. 

### Section 1605 provides that no new fan-type central furnaces. other than those designed to bum only liquified petroleum gases and those designed expressly for use in mobile homes and recreational vehicles. be sold equipped with a continuously burning pilot.

iii. 

### Section 2-5306(c) adopts by reference the energy efficiency requirements for furnaces found al Sections 1604[d) and 1605 ofTille 20 of the California Administrative Code for units installed in new buildings_

iv. Section 2-5337 provides that in addition to the requirements ofSection 2-5306(c), gas furnaces installed in new buildings shall have a thermal efficiency
not less than 75 percent.

... Section 2- 5337 also stipulates that oil furnaces shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 percent at maximum rated output.65

..Califomla's**furn"c~** standards**rerer~nc~** lh. DOE furnace test prm:.eollre.

"Califomia's gao furnace stand,ud rC:er""c.s**th~** ANSI Standard**Z2M;-1~,tl** test methur.! DOl:. h,•• re"lewed this tesl method and finds th"l it**djrr~rs** from the DOE furnace 

# I""**procedur~.** The DftfHlrtmenris treating thiS te.,1 method as an integral paM ofCa1ifomia·s Ji!iiS furnar.e s!<.1n\.!..Ji'c i.H whIch exemption i':om preempli')n i.

### !>c;".**";u~hl**

s:'CaHfomia's oil fu!'nace a'c.nria!'o**H,dude~. ~**  !t"st method which differs from the OOE**fum"~p** lesl**m~lhod,** The Oepartmellt '"**treatJl1~** Ih.s lesl method C.:lut;nlJt"tt

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984

, Proposed Rules 

### 32959

v. Section 25960 (lID regulation) stipulateS'that no new residential-type
gas appliances that are being equipped with pilot lights. excluding gas water heaters. shall be 

### sold in the State after

an alternate means ofignition has been certified by the Commission. It 

### stipulates further that this prohibition shall become operative 24 months after

an intermittentignition device has been certified by the Commission as an alternate means.

vi. Section 25964 (lID regulations} stipulates that 24 months after an intermittent ignition device has been certified by the Commission. no person shall sell or offer for sale any new gas appliances. excluding gas waterhealers. in California without obtaining the proper seal ofcertification from the Commission unless the Commission otherwise permits such action. Section 25964 further provides that beginning at this time. no city or county. or Slate
agency shall issue a permit for any building to be equipped with any new gas appliance (as specified above) unless such building permit shows that the gas appliance complies with this chapter.

2. Significant State Interest

The petition includes extensive analysis regarding the savings attributable to these regulations. This analysis concludes that these regulations save individual appliance

users up to $200 peryear. and that 800 million therms ofnatual gas and 4 billion kilowatt-hours ofelectricity will be saved annually by the end ofthe century. The petitioner contends that these energy savings demonstrate a significant State interest

3. Additional Information

California asserts that: (ll 

### Conservation is the best energy supply for Californians; (2) the regulations lower utility rates for all California: (3) the regulations increase employment and improve the climate for business in California: (4) the regulations are particularly beneficial for low-income

consumers: (5) the regulations produce environmental benefits for California: and (6) if 

### the California regulations are preempted. the free markel will not produce the samebenefits. and therefore should not be relied upon.

California also states that these energy regulations do not impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Specifically. the petitioner contends that these regulati9ns are a reasonable

as an Inte!!ral part ofCalifornia's oil furnace standard for which exemption from preemptinn i. bem8 sought. 

### means to carry out the legitimate
purpose ofenergy conservation and do
not have a discriminatory motive or effect. Further. the petition states that these energy regulations do not adversely affect appliance manufacturers. do not conflict with requirements in other States. do not have an adverse extraterritorial effect. do not meaningfully restrict appliance choice in California. do not burden the instrumentalities ofinterstate commerce and do not conflict with any need for nalionaJ uniformity. California believes its energy regulations have benefits which substantially outweigh any burden they might have on interstate

commerce and that in the State's view.

no acceptable alternatives exist.

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed California 's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and §

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on its analysis. DOE has determined that California has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections 1604 and 1605 ofTitle 20 ofthe California Administrative Code. and sections 2- 5306 (a) and (c). 2-5307(a). and 2-5337 of Part 2 ofTitle 24 ofthe California Administrative Code and sections 25960 and25964 of the California Public Resources Code are more stringent than DOE's rule for refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers. freezers. water healers. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a Significant State interest; and do not appearto impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 

### 430.33 exempting sections 1604 and 1605 ofTitle 20 ofthe California Administrative Code. sections 2-5306 (a) and (c). 2-5307(a) and 2-5337 ofPart 2 ofTitle 24 ofthe California Administrative Code and sections 25960 and 25964 ofthe California Public Resources Code from the preemptIve provisions ofsection 327(a){2) ofthe Act.

OREGON (OR019). The petition submitted by Oregon seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the following ihree regulations: (1) Oregon Laws 1979. Chapter 197 (June 4. 1979); (2) Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR). section 814-21-135; and (3) State of Oregon. 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Regulations. Sections 5304(b) 2 and 5. Oregon's 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Regulation. Chapter 53. Energy Conservation adopts the 1982 edition of the Uniform Building Code pubiished by ICBO. The Oregon laws pertain to water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners. and furnaces.

1. State Standard Levels



### WaterHeaters. OAR Section 814-21- 135 specifies minimum energy efficiency criteria applicable to the installation of
waterheaters in buildings. It 

### provides that·electric storage water heaters shall have a standby loss n01 exceeding 4
watts per square foot oftank surface

area or43 watts. whichever is greater, and a thermal insulation value ofR-16 

### if the waterheateris installed in an unconditioned space. The requisite thermal insulation requirement may be satisfied bymeans ofa retrofit insulation jacket. Gas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters with input rates of 75.000 Btu per hour orless shall have a recovery efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standbyloss not

. exceeding the quantity of2.3+67/V. expressed in percent perhour of the stored thermal energy. where V equals the rated volume of the waterheater in gallons. Oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu/per hour are required to have a combustion efficiency not less than 80 percent.

Additionally. oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu per hour but less than 4.000 Btu per hour pergallon ofself-stored waterare required to have a standby loss percentage not exceeding the quantity 2.8+67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the rated volume in gallons.66



### RoomAirConditioners and Central AirConditioners. Oregon's 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Regulation. section 5304(b)2 specifies a minimum energy efficiency ratio of6.8 Btu per watt-hourfor room and central air conditioners.tI1



### Furnaces. Oregon's 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life SafetyRegulation. section 5304(b)5 specifies a minimum combustion efficiency of75 percent for furnaces."

"The waterhealer standards ofthe State of Oregon reference the DOE water heater test procedures.

ITOregon's r,oom air conditioner standard reference. the ANSI Standard**Z23~.1-72** test method which DOE adopted as its test procedure for room air conditioners. Oregon's central air conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 210-75 test method. DOE has reviewed this test method and finds that it differs from the DOE central air conditioner test procedure. The Department is trealms these test methods as an integral part ofOregon's room air condilioner and central air conditioner .tandaTds for which exemphon.from preemption is being sought.

..Oregon's furnace standards reference the ANSI Standard ZZl.13-74 test method. the ANSI Standard ZZl.47-:'1 test method. the ANSI Standard Z91.l-n
test method. and the HI Standard 6.6 test method. Continued

### 32960 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday, August 

### 17, 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

Oregon Law. Chapter 197IJune 4, 1979) prohibits the sale of forced-air space heating equipment unless such

. equipment is equipped with an intermittent ignition device."

2. Significant State Interest

Oregon's petition asserts that conservation is the cheapest. most

secure and enVironmentally benign

source ofenergy for Oregon and that
energy costs are a substantial drain on the State's economy: that energy conservation has a direct effect on the health ofthe Slate's (and the Nation'S)
economy and thaI conservation makes
money available for alternale purchases and investments in industrial productivity, Oregon further asserts that: space and water heating account for 63.1 percent of lolal electrical energy

use within the State. significant energy savings can be achieved by installing
energy efficient equipment. Oregon's standards guarantee t..l:tat only energy

. efficient appliances are sold in the State. and that since many appliances are purchased by homebuilders. landlords and contractors rather than actual users (where energy efficiency is not a major. factor in the purchase decision for mQst appliances) inefficient, lower-priced appliances would likely be used in the Slate ofOregon ifits laws and regulations are superseded.

3. Additionallnforniation

Moreover. Oregon points out that its appliance standards benefit the State by allOWing for more accurate electricity demand forecasting by the Oregon Department ofEnergy. Another argument put forth is that intermittent ignition devices contribute to improving indoor airquality in homes by reducing the combustion products emitted by pilot lights. Finally, Oregon notes that the appliance regulations have been in place since 19i8 

### without any complaints from appliance manufacturers. thai most manufacturers do have products available to meet the State's requirements and that any adjustments have already occurred. Thus. retaining the law should have no additional impacts.

DOE has reviewed these lest methods and find. that they differ from the DOE furnace test procedure, The Department i.**Ir~aling** these le.t methods 88 an integ:;,1 part ofO'''8on·. furnace standards for which e".mption from pl·eemplion i. being $Ought.

.. It does nol ap;>ly to 888 appliances ua..d in recreational .ehicles, portable gas apphliDces used for outdoor recreational purpose•• or gas appliances used in a structure thai i. not served by electrical
power, 

### 4. Proposed Determination
DOE has reviewed Oregon's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined that Oregon has provided prima facie evidence showing that Oregon Laws 1979. Chapter.197 (June 4. 1979); Oregon Administrative Rules Section 814-21-135: and State of Oregon, 1983 Edition Structural Specialty Code andFire and Ufe Safety Regulations. section 5304(b)2 and 5 are
more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant State interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending §

### 430.33 exempting Oregon Laws 1979. Chapter 197 (June 4. 1979); Oregon Administrative Rules, section 814-21-135; and State ofOregon. 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life SafetyRegulations. section 5304(b) 2 and 5 from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

NEW 

### YORK (NY020). The petition submitted by New York seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption section 16-108, 16-110. 16-116. and 16- 118 ofthe New York Slate Energy Law (NYSEL) and sections 7813.23 and 7813.33 ofTitle 9 ofthe Official Compilation ofNew York Codes, Rules. and Regulations (NYCRR). The New York laws pertain to refrigerators, refrigerator-freezers, freezers. water heaters, room airconditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces.

1. Slate Standard Levels



### Refrigerators. Refrigerator-freezers andFreezers. For refrigerators. refrigerator-freezers. and freezers. sectiOn 16-110 of the NYSEL prohibits the advertisement or sale ofany refrigerator. refrigerator-freezer. or freezer that is not equipped.with an easily accessible. manually-operated switch to control the anti-sweat heater.



### WaterHeaters. For water heaters. section 16-108 ofthe NYSEL Drohibits the advertisement or sale ofany electric storage waterheaterwith a standby 108s exceeding4 watt-hours perhour per square foot oftank surface area and any 'gas· or oil-fired storage waterheater with a recovery efficiency less than 75 percent and a standby loss exceeding the quantity of2.3 

### + 6i

### IV. expressed in percent perhour ofthe stored thermal energy, where V 

### is the rated volume of the wale heater in gallons. 1O 

### Section

..New York's waterheater standards reference

. the ANSI Standard C7Z.1-7Z lesl method and the 

### 7813.33 of

## n tie 9 ofthe NYCRR stipulates energy efficiency**slandard~** 

### for water heaters used in new construction and substantial renovation projects. These standards are iutmtical
to those found at Section 16-108 ofthe NYSEL with one exception: Section 7813.33 stipulates that oil-fired waler heaters shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 

## eo percent.



### RoomAirConditioners. Section 16- 

### 118 ofthe NYSEL prohibits the sale of any room airconditioner with an energy efficiency ratio less than: 7.5 Btu per walt-hour for units with cooling capacities less than 6.000 Btu per hour and nominal operating voltages less than 150 voks: 8.5 Btu per watt-hour for units with cooling capacities grealer than or equal to 6.000 Btu per hour and nominal operating voltages less than 150 volts: and 8.2 Btu perwatt-hour for all units with nominal operating vo!tnges greater than or equal to 150 volts."



### CentralAirConditioners. Section 16- 118 ofthe NYSEL also prohibits the sale

or installation ofany central air conditioner with a seasonal energy efficiency ratio less than 8.0 Btu per watt-hour for units**manufactu~ed** 

### after September 1. 1982. and less than 9,5 BlU per watt-hour for units manufdctured after September 1, 1984.n DOE is addressingin this rulemaking both the current requirement for central air conditioners and the requiremEnt that will be applicable to units manufactured after September 1, 1984.



### Furnoces. For furnaces. Section 16-116 ofNYSEL prohibits the sale or installation ofany gas-fired furnaGe, excluding propane furnaces. thai is nol equipped with an intermittent ignition device. Section 7813.23 of title 9of the NYCRR stipulates that all gas- and oil· fired furnaces used in new construction and substantial renovation prujects shall have a combustion efficiency nOI 

### less than 75 percent at maximum rated output. 13

ANSI Standard Z21,lO,3-74 tesl method. OOr: ha. reviewed these lest methods and finds that Ihey differ from the DOE water he&ter lest procedure, The Department is treating tb.se lest methods •• an**int~gral** part of New York', walerheater standard. for which exemption from preemption is beins sought.

.. New Vork', room air conditioner standurd references tbe DOE room air condilioner lesl procedure.

12New York', central air conditioner**stand"~rl** references the DOE centl1ll air conditionerlest proce<!ure.

"New York's furnace standards reference th. A."'iSl Standard Z:l1.13-74 test method. th. A:-:SI Standard Z21.4;-71 test method, the A:-:SI Slar.dard 91,1-72 tesl method and the HI Standard b,6 lesl melhod. DOE hab reVIewed these te.t m":h,,d. dmj finds thai they differ from the DOE furnace lest**procedur~.** The Department i. treating these tesl ConllOU,.rlFederal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 32961

2. Significant Slate Interest**RI..~rri'1Jerators.** 

### Refrigerator-freezers. alldFreezers-New York contends that the Slate standard has a minimal economic impact on manufacturers. T ere is an industry-wide trend to

. indude more products with anti-sweat heater switches. The petitioner claims that the State standard reinforces the industry trend: places no new design demands on manufacturers: and expands the market for energy efficient pruJucts. Periodic field surveys conJucted by the New York State Energy Office show that virtually all r"frigeralors and refrigerator-freezers offerud for sale have anti-sweat heater swttches.The petitionerfurther claims thi't the State standard resulted in virtually no lessening ofcompetition because ofthe widespread use ofantisweat heater switches throughout the CtJuntry. Moreover. the petitioner contends that the State standard results in ;:0 undue burden on interstate

cummerce because the State found widespread compliance during the field

survevs and because ofthe absence of sigl'lificanl competitive problemsfor

.m.mufacturers. distributors. and retailers.

The petitioner claims that the

. standardresults in favorable economics for consumers. The anti-sweat heater switch is reported to cost $5. The resulting life cycle costs are estimated to r"nse from $25.78 to $112.96for various

consumers in New York, with a simple payback period estimated to range from 10 months to 4.3 years.

.

The petitioner states that there are 8.700.000 refrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers. and freezers in New York. In 1982. 86.8 perc;ent ofall refrigerators.**ref~igerator-freezers.** and freezers sold nationwide had anti-sweat heater switches. New York estimates that its State standard affected about 13.2

. percent or 1.150.000 appliances. The annual energy savings realized by the appliances are estimated to be between
554 to 833 million kilowatt-hours per year-or a savings in utility bills for the State ofabout $3.2 million to $4.9 million annually. Thus. New York claims that its State standard results in substantial savings at a State level as well as being economically beneficial for consumers.



### WaterHeaters-The petitionerclaims thnt the State waterheater standard has little economic impac! on manufacturers. During 1982. 107.000gas-fired and 70.600 electric storage water heaters were sold in New York. New York claims that few manufacturers are affected by the State standard. For example. a review ofthe

methods

# a.
an integral part ofNew York's furnace "Gndards for which exemption from preemption is b"mg 8ought. July 1983 issue ofthe Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association's 

### Directory ofCertified WaterHeaters Efficiellcy Ratings reveals that all manufacturers of gas-fired storage waterheaters represented in the Directory have models that comply with the State standard (about 45 percent of the gasfired storage waterheaters listed in the Directory comply with the State standard). Also. all but one manufacturer ofelectric storage water heaters listed in the Directory had models that comply with the State standard (about 56.4 percent ofthe Directory's models ofelectric storage waterheaters comply with the State standard). H For the single electric storage waterheatermanufacturer who did not comply with the State standard. the manufacturerhas only 0.8 percent of the models listed in the Directory and has nevercontacted the New York State Energy Office. implying that New York is not a marketfor that manufacturer. The Directory lists only 14models ofoilfired waterheaters-noe ofthese models comply with the State standard. The petition states that the major manufacturerofoil-fired waterheaters in the northeastern states isnot listed in the Directory. The petition also states that 60percent ofthe manufacturer's
waterheaters comply with the State standard. Therefore. New York contends that the State waterheater standard has little economic impact on manufacturers. New York also claims that for gas-flred and electric storage water heaters. a broad selection ofmodels is available and that the State standard does not appear to signifrcantiy reduce the level ofcompetition for gas-fired or electric storage waterheaters.Thepetitioner stales that there is a shift away from oilfired waterheaters because oftheir significantly higher flrst cost.

The petitioner states that there are 2.635.000gas-fired storage water heaters. 2.694.000 oil-fired waterheaters. and 724.000 electric storage water heaters in New York. Detailed energy savings are estimated for waterheaters complring with Section 16-108ofthe NYSEL. The savings estimated are attributable to all replacement water heaters meeting the State standard compared to meeting the national salesweighted energy efficiency.

1<Forgas-fired storage walerheaters. 87.8 percent comply with Section 16-108 ofthe NYSEL and45.4 percent comply with Section 7813.33 ofTille 9of NYCRR. Forelectric storage walerhesten. 56.4 percent comply with bolh Sections 16-108 ofthe NYSEL and Section 7813.33 oftitle 9 ofNYCRR. Therefore. the petitioner concludes. the effect of the State standard on lessening ofcompetllion is of minor importance. For consumers. waterheaters would increase in price $30 to $40. The resulting savings in life cycle costs are estimated to be between $60.57 to $154.18 for gas-fired storage water heaters. $522.94 to $1.344.82 for electric storage water heaters and $192.30 to $260.84 for oil-fired waterhearters. 'sThe simple payback period is estimated to be between 2.1 to 6.5 years for gas-fired storage water heaters. 3.5 months to 1.4 years for electric storage waterheaters, and 1.3 to 3.1 years for oil-fired water heaters. In no case does the single payback period exceed one-halfofthe expected life ofthe water heater.

New York presents additional estimates for gas-fired storage water heaters that comply \\oilh Section 7813.33 ofNYCRR as well as with Section 16.108 ofthe NYSEL. Waterheaters would

save an additional 19.7 therms annually for a total savings of 35 therms for gasfired storage waterheaters that meet both standards.The savings in life cycle
costs are estimated to range from $217.05 to $381.33. The simple payback period is estimated to range from 1.2to 2.8 years. In no case does the simple payback period exceed one-quarter of the expected life ofthe waterheater.

At a State level. the annual savings

are estimated to be 40.300,000 therms of natural gas. 50.100,000gallons ofoil. and 

## 4i1.ooo.ooo kilowatt-hours ofelectricity. New York estimates that the savings are equivalent to 8.000 barrels ofoil per day. Thus. New York contends that its State standard for waterheaters results in substantial savings at a State level. as well as being economically feasible for

consumers.



### Room andCentralAirConditionersNew York contends that minimum
energy efficiency standards are needed for room and central air conditioners. The petitioner argues that without any standards. consumers would purchase

room air conditioners on impulse. Also. central air conditioners are usually selected by a builder or a heating. ventilating. and airconditioning
contractor. Underboth ofthese market mechanisms. first cost is ofprimary importance-energy efficiency and life cycle cost are not valued as highly as first cost. New York argues that the free market alone is inadequate in promoting the sale ofenergy efficient room and central air conditioners. For room air conditioners. the shipment-weighted
energy factor rose for an energy efficiency ratio 

### of6.22 Btu perwatt-hour

"The annual S8\'ings are 15.3 thenn. for gas-fired storage waler heaters. 650 kilowatt·hour for electric storage water heater:s. and 18.6 gallona for oil·fired
water healers.32962 

### Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. t61 

## I Friday, August 

### 17. 1984 

## f Proposed Rules

in 19'72 to 

### anenergy efficiencyra1ia

### of 

### 6.n Btu per waft-frour in 1960, 

### a change ofonJy 

### &.a pen:ent during a period when electricafprices increased drastiCl!'ffy. According

### toNewYork. 

### even 

### fen
progress was madewith 

### respm fc 

### the
energy efficiency

### of

### central air conditioners.From 1972umi! 1960. 

### thenationa' shtpmenfoweighted ave:rege energy 

### factor for central air conditioners

rosefrom a seastlnaI energyefficiency ratio of6.66 to II seasonal energy efficIency

### ratioof7.06 

### Btu per**watt~hour.** a gain

### of only6.0 percent. Also. 1M sales_eighted energy efficiency of central air conditioJlers sold in New York declined by

### sbont**l~ pe~nt**  O1Ier

a two-yearperiod just before New

### York promulgatedits stantiard. Such IJ decline in efficiencyin

### a market 

### with Aigh electricity costa. 

### at it time wneJI electricitycosts were rishlg still bigher.

was irratronal.Thus. NewYork ciaims that standards are neerled for room 

### and central air conditWners in order to

ensure that energy efficient

### models are being purchased andusedby

consumers.

New York claims that 

### tire State standard has placed noundueburden

onmanufacturers. All manufacturers of

room air conditio!len listed in the Association ofHome Appliance Manufacturers' 

### WlAM)Direcwry

### of CertifiedRoomAirCJm;lWoners produce models that comply with 

### the State standard. Also, 88.5 percent ofthe manufactw:ers 

### ofcentral air conditioners listed in the Ail'- Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute's {ARI) 

### DirewryofCertified Unitary Air

### Conditioners prodoce models that comply with the State's
current standard.

New York states thatit is very sensitive to potentiaf adverse impacts

on competitionresultingfrom overly restrictive standards. In fact. its previous standard was so stringent that few room air conditioners (those witha cooling capacity ofless than 6,000Btu
per hour and an operating voltage 

### of1ess than 150volts) would have been available.To prevent such a restriction

on consumer choice and the unreasonahfe burden on manufacturerll., New York revisedits standard to its
current level. New York also claims that the current standardimposes no Imdue burden on interstate commercebecause the industry has not complained otherwise to New York.

New York cOnlends that itspresen'

room air conditioner and central air conditioner standards are beneficial to consUmers. Thefirst cost wonki ;noease by $82.98 for room atr conditioners and by $186.59 for central air condittonenr. The 

### annualenergy savings due to existingmmdard's are estimated [0 be about 181 kilowatt-hours for room air cand'rtionmr

### am:fabout48:.1

### kifGWlrtthours forcentral airconditioners. The savings inlife

### cycfe costs 

### forroom air conditioners:ranges from$61.15 t'O' 

### $356.:75 

### and**~ simpl~** 

### payfJcNk period
ranges from %.8 yearS' to'm.l years. Similarly. for Cll'l'Itraf air eondifi01re1'S. the savings Oft 

### lifecycle

## c:o:m ranged from $29.99faS75&.42 

### and the simple paybackperiodnmges from 2.4 to 11.1
years. In aU cases. the Stare standa1'd results in simple payback periods tha1

arewithill the expected life 

### ofthe product.

Accordinog

### totlle petitioner. there are Z,300.00(} 100m airconentioners and 415.000 centnd aircondittone1'8 in New York. 

### At b Stafefevel. the presenf

room airconditioner and central air conditioner standard'S W'auld save

### about 616.000.000 kilowatt-hours 

### ofefectricity arumallly. 1'his ie equivalent 

### to 3.400 barrels of

# au perday.

NewYork contends th'a'f its September 1. 1984 standard for central air conditioners i&.benefieial: WcOfisumers. The first cost would int:rease between $308.3'f and $527.30for central aiT conditioners.The annual energysavings dueto 1984central air CClnditioner standards areestimated to

### be 1052 Idlowatt-hOllD's. The savingsin life 

### cycle
costs for central alr conditioners at the 1984sta:Rda7d levelr.anges from 68.71 to $.'l.745.5&

### and the simple paybackperiod
rangesfrom 1.3yearsto 11.1 years. In all

cases.the 1984 central airconditioner standardresults in**simp~** payback periods

# cnat**ar~**

### wi1htn the expectedlife ofthe prodact.

Accond'ing

### to the:petitioner. with 415.000central airc:ondHioners in New York.the 1984 central air conditioner standard would save about 437,000.000 kilowatt-hours

### ofelecn-ici1:y annually. This is equivalent to 2.470barrels of oil per day. •

FUmDce9-Thepetitioner states that shortages 

### of naturalgasin

### th1l tate**19.70·~**

### COtIPii!cl wHb Itdesire tocoose-rve gas led kI**th~** cuuent standard prohibiting Mn<img ptiot lights on gas fumaee&**(~ion** 16-11&NYSEL)" New York corrt-ends \l\et

### theSAate standard bas !»aced flf) tlJldue

### bu.rden on manufacturers.. 

### The Janua.vy 1983 edition oftheAmerican GasAssociation's 

### Directoryof

### CertifiadAppliances 

### and Acl;es$ories showlfthat' sa2 percent of themanufacturersl'tstl!d for "LowPressure BoHers-For Alcove or Closet lnstalIatu:me.Part 1:'whicGmanufacture IROdels that

### £alt within the scope 

### ofthe Federal "nostandard" sta:ndard. produce models with lIDs. Fully 100 percent ofthe manufacturers listed for "Central'Furnaces-For Alcove or CWile1 Im1allafions. Part 1.- which

. manufacturemodefs 

### that**fa~1** within the
scope at

### tFre federal Mno standard" standi!rd. produre

### modebr wft'h lIDs. These Ji'8fll im:hrde

# lin major manufaduren and d-emanstrate that
most manufat:ttrrers remain abf'S [0 competein Ne'IIf' Yorlc moreover. there ill no evidence fflat those manufacturers who produce boilerswithoutllDs ever sold goods in NewYorkprior to section 16-116"8 enactment.

Section 16-116has been in effect in New York State since 1980, and according fo !he peCition. no problems with its implementation wifh respect to gas boilers andfurnaces ha·ve arisen since thar time. ExemptionS-from the requirements ofsection 16-116 were granted tor gas kitchen ranges and

ovens that incorporate a separate compartment specifically designed to provide space heating and for gravity type room heaters. wan furnaces. and floor furnaces. when manufacturers pointedout the lack of availabfe replacements incorporating rIDs. Given this demonstrated willingness to make adiustments to the requirements of section 16-116. the lack ofany further
contact from manufacLurers suggests that they are not concerned that their sales in the State are unduly restricted.

New York contends that consumers benefit from the State standard. A November 1983 survey 

### ofplumbing and

___ heating wholesalers conducted by the

. NYSEO determined that the difference in bOst for an identical furnace with a pilot light and withan UD ranged from $1:28 to $154. Theam:lUa.l energy savings

are estimatedto

### be 70 therms. For

consumers inNew York. the savings in life cycle costs r!mge from $700.24 to $1.298.04. basedon individual gas rates.. Thesimple payback period ranges from 1.97 k> 5.49years.ihe State standard results in substantial savings for

consumersas well as in relatively short payback perrods.

Thepetition states that substituting lID's for pilot lights doesnot affect the primary fu.nctiOR 01 a furnace (space heating] or itsperformance. New York has few hornes without electrical service-thesebornEs are usuallv found in**rura:~** areZ$ and also generally'do not bavenatural gas service. Therefore. Jequiring etec.fricity for an lID before a furnace can be installed ismrt percetved
to be a problem.

The standard results in substantial savings at the State level. There are about 2.395.000gas furnaces and boilers in New York. Assuming that gas pilot lights use about 70 !herms ofnatural gasFederal Register / Vol. 49. 

### No. 161 / Friday. August 17. 1984 / Proposed Rules 

### 32963



# - annually. State-wide energy use for all pilot lights in gas furnaces and boilers is 3.689.000.000 terms over their 22-year lifetime. The savings attributed to the Slate standard is somewhat lower because. nationwide. only 33 percent of all gas furnaces and boilers sold are equipped with IID·s. This percentage could be as high as 60percent in

, markets dominated by retrofits. as is the

case with New York. Thus. New York claims that the State standard results in

a savings of about 1.467.000.000 to 2.472.000.000 therms annually. the eauivalent of3.270 to 5,480 barrels ofoil**d~il~** .

Section 7813.23. Title 9 ofthe NYCRR specifies a minimum combustion efficiency of75 Percent for all gas- and oil-fired furnaces. According to the petition. the minimum combustion efficiency sldndards represents a significant opportunity to conserve ellergy for the State. since in 1980 space heating energy (primarily in the form of natural gas and oil) represented 68.8 pl.'rcent ofall residential energy use and residential space heating with gas accounted for 38.2 percent ofNew York's end use ofgas.

New York contends that the State standard does not appear to have created an undue burden on the manufacturers ofgas- and oil-fired furnaces and boilers competing in New York since all ofthe manufacturers of gas-fired and oil-fired equipment listed in the January 1983 edition ofthe Gas Appliance Manufacturers Association's 

### Director}, ofCertifiedFurnace and BoilerEfficiencyRatings produce models that comply with the State standard. Approximately 80 percent of the gas-fired furnace models listed
appear to comply with the standard: an

even higher percentage ofoil-fired furnaces and gos- and oil-fired boilers comply.

.

The Stale standard has been in effect since January 1. 1979. The pelition
asserts that the construction industry
appears to be complying readily with the standard: and reports ofnoncompliance or complaints about problems obtaining complying equipment have not been receivedby NYSEO. Also. no complaints have been brought to the attention ofthe NYSEO by manufacturers. retailers, or

consumers.

New York contends that conllumers benefit from the State standard. The
cost differenr..e between a furnace which complies to the standard to one which does not. is estimated to range from $0
to $73.50. The annual energy savings are estimated to he about 150 trwrms. For

consumers in New York. the savings in life cycle costs would range from $1.904.29 to $3.055.80. based on individual gas rates. The simple payback period ranges from zero to 1.25
years.

No similar estimates ofenergy savings

are provided in the petition for oil-fired furnaces because it was not possible to estimate from available information the total energy savings resulting from oilfired furnaces that comply with the standards in new construction and substantial renovation. A second reason fs that New York is unable to determine the energy use ofall oil-fired furnaces that would be sold in the State ifthe State standard did not exist.

The State standardresults in substantial savings at a State level. For gas-fired furnaces, the savings are estimated to be about 3,703.000 lherms annually. No similar savings are" estimated for oil-fired furnaces.

3. Additional Information

New York claims that the State standards for refrigerators. refrigeratorfreezers. freezers. waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces have placed no undue burden on interstatecommerce.

4. Proposed Determination

DOE hasreviewed New York's petition in accordance with the requirements ofsection 327(b)(3} ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on its analysis. DOE has determined that New York has provided prima facie evidence showing that Sections 16-108. 16-110. 16-116 and 16-118 ofthe New York State Energy Law and sections 7813.23 and 7613.33 ofTitle 9 ofthe Official Compilation ofNew York Codes. Rules and Regulations are more stringent thanDOE's rule for refrigerators andrefrigerator-freezers. freezers. waterheaters: room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; arejustified by a significant State interest: and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE
proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting sections 16-108.16- 110.16-116 and 16-118 ofthe New York State Energy Law. including the provisions which will be applicable to central air conditioners manufactured after September 1, 1984 found at section 16-116 ofthe New York State Energy Law. and sections 7813.23 and 7813.33 of Tille 9 ofthe Official Compilation of New York Codes. Rules and Regualtions from the preemptive provisions of section 327(a)(2}(A) ofthe Act.

MISSOURI (M0021). The petition submitted by Missouri seeks a rule exempting from Federal premption the building code**or~inances** of68 localities within the State. as they pertain to energy efficiency standards for water heaters. room air conditioners. central airconditioner:· and furnaces.

Missouri's pe ition included a list identifying the localities that have
energy efficiency requirements incorporated into their building codes. which model building codes these are based on (BOCA. ICBO. UBC. 

## sacco or other), 

### ifany. and the date that each locality adopted its building code.'·The petition also included copies of those sections ofthe various model building codes referenced which pertain to household equipment energy efficiency requirements.

Today's notice proposes to grant Missouri's petition for exemption from preemption ofthe building codes ofthe localities for which Missouri has petitioned. See § 430.33(e) (14). (0(14). (g)(15), and (h)(lS) oftoday's proposed rule for a listing ofthe localities of Missouri with building code energy efficiency requirements pertaining to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. respectively. which DOE is proposing to exemptfrom Federal supersession.

1. State Standard Lavels



### WaterHeaters. For those localities in Missouri that have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 90-75. electric storage water heaters are required to have a standby

..For9 ofthe 68 localities identified in Miaaouri·. petition. DOE needs additional information beyond that supplied in the petition before a final determination may bemade to exempt their buildins code requirements from preemption. The 9 localities are: Ferguson. Lee's Summit. Malden. North Kansll8 City. Pacific. Plattesburg. Raytown. SI. Charles. andWentzville. In the cases of Ferguson. North Kansas City. Raytown and St.

. Charles. the petition indicated that the adoption ofa model code was pending. In the cases ofPacific and Wentzville. the petition indicated that theircurrent building codes were In the process ofbeins updated. In the cases ofMalden and Plattesburg. the petition indicated that both had adopted BOCA model codes. but no year ofadoption was provided to 3pacifically identiC) the version ofthe BOCA model code adopted, DOE may only grant exemptions for

. regulation. which have been formally adopted by

Stllte. and localities. For the precaedins 8 localities. DOE needs information on the specific building code regulations that are in effect or have been adopted before DOE can make a final determination regarding exemption from preemption. In the case 01 Lee's Summit. the petition indicated that the building code adopted was something other than

one 01 the various model building code•. However.

no copy of Lee's Summit's building code was proVided DOE needs specifiC information regardins Lee's Summir. building code regulation beCol-e it

can make a final**d~tprmindtion** regarding exemption from preemptton. DOE ha. requested from the State ofMissouri th

..1the additional information Identift

..d ahoy. be 8upplied for the nine localities listed. DOE e"pects to receive the information request"c durill!llhe comment period on this propused rule.

### Federal Register 

## f Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

loss which. for building codet! adopted prior toJanuary 1. 1977. does not exceed 4 watts per square

### toot oftank surface

area. Gas- 

### and oil-fired storage water heaters are required tohave a recovery efficiency which. for building cadet! adopted prior toJanuary 1. 1977. isnot less than 70percent andfar building

. codes adopted thereafter. is not less than 75percent. Gas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters are also required
to have a standbyloss which. for building codes adopted priorto January 1. 1977. does not exceed the quantity

### ot 4.3 

## + 87[V. expressed inpercentper. hour

### oftIre stored thermal energy, 

### where V equals the volume ofthe waterheater in gallons and; forbuildingcodes adopted tMreafter. does not exceed the quantity of2.3 

## + 67

### IV. expressed 

### in percent perhour ofthe stored thermal
energy. where 

### V equals the volume of the waterheaterin gallons. 11

Forthose localities inMissouri,that have adoptedbuilding codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. electric storage waterheaters shall have a standbyloss not exceeding4
watts per squarefoot oftank surface. or 43 wafts. which everis greater. Gas- and oil-fired storage walerheaters with input ratings of75.000 Btu perhour or less shall have a recovery efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss
not exceedingthe quantityof2.3 

## + 67/ V. expressed 

### in percentperhour ofthe storage thermal energy. where V equals the rated volume ofthe waterheater in gallons. Oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings exceeding 75,000 Btu per hour are required to have a combustion efficiencynot less than 80percent. Additionally, oil-fIred waterheaters with input ratings exceeding 75,000 Btu
perhourbutless than 4.000 Btu perhour
pergallon ofselfstored waterare required to have a standby loss which; for building codes adopted prior to January 1. 1982 does not exceed lhe quantity 2.8 

## + O.OO2Q/V and, for building codes adopted thereafter. does
not exceed the quantity 2.8 

## + 67

### IV. expressed in percent per hotlf ofthe &tored thermal energy. where V equals the rated volun"Hl ofthe waterheater. 

### in gallons, and Q equals the rated input of the waterheater. 

### mBtu per bour.

,.

1TThe ASHRAl':Standard90-75 water hemeT standards reference the ANSI Standard

### en-l-72

test Il'Ifrhod and the ANSI Standard ZZ1.l03-74 tesl method. DOE has reviewed these test methoda and finds thar (hey differfrom the DOE watp.r heater teal procedure,TheDepartment i. treating these test methods as an integral part ofthe waterheater standards ofthose Missouri localities for which exemption from preemption isbeing sought.

TIThe ASHRAE Standard00A-l9BO waterbeater standards reference the DOE waterheater test procedure. RoomAirC011ditioners andCentral AirConditkmertl. Farthose localities fn MiS80tui thathave adopted building

. codes which are basedon the ASH"tAE Standard90-75.room and central a:r conditioners are required to have 

### an energy efficiencyratio which. for building codes adoptedafterJanuary 1. 1977but before January 1.1980.111 not less than 6.1 Btu perwatt-hour and; (or building codes adopted thereafter. 

### 18 110t less than 6.8 Btu perwatt-hour."

For those loca.lities inMissouri that have adopted building codeswhich are based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980, room and central air conditioners

are required to have an energy efficiencyratio notless than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour.-

Furnaces. For those localities in Missouri thathave adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 00-75,furnaces shall have a combustionefficiency not less than75 percent atmaximumrated output.81

For those localities inMissouri that have adopted building codeswhich are based on the ASHRAE Standard 

### 9OA1980. 

### furnaces shall have a steady state combustion efficiency not lesll than 74 percent. exceptfor gravitycentral furnaces which shallhave a steady !ltate combustiOll efficiency not less than 69 percent.&2

2. Significant State Interest

On behalfofits localities. the State of Missouri &tates that the preemption of local regulations by a Federal "no

. standard" &tandard is disruptive to local

'"The ASHRAE Standard 98-75room air conditioner standard referencu the ANSI Standard Z234.1-72test method which DOEadopted 8Sits lest procedure for room air conditioneTll. The ASHRAE Standard00-75 central air conditioner .Iandard references the ARI Standard 210-75 lest method: DOE bas reviewed this test method and linda Ihat II differa from tbe 00£ central air conditioner b!latprocedure. The Department ill treating thesereal metboda 81 anintegral part ofthe

100m airconditioner and central air condition

.... slamlarda ofthose MislOuri localities for whid. exemption from preemption is being sought.

"TheASHRAE Standard 9OA-l9BO room air conditione. standardreferences tbeANSI Standard Zl34.1-72 teatmetlaod which DOE adopted as ita tesl procedurefor room aircondiUoneTll.The ASHRAE Standard 9OA-1.91JO central air conditioner standard references !he DOE central air conditioner tesl pmcedure.

"TheASHRAEStandard**~75** furnace .Iandardo reference the ANSI StandardZ2l.13-74 1e1It _thod. the ANSI Sta

.. dard 2:21.47-71 test metbod. the ANSI Standard 91.1-72 test method. and the HI Standard e.6 test method. DOE has N<riewed thew test methods and find. that they differfrom tbe DOE l'umace teat procedure.The Department is. treating these test methods as an integral part ofthe fW1lace standardsofthose Miasolt'ri rocaffties tor whicll exemption from preemptioo Is being IIOII8ltt.

-TheASHRAE Staadard 9OA-t9ElO EKmace 84an<lard. refvence 1M DOE furnace

_ procedure. commerca and the localpower to govern. Further.**MiS80un~S** localities are ofthe opinion that minimum a-ppliaru:e efficiency standards are in the best economic intere&t oftheir citizens. that they 

### are in thebestposition to make 8uch a determination and thatminimum appliance efficiency standarda provide reasonable paybackson the additiOflal 

### first caeta.

3. AdditionalInformation

The localities alsobelieve that enforcement ofappliance effIciency standards developed through the

consensus approach isthe most effective means ofregulation withou1 imposinganundueburden on interstate

commerce. The State itself supports tM appliance effeciency standards 

### ofrts localities all being in its own best interests since 90 percent ofthe State's
energy needs are

### metbyimported oil. natural gas and coal.

4.**Pr?po~ed** Detennination

DOEhas reviewed Missouri's petition in acc'ordance with the requirements of section 327(b){3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis, DOE has determined that Missouri has providedprima facie evidence shOWing that the building code ordinances ofits localities within the State are more stringent than DOE's NleTor water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners, and furnaces; are justifIed by a s'ignificant State interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden oninterstate commerce. Accordingly.DOEproposes to issue a rule amending § 430..33 exemptingthe building code ordinances ofits localit:es within the StateofMissouri from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2}(A) ofthe Act.

TEXAS (TX022). The petiton submitted byTexas seeks a rule exemptingfrom Federal preemption the building code ordinancesof49 localities

as they pertain to the energy efficiency ofwaterheaters.room and central air conditioners and furnaces. The petition indicates that the technical basis ofthe appliance efficiency provisions ofall 49 building codes is the ASHRAEStandard 90-75. 83 See § 430.33 (e}{15). (OilS). (g)(16). and(h)(16) ofloday's proposed rule for a listing ofthe localities of Texas with building codeenergy

..ASHRAE Standard 90-75 5p<!Cifies two lev"l. of performance for rOOtII andcenlnl air conditioners and walerbealers.Texas has clarified. however. that allthese building codes reference tbe must recenfpet10nnance levels in the ASHRAf:Standard 00-75. SpedlleaDy. tM January 1. 1980. 1"",,1 for

room and central airconditionersand the January 1- 1977. level ror walerheatera.

### Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 101 / Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32965



### efficiency requirements pertaining to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central airconditioners and furnaces. respectively. which DOE is proposing to exempt from Federal supersession.

1. State Standard Levels

WaterHeaters. The building codes of the localities ofTexas provide that electric storage waterheaters shall have

a standby loss not exceeding 4watts per square foot oftank surface area; and' that gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters shall have a recovery efficiency
not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of
2.3+67

### IV. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the rated atorage capacity in gallons. II<



### RoomAirConditions aIldCentralAir Conditioners. The building codes ofthe localities ofTexas provide that room air conditioners and central air conditioners shall have an energy efficiency ratio nol less than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour.85



### Furnaces. The building codes ofthe localities ofTexas provide that furnances shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 percent.

... 2. Significant State Interest

The petition states that it 

### is in the besl inierest ofthe State to continue to utilize its resources as efficiently as**possibl~.** 

### 3. Additional Information

The petition states that preemption of such rules is unnecessarily disruptive to local commerce and the local power to govern. The local governments believe

"The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 water heater standards reference the ANSI Standurd Z72.1-72 lest method and the ANSI Standard A21.10.3-74 te&! method. DOE has reviewed these tesl methods and f.nds that thev differ from the DOE walerheater test procedure. The Department is treating these tesl methods as an inlergral part ofIhe walerhealer standard. ofthe localitie. ofTexas for wbich exemption from preemption is being sought.

""The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 room air condHioner standard references the ANSI Standard Z::34.1-:-:: test method which DOE adopted as it.
test crocedure for room air conditioners. The ASHARE Stand"rd 90-75 central air conditioner standard references Ihe ARI Standard 21G-75 test method. DOE has reviewed this lest method and finds that it differs from the DOE cenlral air condItioner test procedure. The Department i8 treating these I".t methods as an inlegtal part ofthe

room air conditioner and central air conditioner standards ofthe localities of**T~xas** for wt.ich e.\c",pti,m from preemption is being sought.

""The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 furnace**sl~ntlards** reference the ANSI SIandard Z21.13-14
t•.st method. the A'lSI. Standard Z:!1.47-71 lest metbnd. Ihe ANSI Standard 91.1-72 leSI method. a"d Ihr iii Standard 0.6 tesl melhod. DOE had reviewed Ihese lest method. and finds that they diIT", from Ihp DOE furnace test procedure. The [l"pArtment is treating these test**method~** as

..n inte!;ral par! ofthe fumance standards ofthe loo.lilie. ofTexas for which ex.mplion from prpe'."phon i. being sought. 

### the standards are in the best economic RoomAirConditioners andCentral Interest oftheir citizens and that AirConditioners. Section &402.1.1 of enforcement ofthese standards is the the adopted code. as amended by New most effective means ofregulation Jersey. provides that room air without placing an undue burden on conditioners and central air conditioners interstate commerce. with cooling capacities less than 65.000 Btu perbour shall have an energy 4. Proposed Determination efficiency ratio not less than 6.8 Btu per

DOE has reviewedTexas' petition in watt-hour. II

### The Tariffordered by the accordance with the requirements of New Jersey BPU permits the Atlantic section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 

### 430.47 City Electric Company to require thai ofthe regulation. Based on its a·nalysis. central airconditioners placed in its DOE has determined that Texas has service territory have an energy provided prima facie evidence showing efficiency ratio not less than 8.0 Btu per that the building code ordinances of49 walt-hour. localities within the State are more Furnaces. SectionE-402.1.5 ofthe stringent than DOE's rule for water adopted code provides that forced air heaters. room airconditioners. central furnaces. low pressure steam boilers. air conditioners and furnaces; are andhot waterboilers shall have a justified by a significant State interest; steady slate efficiency not less than 74 and do not appearto impose an unoue percent except for gravity furnaces burden on interstate commerce. which shall have a steady state Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a efficency not less than 69 percent. 89 

### rule amending § 

### 430.33 exempting the building code ordinances of49 localities 2. Significant State Interest within Texas from the preemptive In its petition. New Jersey asserts thai provisions ofsection 327(a)(2)(A) ofthe these requirements produce substantial Act. life cycle cost savings for the citizens of

NEW JERSEY (NJ023). The petition New Jersey without lessening the utility submitted byNew Jersey seeks a rule ofthe covered items. New Jersey states exemptingfrom Federal preemption that these requirements do not lessen .New Jersey Administrative Code section competition orcreate an undue burden 14A:3-4.4 as readopted onJuly 11. 1983. on interstate commerce. Section 14A:3-4.4 ofthe NewJersey New Jersey asserts that although Code adopts by reference the BOCA waterheaters meeting its 

### minimum Basic Eriergy Conservation Code of 1981. efficiency requirements will have higher with amendments. for new construction first costs. the life cycle costs are less.

or substantial renovation ofbuildings. resulting. for a gas-fired waterheater. in The adopted code with its amendments a saving of$51.20 or 6.4 million Btu per contains energy efficiency requirements yearfor an increased cost ofonly $8.53 applicable to waterheaters. room air peryear. 90

### Although no Statewide totals conditioners. central air conditioners. are available. surveys doneby New and furnances. New Je.rsey also seeks a Jersey's electric and gas utilities indicate rule exempting from Federal preemption that approximately 45 percent ofall the Tariffofthe New Jersey Board of

- waterheaters use natural gas. 45 percent Public Utilities (BPU) in Docket No. use electricity and Lite remaining 10 8111-1009 as it pertains to central air conditioners.

1. Slate Standard Levels

WaterHeaters. Section E-503.1 ofthe adopted code specifies that the water heaters shall conform to the energy requirements ofASHRAE Standard 90- 

### 75. These requirements are: electric storage waterheaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4.0 watts per square foot oftank surface area and gas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters shall have a recovery efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3 

## + 67

## IV. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. "'Ithere V equals the rated volume ofthe water heater in gallons. 87

... New Jersey's water heater standards reference the ANSI Standard C72.1-12 test method and**th~** ANSI Standard Z21.l0.3-74 lea' method. DOE has reviewed these test methods and fin& that they differ from the DOE water heatertesI procedure. The Department is trealing these test methods as an integral part of NewJersey·s waterheater standards for which exemption from preemption is being 8Ou!!hL

..Nf!w Jersey's room air conditioner standard references Ihe ANSI Standard Z234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted as its test procedure for room air conditioners. New Jersey's central air conditioner standard references the ARI Standard A10-75 test melhod. DOE has reviewed Ihis lest method and finds thaI it differs from the DOE central air conditionertest procpdure. The**D~par!ment** is treating these test methods as an int..gral part ofNew 'ersey's room air conditioner Bnd central air**conditione~** siandards for which

ex

..mption from preemption is t..eing sought.

"New Jersey's furnace standards reference thr DOE furnace test procedure.

..In ita analysis simple life Cicie cost savings

were computed by New Jerse)' USIng the foU"wmg assumptions: increased cost or water heater. Sl;;.tl; cosl ofnatura! gas lor water heatmg only. $11.00 per million Btu: life of waler healer. 15**Y~Krs.**

### 32966 Federal Register / Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

percent is 

### made up ofoil or

### propane units. New Jersey believes that an economic analysis ofoil-fired or electric
water heaters would certainly yield results comparable to those presented for gas-fired waterheaters. New Jersey estimates 20.000 new housing units annually resulting in an annual saving of 128 billion Btu for residential use alone. without regard to any commerical or industrial savings which might result.

New Jersey states that in the highly competitive room air conditioner market

an energy efficiency ratio of6.8 Btll per watt-hour does not cause any price penalty since prices vary more by manufacturer and special discounts than by relatively small changes in efficiency. New JerseY estimates an annual savings of$13.90 and 139 kilowatt-hours perunit

as a result ofits minimum efficiency requirements with no increase in first cost." Naw Jersey states that in the highly competitive central air conditioner market the minimum efficiencies set

### by the New Jersey Gode and the BPU Tariffdo not cause any significant price penalty. since prices vary more by manufacturer and special discount than by relatively small changes in the efficiency. New Jersey estimates that a central airconditioner meeting the New Jersey Code would

save 353 kilowatt-hours annually or $35.30 per unit per year" and that a centra! air conditioner meeting the BPU Tariffwould save 750 kilowatt-hour annually or$92.65 per unit peryear." Cased on the above figures, an estimate of 10.000 new centrally air-conditioned housing units annually. and an 11.000 Btu perkilowatt-hour electric generation
rate. the savings throughout the State would be in excess of78 billion Btu annually.

New Jersey point! out that it 

### is a SUmmp.T peaking State and that the room and cs:nral air conditioner requirements reduce peak load as well as total energy requirements. New Jersey states that it 

### has seen no evidence that furnaces meeting its minimum requirements have

8 

### higher first cost than less efficient units. New Jersey estimates that its code

•• In its analysis. New Jersey a_sum,.•• code level unit. 6.8. would be used in place of 8 unit wilh an energy effiCiency ratio of5.5.• unil .i.e of 8.000 lltu pet hour. 500 hours ofopera,ion per year. and an electricHy CMt oi$.10 per kHOW311-hour.

.. in its analysis. N't;W'**l~!3ey** 8S5UmF:.S a r..ooe level unit. one with an energy eiilcienc} rallo of608 would be us,d in p!3r.e ofa unit with an energy efficier.cy ratio of6.0. 6 unit siu 01 36JltMI Bta I"" hour. 500 hours of

## 01''''''''''' per year. and aD electricity coet of$.10 per kilowatt-hour.

e In its andl,sis. the Bpt: assume. a T.riiT levul unit. one an energy efficiency ratio

### or 8_0. would be used in pl"ce of

# a unit with an energy**.mcien~y** ralic oIS.O. a "':"lil size oi .6.000 Btu PPI hour. 500 hou

... ofoperation per year. and an elpctricity cost of12.3536t per kilnv..bll-hour. 

### requirements for furnaces result in an annual saving in excess of

## 4.200.009 Btu. Equivalent annual cost savings perunit

are estimated at $29.40 for gas units and $33.60 for oil units atno additional cost to the consumer." Based on the above figures and 20.000 new housing units annually. New Jersey estimates an annual saving of 84 

### billion Btu for residential use alone. without regard to any commercial orindustrial savings which might result.

. 3. Additional Informailon

New Jersey states that it

### has almost

no indigenous energy supplies so every dollarnot spent on energy can be used by consumers to support the goods and services available within the State. New Jersey also states that preemption of part ofthe State Construction Code would require expensive retraining ofits code inspectors.

New Jersey claims that no lessening of competition has resulted from imposition ofits 

### minimum performance standards since the number of manufacturers supplying the Slate with each category ofcovered product has
not changed due to Code requirements. At the time ofpassage:public hearings

were held and no manufacturer ofa covered product objected to the required' levels ofminimum efficiency.

4. 

### Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed New Jersey's petitIon in 

### accordance with the requirements ofsection 3Z7(b)(3} ofthe Act and §

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on this analysis. DOE has determined that New Jersey has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections &- 402.1.1. &-402.1.5 and &-503.1 ofthe BOCA Basic Energy Conservation Code of1981 as adopted with amendments by section 14A:3-4.4 ofthe New Jersey Administrative Code. as readopted on July 11.1983. and the Tariffof the New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities in Docket No. 8111-1009 a.re more stringent than DOE's rule for waterheaters. room air conditioners. central conditioners and furnaces; arejustifiedby a significant -State interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate

commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes

.. New leney cites the 1971 "New Jersey Energy Conservation Plan; A Necessary Commitment" prepared by Resource Planning Auociat". and Wilbur Smith and AsSociates for the Slate Energy Office. That reporl estin.aled a 6 percent saYing on rue! use would resull from a 72 percent minrmum efficiency leveL New Jersey estimales an everage fuel consumption of70.000.000 Btu for new houses. New Jer."y 8tates that the**avera~e** cost 01 notural
gaa to New Jersey consumers i. Sl".00 per million Blu. New Jersey estimat". an oil price of$8.00 pet million Btu. New Jersey aM!Ue. that .inc. il!. present energy efficiency standaru5 are higher Iholn m the 1977 report. lavings would actually be gruater.**~.**



### to issue a rule amending § 

### 430.33 exempting sections-E-402.1.1. E-402.1.5 and &-503.1 ofthe BOCA Basic Energy Conservation Code of 1981 as adopted with amendments by section 14A:3-4.4 ofthe New Jersey Administrative Code.

as readopted on July 11. 1983. and the Tariffofthe New Jersey Board ofPublic Utilities in Docket No. 8111-1009 as they pertain to water heaters. room air conditioners. central airconditioners and furnaces from the preemptive provisions of section 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

IWNOIS (IL024). The petition submitted by Illinois seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the local building code standards for 177 Illinois localities as they pertain to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers.
waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces.

Illinois' petition included a separate list for each product identifying the localities that.have energy effici'!ncy requirements incorporated into their 

### building codes thai are applicable to such product. which model buildi::1g codes these are based on (BOCA. Uniform Building Code. or National Building Codel. if

### any. and the date thai each locality adopted its code.9-; Tbe petition also included copies ofthose sections ofthe various model building codes referenced which partain 10 

### household equipment energy effidency requirements and copies ofthe building code ordinances for those localities which have not adopted one of the model building codes. 96

"In some cases the same locality is hsled uoder
two different categories ofbuUd;:18 code requirem'?nts. These localities are: Carbondule City. Glen Carbon Village. Grayslake Village and**Sprin~ft€ld** City_ For water heaters. cent"al air conditioners and furnaces. Carbondal. Cily i.**lisl~d** as ha,-ing adopted the National Buillling Code and having its own local code baa<:d on ASllRAE Standard 90-75; Glen Carbon Village and**Gray.lo~e** Village are listed as having adopted the 1978 version of the BOCA code and the 1961 ver.ion of the BOCA code: and Springfield City is lis:ec cs having adopted the 1978 version of Ihe BOCA ende and haVing it. own local code based on ASIIRAE Standard 9-75. Since DOE has no objections 10 any ofthe building code requirements. tod

..

### >". notice
propn.es to grant hoth buiidmg code requiremenls Cor each ofthese (our localities. DOE is in fonnal conlac! with the Slate ofJlhnois to seel< cl"rifi'olion

or the buiidi-ng code requirements of**thc~p.** icur localiti". DOE expects to**r~ceive** the inforrnallc>n requested during the comment period on the proposed rule.

"'n the cas. ofOakwood Hiiis**VilI"~**•. DUE needs additIonal information beyond Ihal**>up;:!,"~** In the petition**befo~f** a final determinHt.un**r,a~** be made to exempt its building code reqUirements iru!'ll**preemp.!~on.** Oakwood HH:5 Village is lJHk

..",it,J ciS having a buiiding code other lhan one of :he moJd building codps with energy efficiency**r~'l"i....,m~!lts** applicable to wate1 hearers, central air**cond;i~nners** and furnace•. However. no copy ofO&kw""d Hill.
Contm:.lt!d

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32967

Today's notice proposes to grant Illinois' petition for exemption from preemption ofthe building codes ofthe 11710calilies for which Illinois had petitioned. See § 

### 430.33 (e)(17). (f)(17). (g}(18). and (hJ(18) oftoday's proposed rule for a listing ofthe localities of Illinois with building code energy efficiency requirements pertaining to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. respectively. which DOE is proposing to exempt from Federal supersession.

1. State Standard Levels

Refrigerators andRefrigeratorFreezers. andFreezers. 

### The State of Dlinois petitioned for an exemption from DOE standards for refrigerators. refrigerator-freezers. and freezers. DOE has reviewed the petition. inc;:luding the attachments. and has found no standard for these products. However. in an amendment to the Illinois petition. the State clarified its position on this issue. Illinois believes the ASHRAE Standards for "airconditioning" equipment apply
to residential freezing and refrigerating equipment. DOE has reviewed these requirements and believes that they are not applicable to residential refrigerators and freezers. Therefore. the DOE standard shall prevail in Illinois.

f,t'alerHeaters. 

### For those localities in lIlinois that have adopted building codes

..which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 90-75. electric storage water heaters are required to have a standby loss which. for building codes adopted prior to January 1. 1977. does not exceed 4 watts per square foot oftank surface

area. Gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters are required to have a recovery efficiency which. for building codes adopted prior to January 1. 1977. is not less than 70 percent and; for building codes adopted thereafter. is not less than 75 percent. Gas- and oil-fired storagewaterheaters are also required
to have a standby loss which. for building codes adopted prior to January 1. 1977. does not exceed the quantity of 4.3 + 67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where Vequals the volume ofthe waterheater in gallons: and for building codes adopted thereafter. does not exceed the quantity of2.3 + 67/V. expressed in percent per hour of the stored thermal
energy. where V equals the volume of the water heater in gallons. 97**Villa~e's** building code was provided. DOE needS spp.cific informalion regarding Oakwood Hill. VilI,,!!•• building code equipment enel'llY efficiency reqUirements for DOE 10 propose 10 Ilranllllinoi.' petition for exemption from preemptIon as it applies
to Oakwood Hills Village.

.

.,The ASHRAE Standard 90-75 waterheater standards reference the ANSI Standard C72.t-7% 

### For those localities in Illinois that have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. electric storage water heaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding4
wattsper square foot oftank surface. or 43 watts. whicheveris greater. Gas- and oil-rued storage waterheaters with input ratings of75.000 Btu perhour or less shall have a recovery efficiency not less than 75 percent and a standby Joss
not exceeding the quantity of2.3+67/V. expressed in percent perhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where Vequals the rated volume ofthe waterheaterin gallons. Oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings exceeding 75.000 Btu per hourare required to have a combustion efficiency not less than 80 percent. Additionally. oil-fired waterheaters with input ratings exceeding 75.ooo13tu
perhourbutless than 4.000 Btu perhour
pergallon ofselfstored water are rettuired to have a standbyloss which. for building codes adopted prior to January 1.1982. does notexceed the quantity 2.8+0.002Q/V and. for building codes adopted thereafter. does not exceed the quantity 2.8+67/V. expressed in percent perhour ofthe slored thermal energy. where V equals the ratedvolume ofthe waterheater. in gallons. and Q equals the rated input of the waterheater. in Btu perhour."

RoomAirConditioners andCentral AirConditioners. 

### For those localities in 

### Illinois that have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard90-75. room and central air conditioners are required to have an energy efficiency ratio which. for building codes adopted after January 1. 1977 but beforeJanuary 1. 1980. is not less than 6.1 Btu perwatt-hour; and for building codes adopted thereafter. is not less than 6.8 Btu perwatt-hour."

tesl method and the ANSI Siandard Z21.103-74 teet method. DOE hal reviewed these teel methods and finds that they diITer from the DOE walerheater test procedure. TheDepartment is lJ'eating these tesl methods as an integral part ofthe walerhealer standardsofthose Ulinois localities for which exemption from preemption is being sought.

"TheASHRAE Standard 9OA-l9BO walerheater standards reference the DOE waler heaterleSI

. procedure.

-TheASHRAE Standard90-75 room air conditionerstandard references the ANSI Standard 2:234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted as Hs
test procedure for room air conditioners. The ASHRAE Standard 90.75 central air conditioner standard references the ARI Standard 210-75 lest method. DOE has reviewed Ihis test method and finds Ihat itdiffen from the OOE central air conditioner tesl procedure. TheDepaMment is treating these tesl methods .aan integral paM ofthe

room airconditionerand central air conditioner .tandards ofIhoM Illinois localities for which exemption from preemption is being lIOught. 

### For those localities in Illinois that 

### have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. room and central air conditioners

are required to have an energy efficiency ratio not less than 6.B 

### Btu per watt-hour. 100



### Furnaces, 

### For those localities in Illinois that have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard90-75. furnaces shall have a combustion efficiency not less than 75 perc.ent at maximum rated output. 101



### . For those localities in Dlinois that have adopted building codes which are based on the ASHRAE Standard 9OA1980. furnaces shall h ave a steady state combustion efficiency not less than 74 percent. except for gravity central furnaces which shall have a steady state combusion efficiency not less than 69 percent. '02


### 2. Significant State Interest

In its petition. illinois states that appliance energy efficiency standards have been a part ofthe law ofIllinois

. and its local jurisdictions for some time. The reasons for incorporating these standards into the local building codes include: energy prices have risen dramatically in 

### the past 10 years. stricter environmental controls have exacerbated the dollar drain on Illinois. and the standards enable the localities
to keep money within the local community. thereby creating additional employment and increasing personal income in 

### the community.

3. 

### AdditionalInformation



### The petition cites four additional

reasons why illinois established standards: speculative constructionmost new residential construction is speculatively built for subsequent sale where the primary objective is to minimize up-front costs; rental housing-more than one-third ofillinois households live in 

### rental housing-

"'TheASHRAE Standard9OA-1980 room air conditionerstandard references the ANSI Standard Z234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted a. il8 test procedure for room air conditioners. The ASHRAf Standard9OA-I9BO central airconditioner standard references the DOE central air conditioner tesl procedure.

•••The ASHRAf Standard90-75 furnace standards reference the ANSI Siandard Z21.13-74 lest method. the ANSI Siandard Z21.4i-71 test method. the ANSI Siandard91.1-72 test method. and the HJ Standard 6.6 test method. 00£has rel1iewed theM test methods and finds thaI they differ from ihe DOE rurnace test procedure. The Department is lJ'eating Ihese lest methods as an integral paM orthe furnace standards ofthose lIIinoi. localities for which exemption from preemption is being sougnt.

...'l'!te ASHRAE Standard9OA-l9BO furnace standards reference the OOE furnace test procedure.

### 32968 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday, August 17. 

### 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

where builders and landlords are less concerned about their tenants' operating
costs: absence ofreliable information-

consumers are well aware that energy prices have risen rapidly but are less'

aware ofthe opportunities to avoid higher prices through energy efficiency improvements; and mobile popu!ationmany households live in their home for only a few years and tend to discount the value oflong term energy savings. The petitionfurther states that a significant number oflocalities have' consideredlong run 

### energy costs and because ofthe long term communitywide economic impacts. their promulgated standards arejustified and the State ofIllinois supports the continued implementation oftheir standards.

4. 

### Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Illinois' petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b) (3) oft.ie Act and § 

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined that Illinois has provided prima facie evidence shoWing that Illinois' local energy efficiency

. standards are more stringent than DOE's rule for waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; arejustifiedby a significant State interest: and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending

. §

### 403.33 exempting Illinois'local energy efficiency standards from the preemptive provisions of section 327(11) (2) ofthe Act.

.

UTAH (UT025). The petition submitted by Utah seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code as it

. 

### pertains to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. Under the authority of sections 63-9-45 through 53. as enacted by Chapter 12, Laws ofUtah 1976. and

as amended 

### by Chapter 178, Laws of Utah 1977, the State ofUtah adopted the 1983 Model Energy Code. as published by th"l Council ofAmerican Building Officials. as the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code in May 1983.

1. State Standard Levels

WaterHeaters. For electric storage waterheaters, section 504.2.1.1 ofthe adopted Code specifies a maximum' standby loss of4.0 watts per square foot oftank surface area. For gas- and oilfired storage water healers with input ratings of75.000 Btu per hour orless. section 504.2.1.2 specifies a minimum
recovery efficiency of75 percent and a maximum standby loss ofthe quantity 2.3+67/V. expressed in percent perhour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the volume ofthe waterhealer in gallons. For oil-fired waterheaters an input rating 

### oCgreater than 75.000 Btu perhour. section 504.2.1.2 specifies a minimum combustion efficiency of 80 percent; and 

### ifthese oil-fired water heaters have an input rating that is less than 4.000 

### Btu perhour pergallon of self-stored water, the standby loss shall
not exceed the quantity 2.8 

### +67/V, expressed in

### percent per hour of the stored thermal energy. where V 

### equals the volume ofthe waterheater in 

### gallons. 101



### RoomAirConditioners andCentral AirConditioners. For room and central air conditioners. section 503.4.5 ofthe adopted Code specifies a minimum
energy efficiency ratio of6.8 Btu per watt-hour.to.



### Furnaces. Section 503.4.3 ofthe adopted Code specifies a minimum steady state effiCiency or 74 percent for forced air furnaces. low pressure steam boilers. and hot waterboilers and a minimum steady state efficiency of69 percent for gravity central furnaces. 106

2. 

### Significant State Interest

In its petition. Utah states that no adverse comments were received when the 1983 Model Energy Code was circulated for public comment.
3. Additional Information

Utah further asserts that competition will not be lessened as a result ofthe imposition ofstandards but rather a shift to the most efficient appliances. Utah states that numerous building codes exist (e.g., Uniform Building Code. Uniform Mechanical Code. Uniform Fire Code. National Electric Code. and the Utah Plumbing Code) with no consideration o£lessening of competition and what without its appliance efficiency code. Utah would. becdme a "dumping ground" for inefficient appliances. Utah further
states that its legislature has declared the need to "conserve valuable energy

resources. make more efficient use of energy and control costs."

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has review.ed Utah's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis.

...Utah'. waterhealer standards reference the DOE water heater teal procedure.

....Utah·. room air conditioner standurd references the DOE room air conditioner lest procedure. Utah's central air conditioner 8tandard references the DOE central air condilloner teat procedure.

...Utah'. furnace standards reference the DOE furnace test procedure. 

### DOE has determined that Utah has provided prima facie evidence shOWing that sections 503.4.3. 503.4.5. 504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2 ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code. adopted under the authority of sections 63-9-45 through 53. as eacted by Chapter 12. Laws ofUtah 197b, 

### and

as amended by Chapter 178, Laws of Utah 1977. are more stringent than DOE's rule for waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and**furna~s:** 

### is justified by a significant State interest; and does not appear 10 

### impose an undue burden on interstate

commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 

### 430.33 exempting sections 503.4.3. 503.4.5. 504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2 ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code. adopted under the authority ofsections 63-9-45 through 53,

as enacted by Chapter 12. Laws ofUtah 1976. and as amended by Chapter 178. Laws·ofUtah 1977.·from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

IOWA (IAG26). The petition submitted by Iowa seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the appliance efficiency requirements in Iowa Administrative Code. section 680- 

### 16.800(3) which adopts by reference the 1983 Model Energy Code as published by the Council ofAmerican Building Officials. The 1983 Model Energy Code provides for three approaches for compliance: a systems approach (Chapter 4). a component performance approach (Chapter 5). and a specified acceptable practice approach (Chapter 6). Minimum energy efficiency requirements are specified in the component performance approach and the specified acceptable practice approach. These requirements pertain to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. Specifically. Iowa requests that the following sections in the 1983 Model Energy Code not be superseded: 503.4.3 andTable No. 5-5; 503.4.5 andTable No. 5-6: 

### 503.4.6 and Table No. 5-7; 504.4.7 and Table No. 5-8; 

### 504.2.1; 106

### 603.2 and Tables No. 6-4. 

### 6-5. !Hi. 

### 6-7. 6-8; 

### and 604.1.1.

1. State StandardLevels

WaterHeaters. For electric storage heaters. sections 504.2.1.1 and 604.1.1 specify a maximum standby loss of4.0
watts per square foot oftank surface

'''The petition requested that section 504.2.1.2 t,.. exempt. which applies only to gas· and oil.lll·ed storage waterheaten. Iowa is assumed to also nlquest an exemption for section 504.2.1.1. which applies to electric storage water heaters. be,;ause this section ia cited in section 004.1.1. Thus. Iowa i. seeking an exemption for section 504.2.1. which.

covers sections 504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2. for**el~'C!rIc.** g

.... fired. and oil·fired sforage waterheafers.

### Federal Register / VoL 49, No, 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1964 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 32969

area. For gas- and for oil-fired storage water heaters with input ratings of 75.000 Btu per hour or less. sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1' specify a minimum recovery efficiency of75 percent and a maximum standby loss of the quantity 2.3+ 6i/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the volume of the walerheaterin gallons. For oil-fired waterheaters with

an input rating ofgreater than 75.000 Btu per hour. sections 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 specify a minimum combustion efficiency of80 percent; and ifthese oil waler heaters have an input rating of less than 4,000 But pergallon ofselfstored water. the standby loss shall not exceed the quantity 2.8+67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the volume ofthe water heaterin gallons. 101



### RoomAirConditioners andCentral AirConditioners. Forroom air conditioners and central air conditioners, sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 andTables No. 5-6 

### and 6-6 

### specify a minimum energy efficiency ratio of6.8 BIu perwatt-hour.loa



### The Department is not considering lowa's request that sections 503.4.6 and 503.4.7 and Nos. 5-7. 5-8. 6-5, 

### 6-7. and 6-8 

### (for self-contained waterchillers.- condenserless water chillers. compressors and condenser units'over 65.000 Btu per hour and heat operated cooling equipment) also be exempt from the Federal Standard.These air conditioning units. which primarily are commercial units. are not considered in this rulemaking because they are not" covered products under the Department's appliance program and no exemption is needed.

Furnaces. 

### Sections 503.4.3 and 603.2.2 and Tables No. 5-5 and 6-4 

### specify a minimum steady state efficiency of74 percent for forced air furnaces. low pressure steam boilers. and hot water boilers and a minimum " steady state efficiency of69 percent for gravity central furnaces. UKI 

### 2. Significant State Interest

The petitioner asserts that the State's legislative actions are based upon an interest to reduce the use ofenergy in" Iowa because 98 percent ofthe energy used is imported and 70 percent ofevery dollar spent for retail energy leaves the



### I.' Iowa', waterheater standards**ref~rence** the DOE water heater lest procedure.

'''lows's room air conditioner ttandard references Ihe DOE room air conditioner test procedure. lowa'scentral air conditioner standard**ref~**....n(:e. the DOE central air conditioner te.t procedure.

'''Iowa's rumace standards reference the DOE furanee test procedure. 

### State and is a drain on the State's economy, Iowa's energy bill exceeds $5 

### billion dollars peryearwith $3.5 billion dollars leaVing the State annually.

3. Additional Information

The petitioner further asserts that Iowa rulemaking procedures require public hearings be held regarding any adoptions or revisions ofany building code; and that there were no objections

orcomments made either in 1977 orin 1963 when the Model Energy Code relating to efficiency requirement for the included appliances was being considered for adoption. Finally. the petitioner asserts that there is no burden

on interstate commerce as manufacturers already are functioning with these state regulations in place.

4. Proposed Determination

.

DOE has reviewed Iowa's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and §

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined that Iowa has provided prima facie evidence showing the sections 503,4.3. 503.4.5. 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2. 603.2.1. 603.2.2. and 604.1.1 and Tables 5-5, 5-6. 6-4. 

### and 6-6

### ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code adopted by reference by Iowa Administrative Code section 680-16.800(3) are more stringent than DOE's rule for waterheaters, room airconditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; arejustifiedby a significant Slate interest; and do not appear to impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 

### 430.33 exempting sections 503.4.3. 503,4.5. 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2. 603.2.1. 603.2.2. and 604.1.1 andTable Nos. 5-5. 5-6. 6-4. 

### and 6-6 

### ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code. adopted byreference by Iowa Administrative Code Section 660- 

### 16.800(3). from the preemption provisions ofsection 32i(a)(2) 

### ofthe Act.

WEST VIRGINIA (WV027). The petition submitted byWest Virginia seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption section 5-21-2 of' the 1961 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines as it

### pertains to water heaters, room air conditioners, central airconditioners and furnaces. This State regulation adopts by reference ASHRAE Standard 90-75. The 1961 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines reguire that an energy code at least as stringent as ASHRAE Standard 90-75 be adopted and enforce throughout the
state.
1. State Standard Levels



### WaterHeaters. Section 7.3.1 ofthe adopted standard provides that electric storage wllttlr heaters shall have a standby loss no greater than 4.0 watts per**8qu~re** 

### foot oftank surface area and that gas- and oil-fired storage water**~eaters** 

### shall have a recovery efficiency
not less than 75 percent and a standby loss not exceeding the quantity of 2.3+67/V. expressed in percent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the volume ofthe water healer in gallons. 110



### Room andCentralAirConditioners. section 6.3 ofthe adopted standard provides that all room and central air conditioners shall have an energy efficiency ratio nolless than 6.8 Btu per watt-hour. III

Furnaces. 

### Section 6.6 of the adopted standard provides that gas- and oil-fired furnaces shall have a combustion effiCiency not lessthan 75 percent.m 

### 2. Significant State Interest

West Virginia states that the supersession ofthe appliance efficiency standards cited in its petition would

cause an undue administrative and enforcement burden on those municipalities already burdened with limited funding for building code inspection services.

Review ofcurrently available U.S. equipment addressed in the petition shows that there are products manufactured that do not meet the minimum criteria ofthe West Virginia State Code. Without such minimum criteria. the energy costs to consumers andenergy resource consumption within the State would be expected to increase

as a result ofnew construction containing less efficient products.

"OWest Virginia'. waterbeater standards reference the ANSI Standard C7%.1-72 test method and the ANSI Standard Z21.10.3-74 te.t method, DOE haa reviewed thele test methods and finda that they differ from the DOE water heater test procedure, The Department is treating these test methods 88 an integral paM ofWest Virginia's water heater .tandardsforwhich exemption from preemption is beill8 sought.

IIIWest Virginia'. room air conditioner standard refereoces the ANSI Standard 2:234.1-72 test method which DOE adopted a. its test procedure for room air conditioners. WeltVirginia's central air conditioner standard references the ARl Standard 210-75 test method. DOE has reviewed this test method and linda thaI it difiers from the DOE central air conditioner tesl procedure. The Dep

....lmenl is treating these test methods as an integral paM ofWeBI Virginia'. room air conditioner and central air conditioner standards for which exemption from preemption i. being sought.

Il'Wetlt Virginia'. furnace slandards reference the ANSI Standard z.."1.13-74 teat method, the ANSI Standard z.."1.41-71 tesl method. the Ar.:SI Slandard 91.1-11lest and the HI Standard 6.6 lest melhod. DOE has re\'iewed thele lest methods and finds thllt they differ from the DOE furnace tesl procedure. The Department i. treating these lest method. a. an**inte~r81** pari ofWest Virginia', furnace Jlandaro. for which exemption irom preemption is bein/lllOugbl.

### 32970 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 

### 1151 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

3. Additional Iniormatil1n,

In its petition. West Virginia states that since the regulations fOI which it requestluxemptionbecame par.t ofthe West Virginia State Code in 1981. no manufacturer. retailer. or distributor of these products has.indicatedopposition
to the Colfe provisions and'that. therefore. the Code provisions are nat a burden on interstate commerce and have not adversely impacted the ' buildingconstruction community.

4. Proposed Determination

DOEhas reviewedWest Virginia's petition in accordance with the requirements ofsection 327(bl(3} ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on this analysis. DOEhas determined that WestVirginia has provided prima facie evidence showing that sections 6.3. 6.6. and 7.3.1 ofASHRAE Standard 90- 75. adopted by reference by section 5- 21-2 ofthe 1981 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines are more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; are justified by a significant Stateintere&t; and do not appearto impose an undue burden on interstatecommerce. ' Accordingly, DOEproposes 

### to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting Sections6.3. 6.6. and 7.3.1 ofASHRAZ Standard 90-75, adoptedby reference by Section 5-21-2ofthe 1981 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines 

### as theypertain to waterheaters.room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces from thepreemptive provision ofsection 327(a)(2] oftIle Act.

MlNNESOT A (MN028). The petition submittedbyMinnesota seeks a rule exemptingfrom FederaLpreemption Minn. Stat. 116J.19. subdivisions 8. 13, and 14 as theypertain to waterheaters.

room airconditioners, central air conditioners and furnaces. On September 22. 1983, Minnesota amended Minn. Stat. 116}-19 

### subd. 8 

### to

. incorporate. byreference. the 1983 Model Energy Code. as published by the Council ofAmericanBuilding Officials. subject to specific changes. Some of the changes to the 1983 Model Energy Code incorporated into the Minnesota law include stricter levels for equipment efficiences. The effective date for the amended Minn. Stat. 116}-19 subd. 8

was January 1'. 1984. Previously. Minn. Stat. 116J-19 subd.

## aincorporated by reference the ASHRAE Standard 90.75.

1. State Standard Levels



### WaterHeaters. Mino. Stat. 1I6J-19 subd. 8 specifies a maximum standby loss of4 watts per square foot oftank surface area for electric storage water heatersinstanedin new construction Or' substantlarrenovation. 113

Minn. Stat. 1161-19 subd. 8 also requiresgas- and oil-fired stora-ge water heaters installedin new construction or substantial renovation to have a recovery efficiencynotless than 75' percent

## and a standbyloss

### not exceedingthe quantity af2'.3of67/V, expt'esserl inpercent peT hourofstored thermal energy. where V equals the

rated**~lume** ofthe waterheafer expressed in ganons. TJ4' .) '.



### RoomAirConclitiooers. Minn. Stat. 116J-19 subd. 13 requires thatno new

room airconditionersbe sold. installed



### or transportedfor resale into Minnesota unless it has an energyefficiency ratio ofat least 7.0 Btu perwatt-hour. Additionally, Minn. Stat. 116J-19 subd. 8 specifies a minimum energy effiCiency ratio of 7.8 Btu per watt-hourfor all

room air conditioners installed in new construction or substantial renovation.mr '



### CentralAir Conditioners. Minn. Slat. 116J-19 subd. 8 specifies a minimum
energy efficiency ratio of7.8 Btu per watt-hourfor all central air conditioners installed in new constructwn or substantial renovation.m,.

Furnaces. Minn. Stat. 116J-19 subd. 8 specifies a minimum steacly state combustion efficiency of74 percent of all furnaces and lowpressure steam and hot water boilers installed in new construction or substantial renovation. exceptfor gravity furnaces. for which the minimum steady state combustion efficiency is 69 percent. 116Additionally. Minn. Stat. 116}-19 subd. 14 prohibits the sale and installation ofany new gasfired 

### fwnace equippedwith a continuously burning pilot light.

2. Significant State Interest

Minnesota's discussion focuses

### ~n two major areas: that the State has a history ofa commitment to energy efficient appliances as one component ofits overan energypo!icy;_and that

U>The petition also slated that electric storage water heatl!fllofa capacity greater than 1200 gallon

.......required to IlIw

.. itminimum ofR-10 insulation. Electric waterhealenWIth storage capacities grealer than 120gallons are not covered by the DOE test procedure for water heatel'll, Consequently. they are notcovered by the Federal .tandard for water !Haters.Therefore. this requirmenl i. not aubject topreemption by the Federal Slandard.

·"Minnesota'. water beaterstandards**ref~rence** the DOEwaterheater lestprocedure.

usMinnesota'S'room aircondition

... standard reference. theOOE room iii,conditioner tesl procedure.

....Minnesota's central air conditioner standard references the DOE cemrai airconditiofter test procedur&.

"'Minnesota's furnace stancktrd. reference Ihe DOl! fumace test procedure. there aresigntficant energy savings that result from establishing minimum energy efficiency revels for thesecovered appli&nces. 

### The petition maintainl! that

as an energy-poor lI1ate. Minnel!ota is and halfbeen especially vulnerable to therapid increB1les in fossil fuel costs. andto the pcnibl1ityofshortages. Since the State is literally at the end ofthe naturafgas andoil distribution system. major concerns were evident in the 19708 regarding**t~** impact lIrn,rtages would have on theindustrial! commercial network and the economy

as a whole. Thus. majorpieces of legislation were adopted to make Minnesota more energy efficient. to increase the use ofalternative energy sources, and to limit the impact ofrising
energycosts. especially on low income families. According to the petition. that the legislative process has resulted in thedevelopment ofstandards is a de facto statement 

### ofthe significance 

### of standards to the State.



### 1'lM? petition states that Minnesota has determined that the energy savings from each 

### ofits appliance standards 

### is significant. As indicated in the filing, Minnesota's energypolicy is designed to

use energy 

### as cost-effectively as possible. In economic terms. those
programs or State policies that result in
energy savings with a positive net present value

### are determined to be of significant benefit to the State. That is. 

### if the energy cost savings resulting from a standard outweigh the costof implementing that standard. then the standanfis appropriate and Minnesota's citiz.ens will benefit. For each standard. Minnesota includes an analysis indicating the costs. seving! and calculation ofnet present value resulting from the implementation ofthat standard.

.

The petitionerconcludes that the net cost sevings from the Minnesota State Building Code Efficiency for water heaters over the life ofunits purchased in 19&1 is $16.4 million; 111the net cost savings from the Minnesotaminimum
energy efficiency ratio of7.0 Btu per watt-hour for room air conditioners sold in 1982 is $362.106: lUIthe savings from

...Net presentvalue ofSl6.38&S13saved was computl!<! by**~innesota** using the following a.sumptions: 45,500 units ofelectric waterhe.**t~rs**

..

ere !IOld in Minne.ota in 198'1: Ihe average annual
energy coat savings perwalerheater isSSl.92: the
average lifetime ofan electric water heater ;5 13
yeara: electricity costa will increase at the nominal
rate of5.5 percent peryear; consumer credit loans

are available 8113 percent per year; and the increased cost ofa wlrter heaterresuili:lg from standards are £'9.38. This study was supported by data developed by Northern States Power Company.

.lINet pre.ent value of$362.106 saved was computed using tbe follOwing assumptions: 16,535**Contlnu~d**

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32971

the Minnesota standard prohibiting. furnace pilot lights sold in 1982 is $6.3 million; 119

### and the net cost savings from Minnesota Slate Building Code standar.js for central air conclltioners sold in 982 

### is $743.538. 120



### The petitioner asserts that the estimates ofenergy savings from the ban on pilot lights is very conservative since much ofthe fuel consumed is discounted as the pilots produce "useful heat" for the dwelling. Since most furnaces in Minnesota are located in unconditioned or semi-conditioned spaces. the heat from the pilot lights is completely wasted. Also. pilot lights in furnaces produce heat during summer months. actually contributing to the air conditioning load. Because these pilot lights are unvented. they also contribute
to airpollution ofthe conditioned space. leading to greater "'entilation needs. It 

### is

units ofroom air condilioners were &Old in Minnesota in 1982: OW.S percent ofthe 16.535 u'!ita or 6.6'<17 units would have an average energy effICiency Nltlo of6.6 Btu perwalt·hour ifthere wasno Minnesota minimum energyefficiency ratio of7.0 Btu perwalt·hour: the units sold would be alleasl 6.1 percent more efficient. representing the percentage increase from an enelllY effIciency ratio of6.6 to i.O Btu perwall·hour: the national average consumption ofa room airconditioner i. 1161 kllowatt·hours peryear: the average residential electricityprice was $0.0576 perkllowatt·hour In 1002: electricity costs will increase al the nominal fate of5.5 percenl per year: COnBumer credit loans·
ate available 8t13percent peryear: the averagp. life of 8 room air conditioner is 15 years: and the im:rease in coat due to the Incresoe In energy efficiency ratio by 6.1 percent is $1S.oo.

II>Net pl'f'sent value of$6.252,999 saved was computed by Minnesota usin{! the foUowing assumptions: 29.953 unit. ofgas forced airfumuces

were sold In Minnesota in 1982: 76.3 percent of.lhe 29.953 units orZ2.654 units would have been aold with pilot lights ifthere were no Slate standard against pilot lights; a pilot consumes 5.06 mcfofgRS peryear more than the same furnace without a pilot light; the price ofnatural gas in Minnesota was $5.02
ppr mefin 1982: the average lifetime of a furnace i. estimated to be 23 years: Ihe average nominal ,"nation rate ofnatural gaa used by reSidences i. 8.56 percent per year: consumer credit loan. are ubtainable at the nominal rate of 13 percent per y"sr: and the additional purchaae cost ofan dppHance with an intermittenl ignition device (lID) ,uOs!iluted for a pilot light is $100.**I"~el** present value oiS743.536 &lived Was compl1ted by Minnesota using the following assumptions: an average of 17.500 units ofcentral air conditioners with an average rated capacity of 30.000 Btu perhour were sold in 1981 aDd 1982: the a.erage enerlll' efficiency ratio ofthe units sold would be 7.8 Btu perwatt·hour resultinR from the ene!'!!)' conservation provisions ofthe Slate Building Code: that thi. represents 8 3.75 percent impro""ment over unit. that would have been sold

. wiIhout standards average central air conditioner

usage i. 450 hours per year equivalent offuU ,,\arallP-d capacity: the**sa\'in~s** in 1982 from the central air**conditionin~** unit. afrer-Ied by the Stule Code i.equivalent 10 2.S!l6.534 kilowatt·hour: the**cn~1** ofelectricity in 1982 was$1:1.0576 per kilowatt· hour: Ih

.. average life ofa central air conditioner is 12 yeH":

..Ipclrieity COSio will inc,..,•• e at the nominal rate of5.5 percent per year: coo.umer credit loans are available &t13 percent pery"ar:

..nd the increase in cos's due 10 the increa

... in ERR by 3.7'5 percent i.$25.00. 

### totally unclear then. whether there is any useful contribution to residential
space heating when increased ,ventilation is needed to maintain indoor air quality.

The petitionerpoints out that the products ofcombustion from pilot lights (and otherunvented gas use) are beginning to be understood to hav.e negative health effects. such as increasedrespiratory ailments and reduced lung capacity among children. These effects can be expected to be exacerbated in the future as both new and existing homes are made tighter, reducing air exchange rates from 2 to 3
to less than If.t 

### an air change perhour. In

a very tight home. health considerations alone may be sufficient to warrant pilotless ignition. At the very least. however. the unquantified health" benefits resulting from eliminating pilot lights must be considered to add to the need to sustain the current ban which exists in Minnesota.

3. Additional Information

According to the petition. a preemption ofMinnesota's standards by Federal rule will havenegative impact

on those manufacturers who re-tooled their assembly lines to produce more efficient appliances. The Minnesota Department ofEnergy andEconomic Development has never received any complaint8 ornotices ofhardship by manufacturers ofthese products in complying with the Slate standards. However. to eliminate these minimal requirements wouldput those manufacturer8 who did re-tool at a competitive disadvantage with competitors who simply abandoned the Minnesota (and some other states) market. Those negative economic impacts should also be weighed in the decision to maintainMinnesota's standards.

Although Minnesota maintains that these appliance standards are necessary and reasonable on the merits ofenergy and dollars saved to the State. irrespective ofthat facl Minnesota believes the Federal suppression of State energy efficiency standards is an unwarranted intrusion on a State's right
to govern its own affairs. Minnesota
states that this intrusion is made even
more onerous by the fact that DOE· chose to require a "no standard" standard which directly contravenes Minnesota's own interest. instead ofa Federal efficiency standard which at least would have been supportive ofthe State's interests.

The petitioner concludes that there have been no complaints registered with the State concerning negative impacts on interstate commerce and that the State', interests clearly outweigh any burden on interstate commerce.
4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Minnesota', Petition in accordance with the requirements of8ection 327(b)(3) of the Act and § 

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on this analysis. DOE has determined that Minnesota has provided prima facie evidence showing that Minn. Stat. 116J.19 subdivisions 8. 13. and 14 are

more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces: are justifiedby a significant State interest; and do not appear to impose and undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a rule amending**~** 

### 430.33 exempting Minn. Stat. 116J.19 subdivisions 8. 13, and 14 as they pertain to waterheaters. room air conditioners, central air conditioners and furnaces from the preemptive provision8 ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

WASHINGTON (WA029). The petition submittedby Washington seeks

a rule exempting from Federal preemption sections411(c). 411(e). 420(a). and 602(a) ofthe Washington State Energy Code which was enacted by section 51-12 ofthe Washington Administrative Code (WAC). as amended July 20. 1983, as they pertain to waterheaters. room air conditioners, central air conditioners. and furnaces. 121 

### The Washington State Energy Code is based on ASHRAE Standard 90-75. It 

### provides for three methods for compliance: (1) A component performance approach; (2) a system analysis approach; and (3) a prescriptive approach. Minimum energy efficiency standards are specified in the component performance approach (Section 400 ofthe Code) and inthe prescriptive requirement approach (Section 600 ofthe Code).

111The petition also requests a rule exempting from Federal preemption minimum energy efficiency standards pertaining to heat pumps. and home heating equipment (not inclucLng furnaces).**Th~se** products are not considered in this rulemaking because the AUl!uSI 1983 rule for the six products reserved 8 standards decision for heat pumps. and home heating equipmenl (not including fumacesl. The petition alan reque.ls a rule exempting from Federal preemption energy eflkiency standard. pertaining to the following """'gories ofcentral .,r conditioning units: central airconditioneN wIth. capacity greater than 65.000 Btu perhour. heat o""raled Hir conditioning units: and waterehilleN. These air conditioning units are not considered in this rulemaking bl'C"use lhpy are not covered products under the Departmenr. appliance
program.

### 32972 Federal Register 

## I Vol; 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

1. State Standard Levels

WaterHeaters. Section42O(a} ofthe State Energy Code prohibits the installation ofgas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters and electric storage water heaters that do not meet the

. requirements ofASHRAE Standard 90- 75. 122

RoomAir C>nditioners andCentroi Airc>ndiIJoners. Sections 411(e) and 602(a) ofthe State Energy Code prohibit the installation ofany room or central air conditionerunder a capacity of 65.000 Btu per hour with an energy

. efficiency ratio ofless than 6.8 Btu per watt·hour. l :!3



### Furnaces. Sections 411(c} and 602(a) ofWashington's law prohibits the installation ofany gas· or oil-fired furnace with a minimum combustion efficiency ofless than 75 percent 12. Section 411(c) ofWashington's law also requires all gas- and oil-fired furnaces to be equipped with approved automatic dampers in cases where conditioned air is used for combustion. Section 602(a) of Washington's law requires that all gas· and oil-fired furnaces are to be equipped with approved automatic dampers

.. .2. Significant State fnterest

The petitioner states that its law has been in effect since 1980 and that the State Energy Code. 51-12 WAC, is actively enforcedby localjurisdictions representing about 87 percent ofthe State's population. The petitioner stat6$ that Congress also has recognized the special need ofthe Northwest states to

conserve energy by the Pacific

.

.Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Pub. 1.. 95-501). In \ response to this law. the Northwest

Power Planning Council has developed Model Conservation Standards (MCS) to be adopted and enforced by the Northwest States (including Washington) by January 1. 1986. The Council has determined that the minimum energy efficiency standards in the MCS are cost effective on a regional level and are economically feasible for

consumers.
3. Additional Information

The petitioner states that during the past four years. consumers have benefited from the Slate regulations by having lower energy costs. The

"'Washington's water heater standards reference the DOE waterheater tesl procedure.

...Washington', room air conditioner standard rel'erences the A.'l/SI Standard Z234.1-72 test method which DOEadopted a.**i~** test procedunr for room air conditioner5. Wa,hington·. ce1IItal air conditioner standard references DOE central air conditioner test procedure.

...Washington's fuma"" .tandard& reference the DOE furnace test procedure. petitioner maintainsthat the State

,regulation. aremore stringent than tbe Federal cmes, thatWashing:ton intends
to adopt more stringentState regulations (Model Conservation Standards) in
respome to the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act, and 

### that the current Stateregulations have operatedwithout placing anundue burden on-iDterstate

commerce.



### , '. 4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Washingon's petitionin accordance with the requirements ofsection 327(b)(3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

onits analysis. DOE has determined thatWashington halprovidedprima facie evidence showing that sections 411(c}, 411(e). 420{a} and 602(a) ofthe Washington State Energy Code. enacted by section 51-12

### ofthe Washington Administrative Code (WAC). as amended July ZOo 1983. are more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners. central airconditioners andfurnaces; are justified by a significant State interest: and donot appearto impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending §430.33 exempting sections 411(c). 411(e}. 420(a}. and 602(a) ofthe Washington State Energy Code. enacted by section 51-12 ofthe Washington Administrative Code (WAG). as amendedJuly ZOo 1983. from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act

.

KANSAS (1(5030). The petition submittedby Kansas seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the Orders inKansas Corporation Commission Docket No. 110.776-U pertaining to central air conditioners that took effect onNovember 1. 1979.

1. State StandardLevels

CentralAir C<Jnditioners. The Kansas Corporation Commission (KCG) is ilie Stateregulatory body statutorily mandated to supervise and control the public utilities and cooperatives doing business in Kansas.Pursuant to its authority. the KCC requires that all natural gas and electricutilities subject
to thejurisdiction ofthe KCC and all municipally owned, non.jurisdictional natural gas and electric utilities shall
not make conections orattachments to newly constructedresidential dwellings and newly constructed commercial buildings unless certain requirements pertaining to the energy use ofsuch dwellings andbuildings are met. Sub· paragraph (e) ofparagraphNo.5 ofthe Orders in KCC Docket No. 11O,77t3-U I"" contains the requirement that the seasonal energy efficiency retio ofall air conditioners of65.000Btu perhour capacity orlees shall not be Jess than.I..O Btu perwatt-hour.-

.2. Silnifu::antState Interes.t

TheJ(CC. in proposing its orderin 1977. found that 66 percent ofthe electricityused in Kansas was generated by the use ofnatural gas and oil. Further. the relianceon the use of natural ges for home heating and for electricity generation. at a time ofshort supply. lenturgency to enacting conservation measures such as the
energyefficiency standards for air conditioning units. The KCC notes that while the use ofnatural gas to produce electricity dropped from 66 percent of total electricity generated in 1977. to Z2 percent in 1982. the actual amount ofgas consumed in production ofelectricity in 1982was47 percent of1977 levels of consumption. This fact. coupled with the increase in the price ofnatural gas from $.99 percfin 1977 to $2.38 per cfin 1982., indicates to the KCC that Kansas is still heavily dependent upon natural gas in the production ofelectricity and the need for conservationmeasures is just

sa important in 1984 as it was in 1977.

3. Additional Information

Kansas stated that several companies already manufacture central air conditioners that comply with the State standards. Further. since several States already have standards. Kansas contended that its Statestandard does
notunduly burden interstate commerce.
4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Kansas's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b](3) ofthe Act and § 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based on its analysis. DOE has determined that Kansas has providedprima facie evidence showing

...The language ofthe Orderin KGG Docket No. l1o.716-U implies thel the energy efficiency requirement extends to room air conditioners as well .a central air conditio""

.... since it u

...... the
term "allinstalled air conditione

...." of65.000 Btu perhourcapacity or.less. However, the petition itselfrefers 10 exempting the KeG rule. for central air conditioners only. No mention ia made ofroom airconditioners. OOE baa. therefore. addressed this petition aa It applies to central air condilionen; only. Additionally. theKCC requires a minimum energy efficiency retia

## or7.S Btu per wau-hour for air conditioners ofgreater than 65.000 Btu perhour capacity. However. this requirement is not subject
to preemption byDOE'. standard for central air conditioners aince these units are not covered products uDder the Departmenr. appliance pro8l'aDI.

- KaIl88ll' central aircondltioneratandard. reference the DOEcentral air conditloaar test procedure.

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 

### 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 32973

that the Orders in Kansas Corporation Commission Docket No. 11.0776-U concerning seasonal energy efficiency ratio are more stringent than DOE's rule for central airconditioners. is justified by a significant State interest and does
not appear to impose an undue burden

on interstate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposes to issue a rule amending § 430.33 exempting the Orders in Kansas Corporation Commission Docket No. 110.776-U from the preemptive provisions of section 327{a)(2) ofthe Act.

_

HAWAII (Hl031). The petition submitted hy Hawaii**s~ks** a rule exempting from Federal preemption Article Eight ofthe Uniform Building Code. City and County ofHonolulu. and equivalent chapters 

### ofthe Uniform Building Codes ofHawaii and Kauai Counties. as they pertain to water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces. These codes are based on the ASHARAE Standlard 90-75. Hawaii also seeks a rule exempting Chapter 196-5 ofthe Hawaii Revised Statutes. 1n

1. State Standard Levels 

### WaterHeaters. Section 16-8.08(e) of the Code specifies 

### a maximum standby loss of4.0 watts per square fool ofta.nlc surface area for electric storage water heaters. Section 16-8.08(e) also specifies that gas- and oil-fired storage water heaters shall have a minimum recovery efficiency of75 percent and a maximum standby loss not exceeding the quantity of2.3+87/V. expressed inpercent per hour ofthe stored thermal energy. where V equals the volume of the waterheater in gallons.ItS



### RoomAirConditioners andCentroi AirConditioners. Section 16-8.04(b)(1) ofthe Code specifies a minimum energy efficiency ratio of8.1 Btu perwatt-hour for room air conditioners and central air conditioners and central air conditioners. In

...Hawaii is as.umed also to requesl an exemption for ChaplerllJ6-<; ofthe Hawaii Revised Statutes prohibitin8 the sale and the instailation of gas fW'lUlces with pilot lights. Although Hawaii did nOI speCifically mention thi. regulation in ita petition. 8 copy ofIhe regulation was include 8S a appendix to the petition. DOE in therefore assuming that it i.Hawaii's inlent to seek exemption from preemption for chapler 196-5 01 the Hawaii ReVised Stalutes.

...Hawaii's walerhealer standards reference the ANSI Standard C72.1-72 le.1 method and the ANSI Slandard Z2l.1o.3-74 teat method. DOE haa reviewed these lesl method. aod finds thaI they differ from Ihe DOE waler healer lest procedure. TheDepaMment i8 treating these lesl methods a. an inlegral paM ofHawaii'. water heater 81apdardslor which exemption from preemption i, belnll sought.

...Hawaii's room airconditioner stundard references the ANSI Standard Z2M.1-72 lest· method which DOE adopted aa ila test procedure for room air cooditioners. Hawaii's central air conditionerstandard reference. the ARl Standard 

### Furnaces. Section 16-8.04(b){5} ofthe Code specifies a minimum combustion efficiency of75 percent at maximum rated output for gas- and oil·fired furnaces. 1:10Chapter 196-5ofthe Hawaii Revised Statutes prohibits the sale snd installation ofgas furnaces with pilot lights.

2. Significant State Interest

In its petition. Hawaii states that it is 90percent dependent aD imported oil which costs $1.5 billion dollars each
year. Without appliance standards. Hawaii believes that cheap. inefficient applicances would be purchased by those unaware ofthe concept of lifecycle costing; by short-Sighted developers; and by others who would profit byholding down initial costs and allowing others to cope with the resulting higherelectricitybills.**~"** Preemption ofappliance standards would seriouslyundermine the substantial progress thatHawaii has made inredUcing the per-capita consumption ofelectricity.

3. Additional Information

Hawaii contends thatit applicance standards do not place an undue burden

on appliancemanufacturers because its applicance standards arebased on the ASHRAE Standard90-75.The appliance industryitselfwas instrumental in formulating the ASHRAE Standard 90- 75.

4. ProposedDetermination

DOEhas reVlewea Hawaii's petition in accordancewith the requirements of section 237(b}(3} oftheAct and § 430.47 oftheregulation. Basedon its analysis. DOE has determined thatHawaii has providedprima facie evidence shOwing the Article Eight ofthe Uniform Building Code. City and County ofHonolulu and the equivalent chapters ofthe Uniform Building Codes ofHawaii and Kauai Countries. and Chapter 196-5 ofthe Hawaii Revised Statutes. aremore stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. central eirconditioners. room air conditioners and furnaces; are

21!)-75 teat method. DOE hasl'I!'Viewed this taat mathod and finds that it differs from the DOE central aircooditioner te.t procedure. The Department i. lreatingIh""" t",,1 math

.."•• s an inlegral part ofHawaii'. room airconditioner and central air conditioner standard. for which exemption from preemption i. beill8 lOughL

"·Hawair.furnace atandarda relerence the ANSI Standard Z21.l3-14 test method. the ANSI Standard Z21.47-71 teat method, the ANSI Standard 91.1-72 lesl method and the HI Standard 8.6 tM! method. DOE haareviewed these test methode and finds that they differ from the DOE furnace llIat procedure. TheDepartment i. treatill8 these te.t method. a. an integral part orHawaii's furnace standard, for whlch exemption from preemption ia beill8 lIOU8ht. justified by 

### a significant State interest; and do not appearto impose an undue burden on interstate commerce. Accordingly, DOE proposes to issue a rule I mending § 430.33 exempting Article Eight ofthe Unifonn Building Code. City and County ofHonolulu and the equivalent chapters ofthe Uniform Building Codes ofHawaii and Kauai Counties. and Chapter 196-5 ofthe Hawaii Revised Statutes. from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a)(2) ofthe Act.

TENNESSEE {TN032}. The petition submitted by Tennessee seeks a rule exempting from Federal preemption the Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction. adopted in the Tennessee Code Annotated Section 13-19-101 through 13-19-107. Chapter 19. as it pertains to waterheaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces.m.TheTennessee Code incorporates three alternative approaches for compliance: A systems analysis approach. a component performance design approach and an acceptable practice approach applicable
to conventionalresidential buildings and other smallbuildings which meet certainrequirements. The provisions of the lattertwo approaches incorporate minimum energy efficiency requirements for spaceheating and cooling and water heating equipmentbased onASHRAE -Standard 90-75.

1. State StandardLevels



### WaterHeaters. Sections 504.2(a) and 604.1(a) oftheTennessee Code For Energy Conservation. Tennessee Code Annotated Section 13-19-101. provide that electric storage waterheaters shall have a standby loss not exceeding 4.0
wattsper square foot oftank surface

area and thatgas- and oil-fired storage waterheaters shall haverecovery efficiency notless than 75 percent and a standbylossnot exceeding the quantity of2.3+ 87/V. expressed in percentper hourofthe stored thermal energy, where V equals rated volume ofthe water heaterin gallons. 1ft

lSIThe petitionrequests exemption for positive displacement refrigerant compre.IO

.... Positive displacement refrigerant comp",",,", are not considered in thisrulemaking because they are not covered producta underthe Department'. appUcanca program.

IUTennessee's walerheater standard. reference the ANSI Standard C72.1-72 teat method and the ANSI Standard Z2l.1().3..74 test method. DOE has reviewed theae leat methods alld find. that they differ from the DOE waterhealer leo' procedure. TheDepartment ia treating these test method••• an integral paM ofTennessee', waterhealer standards for ",liich exemption from preemption ia beill8 lOught.

### 32974 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules



### RoomAirConditioners and Central /iir 

### Conditioner. Sections 503.4(e) and 603.2(a) ofthe Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation.Tennessee Code Annotated Section 13-19-101. prov'de ·that room airconditioners and cenlral air conditioners with cooling capacities of65.000 Btu perhour or less shall have

an efficiency ratio not less than 6.1 Btu per watt-hout. t3:1



### Furnaces. Sections S03.4(C) and 603.2(b) ofthe Tennessee Code for F..nergy Conservation. Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-19-101, provide that gas- and oil-fired furnaces shall have a combustion efficency not less than 75 percent at maximum rated output. t34



### 2. Significant State Interest

Tennessee believes that no one's interest will be served, neitherpublic. by preempting the State's appliance standards.

3. Additional Information

Tennessee contends that its appliance standards are coterminous with the standards bywhich the building industry works.

4. Proposed Determination

DOE has reviewed Tennessee's petition in accordance with the requirements of section 327(b){3) ofthe Act and §

### 430.47 ofthe regulation. Based

on its analysis. DOE has determined that Tennessee has providedprima facie evidence showing that sections 503.4 (cl and (e), 504.2(a). 603.2 (a) and (b). and

. 604.1(a) of the Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in NewBuilding Construction. Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-19-101 through 13-19-107. Chapter 19. are more stringent than DOE's rule for water heaters. room air conditioners. central air conditioners and furnaces; and are justified by a significant State interest. DOE has determined that they do not

"'Tennessee'sroom air conditioner standard references the ANSl Standard ZZ34.1-72 test melhod which DOE adopled as its lest procedure for rooin air conditioners. Tennessee'. central air conditionerstandard references the ARI Standard 210-75 lest method. DOE has reviewed this test method and finds Ihat it differs from the DOE central air conditoner test procedure. The Department is treating these test methods a8 an IDle81'sl part ofTenne••ee·, room airconditioner Mnd centr&l air conditioner standards for which "xemption from preemption i. being sought.

'''Tennessee's furnace standards reference Ihe ANSI Standard Z21.13-74 lest method. the ANSI Standard Z21.47-71 leal melhod. the ANSI Siandard 91.1-72 lesl melhod and Ihe HI Siandard S.6 lest m"lhod. DOE has reviewed these lesl methods and finds that they diff"r from the DOE furnace test procedure. The Department ia trealing these tesl methocis as an integral part ofTenne••""·. furnace**st~nd"rds** (or which exemption from pret:mplion ia being soughL 

### appear to impose an undue burden on interestate commerce. Accordingly. DOE proposed to issue a rule amending section 503.4 (c) and (e). 504.2 (a) and (b). and 604.1(a) ofthe Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in

### New Building Construction. Tennessee Code Annotated section 13-19-101 through 13-19-107. Chapter 19. from the preemptive provisions ofsection 327(a) (2) ofthe Act.

. 

## m. Environmental, Regulatory

# imPact.
and Small Entity 

### Impact Reviews



### o. EnvironmentalReview

In each case where DOE is requested
to approve State standards. DOE conducts a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPAl review on a case-bycase basis. Currently. the 26 Slates have petitioned DOE regarding regulations;' concerning the energy use or efficiency ofone ormore ofthe products covered by the December 22. 

### 1982 final rule or the August 30. 1983 final rule. Granting the petitions received from these States will mean that these regulations will remain in effect. TheD.epartment's proposed rule togrant these petitions will result in no change in the environmental status quo ofthe 26 States, and therefore. will clearly have

no signficant environmental impact. No environmental assessment or environmental impact statement is required.

It 

### should also be noted that the Department hasprepared and issued an Environmental Assessment (EA) (DOE/ EA-D113) on the impact ofsetting and implementing energy efficiency standards for all 13 types ofconsumer products identified In 

### Section 322(a)(1)- (13) ofthe Act. A Finding ofNo Significant Impact and Notice of Availability ofthat

### E4\ were published with the June 30, 1980. proposed rule for minimum energy efficiency standards for eight ofthe products (45 FR 44088). Copies ofthat EA may be obtained from the address indicated at the beginning of this notice.



### b. RegulatoryImpactReview

In light ofthe foregoing analysis ofthe effect ofthe proposed actions. DOE has concluded that the rules are not "major rules" for purposes ofExecutive Order 12291 because they will not result in: (1) An 

### annual effect on the economy of$100 million or more; (2) a majorincrease in
costs orprices for consumers. individual industries. Federal. State. or local government agencies. orgeographic regions; or (3) significa!!t adverse effects pn competition. employment. investment. productivity. innovation. or

on the ability ofUnited States-based enterprises to compete with foreignbased enterprises in domestic or export markets. Therefore. in accordance with section 3(cj{3) of the Executive Order. which applies to**rul~s** 

### other than major rules. the proposed rules were submitted
100MB

### for review without a regulatory impact analysis.



### c. SmallEntityImpactReview

In light ofthe foregoing. the Departmenthas d.etermined and hereby certifies pursuant to section 605(b} ofthe Regulatory Flexibility Act that the proposals. ifpromulgated. will not have

a "significant economic impact on a substantial number ofsmall entities." The impacts on small businesses wpich

are appliance manufacturers were assessed very closely together with otherrelevant factors in conducting DOE's analysis of the State petitions. For purposes ofassessing these impacts. the term "small business" was defined in consultation with the Small Business Administration.

IV. Public Comment Procedures



### o. Participation in Rulemakings

DOE encourages the maximum level ofpublic participation in these rulemakings.

Individual consumers. representatives ofconsumer groups, manufacturers' associations. States or other governmental entities. utilities. retailers. distributors. manufacturers. and others

are urged to submit written statements

on the proposals. The Department also encourages interested persons to participate in the public hearings to be held in New York. New York; Chicago. Illinois; Atlanta. Georgia: Dallas. Texas: San Francisco, California: and Washington. D.C.• at the times and places indicated at the beginning ofthis notice.

Copies ofeach State's notice ofintent and petition are available for review in the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room. Interestedpersons may obtain copies ofany ofthese documents by writing 10 

### the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room at the address specified at the beginning of this notice. Such persons are advised to contact the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room in advance of such requests to determine ifthere will be any charges associated with satisfying their request.

DOE has established a comment period of90 days following publication ofthis notice. for persons to submit written comments on these proposals. All written comments and transcripts of all public hearings will be available for

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday. 

### August 17. 1964 

## I Proposed Rules 32975

review in theDOE Freedom of Information Reading Room, Interested persons may obtain copies ofany of these documents by writing to the DOE Freedom ofInformation Reading Room at the address specified at the beginning of this notice. Such persons are advised to contact the DOE Freedom of Information Reading Room in advance of such requests to determine ifthere will be any charges associated with satisfying their request. Also, persons interested in obtaining copies ofthe -transcripts from any or all of the public hearings have the option ofpurchasing them directly from the transcribing reporter for each public hearing. The identify ofthe transcribing reporterfor each public hearing may be determined by contacting the person in the DOE Conservation and Renewable Energy Office ofHearings andDockets whose address. and telephone number appear at the beginning ofthis notice.

b. Written CommentProcedures

Interested persons areinvited to

_ participate in this proceeding by submitting written data. views or arguments with respect to the subjects
setforth in this notice. Instructions for submitting written comments are set forth at the beginning ofthis notice and below. Comments for each petition should be addressed separately and
comments on each product should be discussed separately within each commentary. Comments on each petition should be labeled both on the envelope and on the documents "Appliances (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM [appropriate State code])". General comments, i.e.• those which are applicable to DOE's consideration ofall State petitions. should be addressed separately and should be labeled both

on the envelope and on the documents "Appliance (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM)". All written comments must he received by the date specifii;!d at the beginning of this notice in order to insure full 

### consideration. Ten (10) 

### copies are requested to be submitted. however. this is not a requirement for the submission

or written comments. Ten copies are requested to permit timely review ofthe
comments received on this matter. All
comments received by the date specified at the beginning ofthis notice and other relevant information will be considered by DOE before final action is taken on the proposed rules.

Pursuant to the provisions of 10

### CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information ordata which is believed to be confidential and exempt bylaw from public disclosure. should submit 1:lne complete copy ofthe document, and if possible. 10

### copies from which the information believed to he confidential has been deleted. DOE will make its

own determination with regard to the confidential status ofthe information or data andtreat it

### according to its determination.

Factors ofinterest to DOE. when evaluating requests for confidentiality include: (1) A description ofthe item: (2)

an indication as to whether and why such items ofinformation have been treatedby the submitting party as confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is generally known or available from other sources; (4) whether the information has previously beenmade available to others without obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the personal competitives injury which would result from public discloSlll'e; [6)



### anindication asto when such information might lose its confidential characterdue to the passage of time; and (7) whether disclosure ofthe information would be in the public interest.

c, Public

### Hearings

1. Procedure for Submitting Requests
to Speak. In orderto have the benefit of

a broad range ofpublicviewpoints in these rulemakings. DOE will hold six public hearings. Listed at the beginning ofthis notice are the dates. addresses. andDOE contacts for these hearings. Any person who has an interest in these proceedings. orwho is a representative ofa group orclass ofpersons having an interest. may submit a written request for an opportunity to make**~** 

### oral presentation atthe public hearing. Such requests shouldbe labeledboth on the letter and the envelope. "Appliances: Petitions for Exemption from Preemption ofState Efficiency Standards (Docket No. CE-CP-SPRM)" and should be sent to the proper address andmust be received by the time specified at the beginning ofthis notice.

The person making the request should briefly describe the interest concerned and give a telephone number where he

or she may be contacted. Each person requesting an opportunity to speak should give a concise summary ofthe proposed oral presentation.

2. 

### Selection ofSpeakers. DOE

reserves the right to select the persons to be heard at these hearings. and to schedule the respective presentations. DOE will endeavorto afford all persons who request to speak an opportunity to be heard. However, in the event that

more persons request to speak at a particularhearing than time permits to be heard. DOE may refuse some persons

an opportunity to make a scheduled presentation. (DOE may. for example. select only one person to speak on behalfofa given group or organization for which two ormore representatives have requested to speak.) The length each presentation will be limited to 20 

### minutes. Scheduled speakers will be so notified by 

### DOE by the date specified at the beginning ofthis notice.

Speakers are requested to submit 10 

### copies oftheir statement by the date given at the beginning ofthis notice; however, this is not a requirement for making an oral presentation at a hearing. Ten copies are requested to be submitted in advance ofthe hearings in order that they may be distributed to the DOE officials who will be serving on the panel at the hearings for review prior to the hearing itselfand so that they may be made available to persons attending the hearing. In the event any person Wishing to testify cannot meet this requirement, alternative arrangements

canbe made in advance with the Office ofHearings and Dockets by so indicating in the letterrequesting to make an oral presentation.

3. Conduct ofHearing. A DOE official willbe designated to preside at each hearing.The hearings willnot be judicial or evidentiary-type hearings, but will be conducted in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553 and Section 336(a)(1) ofthe Act. Each day. a1 the conclusion ofall initial oral stalments. each person who hasmade an oral statementwill be given the opportunity to make'a rebuttal
statement. subject to time limitations. The rebuttal statements will be given in the order in which the initial statements

were made. The official conducting the hearingwill accept additional comments

or questions from those attending, as time permits, Any interested person may submit to the presiding official written questions to be asked ofany person making a statement at the hearing. The presiding official will determine whether the question is relevant and whether time limitations pennit it to be presented for answer.

Any 

### further procedural rules regarding
proper conduct ofthe hearing will be announced by the presiding official.

4. Consolidation ofHearings. DOE mayconsolidate any orall of the public hearings ifDOE does not receive sufficient interest concerning a particular hearing. In that event, DOE will contact each speaker and provide that person the opportunity to present testimony at any ofthe otherhearings. However, DOE will not provide transportation orlodging for such speakers to appear at a hearing. DOE will include for the record at one of the otherhearings a copy ofthe statement

### 32976 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

of any person who requested to speak.at

a hearing that was cancelled by DOE.

Oral views, data and arguments may be presented at any ofthe public hearings. The length ofeach

• presentation is limited to 20 minutes.

The hearings will begin at 9 a.m., and 

### will be held at the following locations:



### PublicHearing, New York. New York. A public hearing will be held in New York City on October 2. 1984; requests to speak must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m., September 18, 1984; speakers will be notified by 4 p.m

.. September20. 1984:
ten copies ofeach speaker's statement

are requested: however, at least one copy must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m., September28. 1984.

Public Hearing: New York. New York. Jacob }avits Federal Building. 26 Federal Plaza. Room 305B New York. NY 10278.



### PublicHearing, Chicago, IlJinois. A public hearing will be held in Chicago. Illinois. on October4, 1984: requests to speak must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m.• September 18. 1984: speakers will be notified by4 p.m., September 20. 1984;
ten copies ofeach speaker's statement

are requested: however. at least one copy must be received by the Department no later than 4p.m.• September 28. 1984.

Public Hearing: Chicago. Illinois, Everett Dirkson Federal Building, 219 South Dearborn Street. Room 1221•. Chicago. IL 60504.



### PublicHearing, Atlanta. Georgia. A

. public hearing will be held in Atlanta.

Georgia. on October 10. 1984; requests to speak must be received by the Department no later than4 p.m

.. September 18. 1984: speakers will be notified by4 p.m

.. September 20. 1984;
ten copies ofeach speaker's statement

are requested; however. at least one copy must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m

.. October 5. 1984.

Public Hearing: Atlanta. Georgia. Richard Russell Federal Building. 75 Spr:ing Street. SW. Room 1478. Atlanta. GA 30303.



### PublicHearing. Dallas. Texas. A public hearing will be held in Dallas. Texas on October 12. 1984; requests to speak must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m.• September 18. 1984; speakers will be notified by 4 p.m.• September20. 1984:
ten copies ofeach speaker's statement

are requested: however. at least one copy must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m

.. October 5. 1984. Public Hearing: Dallas, Texas. Earl Cabel Federal Building, 1100 Commerce Street. Room 5C44. Dallas. TX 75242.



### PublicHearing. San Francisco. California. A public hearing will be held in San Francisco. California. on October 15. 1984; requests to speak must be received by the Department no later than 4 p.m.• September 18, 1984; speakers will benotified by 4 p.m.• September20. 1984; ten copies ofeach speaker's statement arerequested; however. at least one copy must be received by the Department no later than 4p.m.• October5. 1984.

Public Hearing: San Francisco. California. Tishman Building. 525 Market Street, Room 2720. San Francisco. CA 94105.



### PublicHearing. Washington. D.C. A public hearing will be held in Washington. D.C.• on October 18.1984; requests to speak must be received by the Department no later than4 p.m•• October 11. 1984; speakers will be notified by4p.m.• October 12, 1984; ten capies ofeach speaker's statement requested: however. at least one copy must be received by the Departmentno later than 4p.m.. October 16. 1984.

Public Hearing: Washington. D.C.• FOTrestal Building, Room 1E-245, 1000 Iridependence Avenue. SW. Wasbington. DC 20585.

List ofSubjects in 10 CFR Part430

Administrative practice and procedure. Energy conservation. Household appliances.

Authority: Sec. 323. Pub. 1.. 94-163. 89 Stat. 917. as amended byPub. 1.. 95-619. 92 Stat. 3266 (42 U.S.c. 6293).

In consideration ofthe foregoing. itis proposed to amend Part430 ofChapter II ofTitle 10. Code ofFederal Regulations. as set forth below.

Issued inWashington, D.C., August 8. 1984.
Pat Collins. ActingAssistantSecretary. Conservation and RenewableEnergy.

PART 43O-ENERGY CONSERVATION PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS

Section430.33 is amended by adding

new paragraphs (a)(6), (cl, (d). (e), (I). (g). and (h) to read as follows:

§ 430.33 Preemptlon of Slate regulatlons.

(a) Kitchen Ranges and Ovens:


## • (6) Rhode Island State Building Code. revised as ofJuly 1. 1983. Section 702. pertaining to gas kitchen ranges and ovens that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(c) Refrigerators Rnd rp.friRerator· freezars:

(1) Title 20. California Administrative Code. Section 1604(a). pertaining to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are covered products. is exempt from preemption

..

(2) New York StateEnergy Law. Section 16-110. pertaining to refrigerators and refrigerator-freezers that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(d) Freezers: (1) Title 20, California Administrative Code. Section 1604(a), pertaining to freezers that are covered products. is

.exempt from preemption. (2) New York State Energy Law, section 16-110. pertaining to freezers that are coveredproducts. is**~xempt** from preemption.

(e) WaterHeaters: (1) Arkansas Act 255 of1979 which prescribed Rules and Regulations for Energy Efficiency Standards for New Building Construction section 504.2, pertaining to waterheaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(2) The Stateregulation that enacted the 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. section P-1506.3.5. pertaining to waterheaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(3) The 1982 Florida ModelEnergy Efficiency Code for Building' Construction. section 504.2(a). 903.2(a} and H903.2. pertaining to waterheaters that are coveredproducts. are exempt from preemption. Additionally. the 1984 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction. sections 504.2(a) and903.2(a), pertaining to water heaters that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(4)16 Pa. Code. section 30.32(4) and 34 Pa. Code. section 38.3 pertaining to water heaters that are covered products.

are exempt from preemption.

(5) Sections 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code adopted by section 6-10-10. 

### etseq., Code ofLaws ofSouth Carolina. 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.). pertaining to water heaters that are covered products, are exempt from preemption.

(6) Section 504.2(aJ of the 1977 Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction adopted by section 5301 ofChapter 53 of the 1979 Unifol'IJl Building Code adopted by New Mexico's Construction Industries Committee on April 8. 1980, pertaining to

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 

### 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32977

water heaters that are coveM!d products is exempt from preemption.

(7) The Slate regulation that enacted section 504.2(a) of the Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings, 1981 Edition. O.C.G.A. section 8-2-20. 

### etseq., pertaining to water heaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(8) Sections 504.2(a)(1) and (2) and 604.1(a) of the Rhode Island State Building Code. prescribed July 1. 1983. by the State Building Code Standards Committee, pertaining to water heaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

.

(9) New Hampshire State Regulation RSA 155:D. which adopts section 504.2(8)(lJ and (2) of the New Hampshire Energy Code. pertaining to waler heaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(10) The Slate regulation filed by the Stare Bt!i!ding Code Commission on December 1::!. 1980 which enacted Article 17. Massachusetts State Building Code. section 2.14.8(a). pertaining to
water heaters thaI are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(llJTitle 20. California Administrative Code. section 1604(e). and Part 2. Title 24. California Administrative Code, section 2-5307 (a). pertaining to water heaters that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(12J Oregon Laws 1979. Chaptp.f 197 (June 4, 1979). Oregon Administrative Rules, section 814-21-135 pertaining to
water heaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(13) New York Slate Energy Law. section 16-108 and Title 9. Official Compilation of New York Codes. Rules and Reg'Jlalions. section 7813.33. pertaining to water heaters that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(14) The building codes of !he following localities in Missquri, pertaining to water heaters that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(i) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (year adopted in parentheses)
Arnold (1980) B

..Hwin (1981) Berkley (1981) Boonville (1978) Breckenridge Hill Village (1979) Brentwood (19801 Brookfield (1979) Butler {19731 Clayton (1981) Clinton (1975) Columbid (1975J Crestwood (1980) Creve Coear (1980J Dellwood (1980J Des Peres (1980J Ellisville (1979) Festus (1976) Florissant {1980J Fulton (1978) Glendale (1980) Hazelwood (19i5) Kennell (1979J Kirkwood {1981J Manchester (1980J Marshall (1980) Maryville (1971:lJ Mexico {1978} Ferguson (pending) Malden (unknown) Pacific (updating) Moberly (1980) Normandy (1978) Northwoods (1976) Olivette (1980) Overland (1981) Pagedale (1980) Perryville (1982) Pinelawn (1978) Richmond Heights (19801 Rock Hill [1900) Rolla (1981) Springfield (1979) SI Clair [1971) SI. John (19i5) SI. Joseph (1980) St. Louis (1980) St. Louis County

Unincorporated (19801 Incorporated (1980) St. Peters (1982) Shrewsberry (1981) Sullivan (1980) Town and Country (1980) University City (198l) Webst.1r Groves (1980) Wellston (1980) Wentzville (updating)

. Plattesburg (unknown) St. Charles (pending)

(ii) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (year adopted in parentheses)

Aurora (1977) Eldon (,i980)**Excel~ior** Springs (1981) Grandview (1979) NQrth Kansas City (pendingJ Raytown (pending)

(iii) American Society of Heating. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAEJ Standard 90-75 (year adopted in parentheses)
Black Jal:k (1979)

(Iv) Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCC) Standard Building Code (year adopted in parentheses)
Webb City (1981) • West Plains (1978)

Iv} Other
Lee's Summit (1981)

(1S) The building codes of the follOWing localities in Texas. pertaining

to waterheaters that are covered products. are exempt from preemption: (i) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in
parentheseR)

Austin (1982. ;d

.. Ord. 831110A)

. Clebum (1982 Ed., Ord. 3-1984-10) Dimmitt (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 405) Edgecliff (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 183) Everman (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 277) Ganado (1979) Garland (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 2810) McKinney (1979 Ed., Ord. 1083) North Ric;hland Hills (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 875) Pilot Point (1979 Ed., Ord. 254) University Park (198:! Ed

.. Ord, 

### 83--9J West Lake Hills (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 56-1)

(ii) Southern Building Code COllgress International (SBCC) Standard Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses)

Andrews (1978 Ed.) Balcon!!s Heights (1979 Ed

.. Ord,**~1)** -Brownfield (1971:l Ed., Ord. 1576)

Brownwood (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 8O-3GJ**~CJute** (1979 Ed., Ord. 82-17) College Stalion {l982 Ed

.. Ord. 139tiJ 'El Paso !1982 Ed

.. Ord. 6340} Greenville (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 3008) Hariingen [1982 Ed

.. Ord. 84-23) Ingleside (198:! Ed.• Ord. 356) 'jacksonville (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 505) Jourdanton (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 158) laGrange (1982 Ed.) Laredo (1979 Ed.) 'Levelland (1982 Ed.• Ord. 647) Live Oak (1982 Ed

.. Ord.419) Longview (1l:182 Ed.• Ord. 1575) Luling [1977 Ed.) Midland (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 6293) .Midlothian {1976 Ed.} New Braunfels (1979 Ed.• Ord. 8125) Orange (1979 Ed.• Ord. 1980-46) Port Isabel (1982 Ed.: Ord. 408) Richardson (1979 Ed

.. Ord. Z280A) 'Rosenberg (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 87-2) Round Rock (1982 Ed.• Ord. 2024)**c1~usk** {1980J San Benito (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 981) 'San Saba (1979J Schertz (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 64-C-S] Snyder (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 485) Sonora (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 259) 'Temple {1979 Ed

.. Ord. 1295J Texarkana (1982 Ed

.. Ord.294-82) Victoria [1979 Ed., Ord. 83-10) Wharton (1982 Ed., Ord. 1982-18)

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses)

Pasadena (1978 Ed

.. Ord. 78-126J

(161 Section E-S03.1 of the Building Officials and Code Administrations International CBOCA) Basic Building Code of 1981 as adopted with amendments by section 14A:3-4.4 of New Jersey Administrative Code. as readopted on July 11. 1983. pertaining to

### 32978 

### Federal Register / Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday, August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

water heaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(17) Administrative Rules and Regulations ofthe Illinois Department of Public Health Article I. Rule 1.12. and the building codes of the following localities in Illinois. pertaining to water heaters that are covered products, are exempt from preemption:

.

(iJ Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA). Basic Building Code (1978). Article 20: Barrington ViIla>'!e Buffalo Grove Village Garpentersville Village Crystal Lake City Fariview Heights City Fox River Grove Village Galesbury City Glen Carbon Village Glencoe Village Grayslake Village Gurnee Village Harvey City Hickory Hills Ciry Hun Village Jacksonville City laGrangeVillage Lake Barrington Village Lake in the Hills Machesney Village Madison City Montgomery Village Niles Village Northbrook Village O'Fallon City Orland Park Village Oswego Village Palos Heights City Parks City Peotone Village Richton Park Village River Forest Village Rochelle Village Shorewood Village South Barrington Village Sterling City Stickney City Sycamore City Western Springs Village

(ii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (1978-Modified):

Hillside Village Ubertyville Village Marion City Springfield City

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (1981). Article 25:
Acton Cityu Bellwood Village Belnit City Belvider Village Bethalto Village Bloomington City Bolingbrook Village Carol Stream Village Country Club Hills City Countryside City Darien City Decatur City Deerfield Village DeKalb City Dixon City Downers Crove Village Effingham Village Elk Grove Village Evanston City Flora City Fox Lake Village Franklin Park Village Glen Carbon Village GolfVillage Grayslake Village Hanover Park Village

, '. Harvard Village Hazel Crest Village Hebron Village Hoffman Estates Village Hooperston City Kankakee City Lake County Matteson Village Montgomery Village Monticello City Murphysboro City North Aurora Village OakLawn Village Palos Park Village Pekin City Rock Falls City Roselle Village SchUlerVillage Skokie Village South Elgin Village South Roxana Village Spring Grove Village Vernon Hills Village Waukegan City West Chicago Village Westchester Village Westhaven Village Wheaton City Wheeling Village Wood Dale City Woodstock City

(iv) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (1981-Modified), Article 25: Code:

Benton City Champaign City Morris City, Jerseyville City Woodbridge Village

(v) International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform Building Code:
Canton City Carthage City Genesco City Mound City Pembroke Village Rock Island County

(vi) American Society ofHeating. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 9(l-!75
Carbondale City Springfield City

(vii) National Building Code: Camp Point Carbondale City Glen Ellyn Village Grand Ridge Village MI. Sterling City North Riverside VHlage Riverdale Village

(viii) Other
Oakwood Hills Vulage

(18) The State regulation which enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code. sections 504.2.1.1 and 504.2.1.2. pertaining to waterheaters that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(19) Iowa Administrative Code. section 680-16.800(3) which enacted sections 504.2.1.1. 504.2.1.2 and 604.1.1 of the 1983 Model Energy Code. pertaining

to water heaters that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(20) West Virginia Code section 5-4-2 which enacted the 1981 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines. pertaining to water healers ilia! are covered products. is exemptfrom preemption.

(2l) Minnesota Slat 116}.19. Subd. 8., pertaining to water heaters that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(22) Washington Energy Code. section 42O(a), enacted by section 51-12, Washington Administrative Code, pertaining to water heaters that are covered produds. is exempt from preemption.

(23) The local regulations of the City

. and County ofHonolulu. Hawaii County

and Kauai County which enacted Article Eight. section 16-8.08(e} of the Uniform Building Code.pertaining to water heaters that are covered products, are exemptfrom preemption.

(24) The State reguiation which enacted 

### the Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction. sections 504.2(a) and 604.1(a), pertaining to water heaters that

are covered products. are exemptfrom preemption.

(f) Room Air Conditioners: (ll Arkansas Act 255 of 1979 which prescribed Rules and Regulations for Energy Efficiency Standards for New Building Construction. section 503.4. pertaining to room air conditioners that

are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(2) The State regulation that enacted the 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, section M-1303.2. pertaining to room 

### air conditioners that

are coveredproducts. is exempt from preemption.

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction. sections 503.4(e). 90l.(el. 903.B(e) and H903.8. pertaining to roomFederal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 / Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 

### 3:!979

air conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption. Additionally. the 1984 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Cons'ruction. sections 503.4(e}. 903.8(e) and I002.0(bJ. pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products.

are exempt from preemption.

(4] 34 Pa. Code. section 38.3. pertaining to room air conditioners that

are covered products. is exemptfrom preemption.

(5) Wisconsin Administrative Code:' lnd 22.12 and 63.20. pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products. are exemptJrom preemption.

(6) Section 503.4(e) ofthe 19"Code

fOf Energy Conservation in New Building Cor:.struction adopted by section 5301. ofChapter 53 ofthe 1979 Uniform Building Code adopted by New Mexico's Construction Industries Committee on April 8. 1980. pertaining to

room airconditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(7) The Stateregulation that enacted section 503.4(eJ ofthe Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings. 1981 Edition. section 8-2-20. 

### et seq

.. pertaining to

room airconditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(8) Sections S03A(e) and 603.2(a} of the Rhode Island State Building Code. prescribed July 1. 1983. pertaining to

room airconditioners that are covered products. by the State Building Code Standards Committee. are exempt from preemption.

(9) New Hampshire State Regulation RSA 155:0. which adopts section S03A(e) ofthe New Hampshire Energy Code, pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(10) The State regulation filed by the Slate Building Code Commission on May 1. 1979 which enacted Massachusetts StateBuilding Code. section 2010.6.3. pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(11) Title 20. California Administrative Code. section 1804(b) and Part 2. Title 24. California Administrative Code. section 5306(aJ pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products.

are exempt from preemption.

(12) State ofOregon. 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Regulations. section 5304(b) 2. pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(13J New York StateEnergy Law. section 18-118. pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(14) The building codes ofthe following localities in Missouri, pertaining to room air conditioners that

are covered products. are exempt from preemption:

(i) Building Officials and Code Administrators Code International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (year adopted in parentheses)

Arnold (1980) Ballwin (1981) Berkley (1978j Boonville (1981) Breckenridge Hill Village (1979) Brentwood (1980) Brookfield (1979) Butler (1983) Clayton {1981} ClinloR (1975) Columbia (1975) Crestwood (1980) Creve Coeur (1980) Dellwood (1980) Des Peres (1980) Ellsville (1978) Festus (1976) Florissant (1980) Fulton (1978) Glendale (19801 Hazelwood (1975) KeMett (1979) Kirkwood (1981) Manchester (1980) Marshal! (1980) Maryville (1979) Ferguson [pending) Malden (unknown) Pacific (updating) Mexico (1978) Moberly (1980) Normandy [1978) Northwoods (1976) Olivette (1980) Overland (1981) Pagedale (1981) Perryville (1982) Pine Lawn (1978) Richmond Heights (1980) Rockhill (1980J Rolla (1980) Springfield (1979) SI. Clair (1971) SI. John (1975) SI. Joseph (1980) SI. Louis (1980)

Unincorporated (1980) Incorporated (1980) SI. Peters (1982) Shrewsberry (1981) Sulllv8n (1980) Town and Country (1980) University City (1981) Webster Grove (1980) Wellston (1980) Plattesburg (unknown) St. Chlarles (pending) Wentzville (updating)

(ii) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (year adopted in parentheses)

Aurora (1977) Eldon (1980) Excelsior Springs (1981) Grandview (1979) North Kansas City (pendingl RilylOWn (pending)
[iii) American Society oCHealing. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 (year adopted in parentheses)

Black lack (1979)

(iv) Southern Building Code Congrpss International Code (SaCC) Standard Building Code (year adopted in parentheses)

Webb City (1961) West Plains (1978)

(v) Other

Lae's Summit (1981)

(15) The building codes ofthe roHowing localities Texas. pertaining to

room air conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption:

(i) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses)

Austin (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 831110A) Cleburen [1982 Ed

.. Ord. 3-1984-10) 'Dimmitt (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 405)

. Edgl'cliff(1982**Ed~** Ord. l63) -Everman (1982 Ed., Ord. 277)

Ganado (1979) -Garland [1982 Ed.• Ord. 2810} 'McKinney (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 1083) 'North Richland Hills (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 875) Pilot Point (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 254) 'University Pltrk (1982 Ed.• Ord. 63-9) West**Lak~** Hills (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 5&-1)

(ii) Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCC) Standard Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses)

Andrews (1978 Ed.) Balcones Heights (1979 Ed

.. Ord.4-81.) --arownne!d (1979 Ed.• Ord. 1576) ._Brol'."Tlwood (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 80-36)

Clute (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 62-17) College Station (1982 Ed.• Ord. 1398) 

### El Paso (1982**Ed~** Ord. 6340)

. Greenville (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 30(8)

Harlingen (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 84-23) Ingleside (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 356) 'Jacksonville (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 505) Jourdanton (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 158) LaGrange (1982 Ed.)

.Laredo (1979 Ed.) Levelland (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 647) Live Oak (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 419) 'Longview (1982 Ed.• Ord. 1576) Luiing (1977 Ed.) Midland (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 6.."93) Midlothian (1976 Ed.) New Braunfels (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 8125) Orange (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 1980-46) Port Isabel (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 408) Richardson (1979 Ed.• Ord. 2280A) Rosenberg (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 67-2) Round Rock (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 2024) Rusk (1980) San Benito (1982 Ed.• Ord. 9811 San Saba (1979)

.

### 32980 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49, No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

Schertz (1982Ed., Ord. 84-C-8) Snyder (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 485) Sonora (1982 Ed

.. Ord.259) Temole (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 1295) Texarkana (1982 Ed

..

### art!. 294-aZ) Victoria (1979 Ed.. Ord. 83-10) Wharton (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 1982-18)

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses)
Pasadena (1978 Ed

.. Ord. 78-126)

(16( Section E-402.1.1 

# otthe Buildh'g Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code of1961 as adopted with amendments by section 14:3-4.4. New Jersey Administrative Code, as readopted on July 11. 1983. pertaining to

room airconditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(17) Administrative Rules and Regulations ofthe Illinois Department of Public Health, Article I. Rule 1.1.2, and the building codes ofthe following localities in Illinois, pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products, are exempt from preemption:

(iJ Buildings Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (1978), Article 20 and Basic Mechanical Code (1978), Article 3: Carpentersville Village Crystal Lake City Fairview Heights City Glen Carbon Vnlage Gurnee Village Machesney Village**~adison** City River Forest Village Rochelle Village Shorewood Village South Barrington Village

(ii) Building Officials and Code

- Administrators Intemalional (BOCA) Basic Building Code (19Bl), Article 25 and Basic Mechanical Code (1981). Article 13:
Bellwood Village Belvidere Village Bloomington City Country Club Hills City DeKalb City Effingham Village Elk Grova Village Evanston City Flora City Hazel Crest Village Murphysboro City Waukegan City Westhaven Village

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (l961-Modifled). Article 25 and Basic Mechanical Code (1981-Modifiedj. Article 13: Woodbridge Village (iv) American SOCiety ofHeating. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75
Carbondale City

(v) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform BUilding Code
Clinton City Carthage City Mound City Mt. Sterling City Pembroke Village

(18) The State regulation which enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code. section 503.4.5, pertaining to room airconditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(19) Iowa Administrative Code, Section 680-16.800(3) which enacted sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 and Tables No. 5-6 and 6-6 ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code, pertaining to room air conditioners that are coveredproducts.

are exempt from preemption.

(20) West Virginia Code section 5-4-2 which enacted the 1961 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines, pertaining to room air conditioners that

are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(21) Minnesota Slat. 116j.1S. Sub. B. and 13. pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products.

are exempt from preemption.

(22) Washington Energy Code, sections411(e) and 602(aJ. enacted by section 51-12. Washington Administrative Code, pertaining to foom air conditioners that are covered products, are exempt from preemption.

(23) The local regulations ofthe City and County ofHonolulu and Hawaii, Hawaii County. and Kauai, County which enacted Article Eight, section 16- 8.04(b)(1) ofthe Uniform Building Code. pertaining to room airconditioners that

are covered products, are exempt from preemption.

(24) The State regulation which enacted the Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction. sections 503.4[e) and 603.2(a), pertaining to room air conditioners that are covered products,

are exempt from preemption.

(g) Central AirConditioners: (1) Arkansas Act 255 of1979 which prescribed Rules and Regulations for Energy Efficiency Standardsfor New Building Construction. section 503.4. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(2) The State regulation that enacted the 1981 Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code, section M-1303.2. pertaining to central airconditioners that are covered product!!. is exempt from preemption.

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy Code for Building Construction. sections 503.4(e). 901.1(e), 903.8(e) and H903.8. pertaining to central Bir conditioners that are covered products, Bre exempt from preemption. Additionally. the 1984 Florida Model Energy EffiCiency Code for Building Construction. sections 503.4(e).903.B(e) and 1oo2.0Ib), pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(4) 34 Pa. Code. section 38.3, pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(5) Wisconsin Administrative Code: lnd 22.12 and 63.20, pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products, are exempt from preemption.

(6) Sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 of the 1983 Model Energy Code adopted 

### by section 6-10-10, 

### et. seq.• Code of Laws ofSouth Carolina, 1976 (1982. Cum. Supp.), pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products.

are exemptfrom preemption.

(7) Section 503.4(e) ofthe 1977 Code for Energy Conservation in New Building construction adopted by section 5301 ofChapter 53 ofthe 1979 Uniform Building Code adopted by New Mexico's Construction Industries Committee on April 8, 1980. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(B) The Stale regulation that enacted section 503.4(e) ofthe Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings. 1981 Edition. O.C.G.A.. section 8-2-20, 

### etseq., pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(9) Sections 503.4(e) and 603.2(aj'of the Rhode Island State Energy Code, prescribed July 1. 1983, by the State Building Code Standards Committee. pertaining to central airconditioners that are covered products, are exempt from preemption.

(1) New Hampshire State Reguiation RSA 155:0. which adoptes section 503.4(e) ofthe New Hampshire Energy Code, pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(11) The state regulation filed by the State BUilding Code Commission on May 1. 1979 which enacted Massachusetts Slate Building Code. section 2010.6.3. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products, is exempt from preemption.

(12) Title 20. California Administrative Code. section 1604(c). and Part 2, Title 24 California Administrative Code. /

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. '-49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17, 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32981

section 2-5306(a} pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. are exempt frompreemption.

(13) State of Oregon. 1983 Edition Structural Specialty Code and Fire and Life Safety Regulations. section 5304(b)(2), pertaining to central air conditioners that are coveredproducts, is exempt from preemption.

(141 New York State Energy Law, section 16-118, including provisions in that section applicable after September 1. 1984. pertaining to central air conditioners that are coverdproducts. is exempt from preemption.

(15) The building codes ofthe following localities in Missouri. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products, are exempt from preemption:

(i) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (yearadopted in
parentheses)

Arnold (1980) Ballwin (1981) Berkley (1978J Boonvilre (1978) Breckenridge Hill Village (1979l Brentwood (1980) Brookfield (1979) Butler (1973) Butler (1973)

.Clayton (1975) Clinton {1975} Columbia (1975) Crestwood (1980) CreveCoeur (1980) Dellwood (1980J Des Peres (1980) Ellisville (1978J Festus (1976) Florissant (1980) Fulton (1978) Glendale (1980) Hazelwood (1975) Kennett (1979) Incorporated (1980J St. Peters (1982J Shrewsberry (1981) Sullivan (1980) Town and Country (1980} University City (1981) Webster Groves (1980) Wellston (1980J Plattesburg (unknown) SI. Charles) (pending) Wentzville (updating)

(ii) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code (year adopted in parenthesese)

Aurora (1m) Eldon (1980) Excelsior Springs (1981) Grandview (1979J North Kansas City (pendingJ Raytown (pending)

(iii) American Society ofHeating, Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard90-75 (year adopted in parentheses)

Black Jack (1979)

(iv] Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCC) StandardBuilding Code (year adopted in parentbeses.)

Webb City (1981) West Plains (1978)

(v) Other

Lee's Summit (1981)

(16) The building codes ofthe following localities inTexas, pertaining
to central air conditioners that are coveredproducts. are exempt from preemption:

(i) International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses)

Austin (1982 Ed.• Ord. 831110A) Kirkwood (1981) Manchester (1980) Marshall (1980) Maryville (1979) Mexico (1978) Ferguson (updating) _ .Cleburne (1982 Ed.. Ord. 3-1984-10) Dimmit (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 405) Edgecliff(1982 

### Ed.. Ord. 163) Everman (1982 Ed., Ord. 277J Ganado (1979)
Malden {unknown} Pacific (updating) Moberly (1980) Normandy (1978) Northwoods (1976) Olivette (1980) Overland (1981J Pagedale (1980) Perryville (1982) Pine Lawn (1978J Richmond Heights (1980) Rock Hill (1980) Rolla (1981) Springfield (1979) 51. Clair (1971) Sl. John (1975) St. Joseph (1980) St. Louis (1980) St. Louis County

Unincorporated (1980) Garland (1982 Ed.. Ord. 2810) McKinney (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 1(83) North Richland Hills {l982 Ed.• Ord. 875} Pilot Point (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 254) University Park (1982 Ed.• Ord. 83-9) West Lake Hills (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 5tH)

(Ii) SouthernBuilding Code Congress International (SBCC) Standard Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parenthesis]

Andrews (1978 Eli) Belcones Height. (1979 Ed.. Ord. 4-81) Brownfield (1979 Ed•• Ord. 1576) Brownwood (1979. Ed•• Ord. 8O-36J Clute (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 82-17) College Station (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 1398) E1 Paso (1982**Ed~** Ord. 6340) Greenville (1982 Ed.• Ord. 3008) Harlingen (1982 Eli. Ord. &4-23) Ingleside (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 356) Jacksonville (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 505) Jourdanton (1979 Ed.• Ord. t58) laGrange (1982 Ed.) Laredo (1979 Ed.) Levelland {1982 Ed.• Ort. 647} Live Oak (1982 Ed.• Ord. 419) Longview (1982 Ed.• Ord. 1576) Luling (1m Ed.) Midland (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 6293) Midlothian (1976 Ed.) New Braunfels (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 8125J Orange (1979 Ed.• Ord. 1960-46) Port Isabel (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 408) Richardson {1979 Ed.• Ord. 2280AJ Rosenberg (1982 Ed.• Ord. 67-2) Round Rock (1982 Ed.• Ord. 2(24) Rusk [1980) San Benito (1982 Ed.• Ord. 981) San Saba (1979) Schenz (1982 Ed.• Ord. 84-G-8) Snyder (1982 Ed.• Ord. 485) Sonora (1982 Ed.• Ord. 259) Temple (1982 Ed.• Ord. 1295) Texarkana (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 294-82) Victoria (1979 Ed.• Ord. 83-10) Wharton (1982 Eli. Ord. 1982-18)

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators Insternational (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentbeses)

Pasadena (1978 Ed., Ord. 78-126)

(17) Section£.-402.1.1 ofthe Building Officials and Code Administrators

. International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code of1981 a8 adopted with amendments by section 14:3-4.4, New JerseyAdministrative Code. as readopted on July 11. 1983. and tbe Tariffofthe NewJersey Board ofPublic Utilities in Docket No. 8111-1009, pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. are exempt. from preemption.

(18) Administrative Rules and Regulations oftbe Illinois Department of Public Health. Article I. Rule 1.12. and the building codes ofthe following localities in Illinois, pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered' products, are exempt from preemption:

[i) Building Officials and Code AdministratorInternational (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (1978): Article ZO and BasicMechanical Code (1978). Article 3 Barrington Village Buffalo Grove Village Carpentersville Village Crystal Lake City Fairview Heights City FoxRiver Grove Village Galesburg City Glen Carbon Village Clencoe Village Grayslake Village Gurnee Village Harvey City Hickory Hills City

### 32982 Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

Hun Village Jacksonville City laGrange Village Lake Barrington Village Lake Holiday Property Owners Assor.iation. Inc. Lake in the Hills Machesney Village Madison Cily Niles Village Northbrook Village O'Fallon City Orland Park Village Oswego Village Palos Heights City Park City City Peotone Village Richton Park Village River Forest Village Rochelle Village Shorewood Village South Barrington Village Sterling City Stickney Village Sycamore City Western Springs Village

(ii) Building Officials and t:ode Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (1978-Modified). Article 20 and BasicMechanical Code (1978-Modified). Article 3
Hillside Village Ubertyville Village Marion City Springfield City.

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA). Basic Building Code (1981). Article 25 and BasicMechanical Code (1981). Article 13
Acton City

.Bellwood Village Belnit City Belvidere Village Bethalto Village Bloomington City Bolingbrook Village Carol Stream Village Country Club Hills City Countryside City Darien City DecaturCity Deerfield Village DeKalbCity Dixon City Downers Grove Village Effingham Village Elk Grove Village Evanston City Flora City Fox Lake Village Franklin Park Village Glen Carbon Village GolfVillage Graysliike Village Hanover Park Village Harvard Village Hazel Crest Village Hebron Village Hoffman Estates Village Hoopeston City Kankakee City Lake County Matteson Village Montgomery Village Monticello City Murphysboro City North Aurora Village Oak Lawn Village Palos Park Village Pekin City Rock Falls ClIy Roselle Village Schiller Park Village Skokie Village South Elgin Village South Roxana Village Spring Grove Village Vernon Hills Village Waukegan City West Chicago City Westchester Village Westhaven Village Wheaton City Wheeling Village WGod Dale City Woodatock City '} '.

(iv) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (1981-Modified). Article 25 and BasicMechanical Code (1981-Modified). Article 13

Benton City Champaign City Morris City Jerseyville City

- Woodbridge Village
(v) American SOCiety ofHeating. Refrigerating and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75
Carbondale City Springfield City

(vi) International Conference of Building Officials (ICBO) Uniform Building Code
Canton City Carthage City Genesco City Mound City Pembroke Village Rock Island County

(vii) National Building Code
Carbondale City Camp Point Glen Ellyn Village Grand Ridge Village Mt. Sterling City North Riverside Village Riverdale Village

(viii) Other
Oakwood Hills Village

(19) The State regulation which enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code. section 503.4.5. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. is exemptfrom preemption.

(20) Iowa Administrative Code. section 680-16.800(3). which enacted sections 503.4.5 and 603.2.1 and Tables No. 5-6 and 6-6 ofthe 1983 Model Energy Code. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products.

are exempt from preemption.

(21) West Virginia Code section 5-4-2 which enacted the 1981 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(22) Minnesota Stat. 116J.19 Subd. 8. pertaining to central air**conditione~** that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(23) Washington Energy Code. sections 411(e) and 602(a). enacted by section 51-12. Washington Administrative Code. pertaining to central airconditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(24) The Orders in Kansas Corporation Commission Docket No. 110.776-U. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(25) The local regulations ofthe City and County ofHonolulu. Hawaii County. and Kauai County which adopt Article Eight. section 16-8.04(b)(5) of the Uniform Building Code. pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(26) The State regulation which enacted the Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction. sections 503.4(e) and 603.2(a). pertaining to central air conditioners that are covered products.

are exempt from preemption.

(h) Furnaces: (1) Arkansas Act 255 of 1979 which prescribedRules and Regulations fox: EnergyEfficiency Standards for New Building Construction. section 503.4. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. is eXEWnpt from preemption.

(2) The State reg'llation that enacted the 1981 Virginia Uniform. Statewide Building Code. section M-1303.6. pertainingto furnaces that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(3) The 1982 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building

. Construction. sections 503.4(c). 903.8(c). and H903.8. pertaining to furnaces that

are covered products. are exempt from preemption. Additionally. the 1984 Florida Model Energy Efficiency Code for Building Construction. sections 503.4(eJ and 903.8(c). pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(4) 16 Pa. Code. section 30.32(6). pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(5) Wisconsin Statute 101.655 (1981) and Wisconsin Administrative Code: lnd Z2.12. 22.13. and 63.20 and Administrath'e Code PSC 136.04.

### Jo'ederal Register 

## I Vol. 49. 

### No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules 32983

pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. 

### are exempt from preemption.

(6) Sections 503.4.3 and 603.2.2 ofthe ModelEnergy Code adopted by section 6-10-10.. eL 

### seq .• Code ofLaws ofSouth Carolina. 1976(1982. Cum. Supp.). pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(1) Section 503.4(c) ofthe 1917 Code Cor Energy Conservation in New Building Construction adoptedby section 5301 of·Chapter53 ofthe 1979 Uniform Building Code adopted by New Mexico's Construction Industries Committeeon April 8. 1980. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. 

### is exempt from preemption.

(8) The State regulation that enacted section503.4(c) ofthe Georgia State Energy Code for Buildings. 1981 Edition. 

## a.c.G.A. Sec. 8-2-20.

### etseq

.. pertaining 

### to furnaces that are coveredproducts. 

### is exempt from preemption.

(9) Sections 503.4(c} and 603.2(b) of the Rhode IslandStateBuildingCode. prescribedJuly 1. 1983. by the State Building Code StandardsCommittee. pertaining to furnaces thatare covered products. are exemptfrom preemption.

(10) NewHampshire StateRegulation 

### RSA 155:D. which adopts section 503.4(c} ofthe New HampshireEnergy Codepertaining to furnaces that are coveredproducts, isexempt

### from preemption.

(11) The Stateregulation filed by the StateBuilding CodeCommission on May 1. 1979which enacted Massachusetts StateBuilding Code. section 2010.6.1. pertainingto furnaces that are covered.products, is exempt from preemption.

(12) Title 20. California Administrative Code section 1604(d). and 1605; 

### Part 2, Title 24, California Administrative Code, sections2-5306(c} and 2-5337; and California PublicResources Code. sections 25960 and 25964. pertainingto furnaces that are covered products. are exemptfrom preemption.

(13) State ofOregon. 1983 Edition. Structural Specialty Code andFire and Life SafetyRegulations. section 5304(b} 5. pertaining to furnaces that are coveredproducts. isexempt from preemption.

(14) New York StateEnergy Law. section 16-116. andTitle 9. Official Compilation ofNew York Codes. Rules and Reguiati9ns. section 7813..23. pertaining

### to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(15) ThebuiJding codes ofthe following localitiesin Missouri•. pertainingto furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption:

(i) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (yearadopted in parentheses)

Arnold {19801 Ballwin (1981) Berkley (1978} BoonviUe {1978l Breckenridge Hill Village (1979) Brentwood (1980) Brookfield (1979)

. Butler (1973) Clayton (1981J Clinton (1975) Columbia (1975) Crestwood (1980) Creve Coeur(19801 Dellwood (1980) Des Peres (1980) Ellisville (1978) Festus (1980) Floriaaanl (1980J Fulton {1978} Glendale (1980) Hazelwood (1975) Kennett (1981) Kirkwood (1981) Manchester(1980) Marshall (1980) Maryville (1979) Mexico (1978} Ferguson (pending) Malden (unknown) Pacific(updating) Moberly (1980) Normandy {1978} Northwoods (1976) Olivette [1980) Overland (1981) Pagedale (1980) Perryville (198%) PineLawn (1978) Richmond Heighta (198G) RockHill (1980) Rolla (19811 Springfield (1979) SL Clair (1971) St.John (1975) St. Joseph (1980) St. Louis (1980) SL Louis County

Unicorporated (1980) Incorporated (1980) SL Patera (198%) Shrewsberry (I98I) Sullivan (1980) Town and Country (1980) University City (1981J Webster Groves (1980) Wellston (1980) Plattesburs (unknown) Sl. Charles (pending) Wentzville (updating)

(ii] International Conference of Building 

### Officials (lCBO) Uniform Building Code (year adopted In parentheses)

Aurora (1977) Eldon (1980) ExcelsiorSprings (1981) Grandview (1979) North Kanll88 City (pending) Raytown (pending)

(iii) American SocietyofHeating. ReCrigeraq

### and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90-75 (year adopted inparentheses)

BlackJack (1979)

(iv) Southern Building Code Congress International (SBCC) Standard Building Cede (year adopted inparentheses)

Webb City (1981) West Plaine (l978)

(v) Other
Lee', Summit (1981)

(16)

### 'nIebuildingcodes ofthe following localities in Texas. pertaining
to furnaces that

### are covered products.

areexempt from preemptioD.

(i) International Conference of Building Officials (lCBO) Uniform Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinanceidentified in parentheses)

Austin {1982 Ed.. Ord. 831110A} Cleburne (198%**Ed~** Ord. 3-1984-10] Dimmitt (198% Ed.. Ord. 405) Edgecliff(1982Ed

.. Ord. 163) Evermen (198% Ed.. Orl!.277) Ganado (1979) Garland (198% Ed

.. Ord. 2810) McKinney [1979Ed.. Ord. 1(83) North Richland HIlla [1982Ed.. Ord. 815) Pilot Point {1979Ed.. Ord. 2M} UniversityPark (1982Ed.. Ord.83-9) WestLake Hills [198% Ed.• Ord.56-1}



### "eU) SouthernBuUding Code Cong:res8 International (saCC) Standard Building: Code (year adoptedinparenthesesI
A.ndrewa (1978

### EeL) BalconesHeighq (1979 Ed.. Ord. 4-31) Brownfield (1979

### EeL. Ord. 1576) Brownwood {1979

### EeL. Ord. 

### 8Q-,'38J Clute (1976 Ed.. Ord. 82-17] College Station (198% Ed" Ord. 1398) ElPaso (1982

### EeL. Ord. 63401 Greenville (198% Ed

.. Ord. 3008) Harlingen (1982 

### EeL. Ord. 84-23) Insleside (1982

### Ed.. Ord. 358) Jacksonville (1982Ed.• Ord. SOS) Jourdanton (1979 Ed.• Ord. 158) LeGrange {1982 Ed.} Laredo {1979Ed.} Levelland {198%Ed.. Ord. 647} Live Oak(1982Ed.. Ord.419) Longview (1982Ed« Ord. 1576) Luling (1917

### EeL) Midland (198% Ed

.. Ord. 6293) Midlothian (1976

### EeL) New Braunfels (1979Ed.• Ord' 8125) Orange (1979 Ed •• Ord. 1980-46) PortIsabel (1982Ed

.. Ord. 408) Richardson (1979Ed.. Ord. 2280A) Rosenberg (1982 Ed

.. Ord. 67-2) Round Rock (198% Ed

.. Ord. 2024) Rusk (1980) SanBenito (1982 Ed •• Ord. 981) SanSaba (1979) Schertz (1982 Ed.. Ord. 64-C-8) Snyder(1982 Ed

.. Ord. 485) Sonora (1982

### EeL. Ord..Z59) Temple (1979 Ed.• Ord.129S) Texarkana (1982

### EeL. Ord. 

### 294-821 Victoria (1979 Ed

.. Ord. 83-10) Wharton (198% Ed.. Ord. 1982-18)

### 32984 

### Federal Register 

## I Vol. 49. 

### No. 161 

## I Friday. August 17. 1984 

## I Proposed Rules

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (edition adopted and adopting ordinance identified in parentheses) Pasadena (1978 Ed •• Ord. 78-125) (17) SectionE-402.1.5 ofthe Building Officials and Code Administrators International Basic Code of 1981 as adopted with amendments by section 14:3-4.4. New Jersey Administrative**Co~e.** as readopted on July 11. 1983. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. is exemptfrom premption.

(18) Administrative Rules and Regulations of the Illinois Department of Public Health. Article 

### 1. Rule 1.12. and the building codes ofthe following localities in Illinois. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exemptfrom preemption:

(i) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic Building Code (1978). Article 20 and Basic Mechanical Code (1978). Article 3 Barrington Village Buffalo Grove Village Carpentersville Village Crystal Lake City Fairview Heights Gity Fox River Grove Village Galesburg City Glen Carbon Village Glencoe Village**Gra~'slake** Village Gurnee Village Harvey City Hickory Hills City Hun Village Jacksonville City LaC;:;rone Village Lake Barrington Village Lake Holiday Property Owners Association. Inc. Lake in the Hills Machesney Village Madison City Montgomery Village Niles Village Northbrook Village O'Falion City Orland Park Village Oswego Village Palos Heights City Park City City Peotone Village Richton Park Village River Forest Village Rochelle Village Shorewood Village South Barrington Village 'Sterling City Stickney Village Sycamore City Western Springs Village

(ii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA] Basic Building Code (1978-Modified). Article 20 and BasicMechanical Code (1978-Modified). Article 3

Hillside Village Libertyville Village Marion City Springfield City

(iii) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) BasicBuilding Code (1981). Article 25 and BasicMechanical Code (1981). Article 13

Acton City Bellwood Village Belnit City Belvidere Village Bethalto Village Bloomington City Bolingbrook Village Carol Stream Village County Club Hilla City Countryside City Darien City Decatur City Deerfield Village DeKalb City Dixon City Downers Grove Village Elk Grove Village Evanston City Fox Lake Village Franklin Park Village Glen Carbon Village GolfVillage Grayslake Village Hanover Park Village Harvard Village Hazel Crest Village Hebron Village Hoffman Estates Village Hoopeston City Kankakee City Lake County Matteson Village Montgomery Village Monticello City Murphysboro City North Aurora Village Oak Lawn Village Palos Park Village Pekin City Rock Falls City Roselle Village Schiller Park Village Skokie Village South Elgin Village South Roxana Village Spring Grove Village Vernon Hills Village Waukegan City West Chicago City Westchester Village Westhorn Village Wheaton City Wheeling Village Wooddale City Woodstock City

(iv) Building Officials and Code Administrators International (BOCA) Basic BuildingCode (1981.:.-Modified). Article 25 and Basic Mechanical Code (1981-Modified). Article 13
Benton City Champaign City Jerseyville City Morris City Woodbridge Village

(v) American Society ofHeating. Refrigflrllting. and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASIfRAE) Standard 90-75

Carbondale City Springfield.City

(viI International Conference on Building Officials (ICBO) Uniforn Building Code (1977) Canton City Carthage City Genesco City Mound City Pembroke Village Rock Island County

(vii) National Building Code Carbondale City Camp Pl;)int Glen Ellyn Village Grand Ridge Village Mt. Sterling City North Riverside Village Riverdale Village

(viii) Other
Oakville Hills Village

(19) The State regulation that enacted the 1983 Utah Model Energy Code. section 503.4.3. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(20) Iowa Administrative Code. section 680-16.800(3) which enacted sections 503.4.3 and 603..2.2 and Tables No. 5-5 and 6-4 of the 1983 Model Energy Code. pertaining to furnaces that

are coveted products. are exempt from preemption.

(21) West Virginia Code. section 5-4-2 which enacted the 1961 West Virginia Energy Cost Reduction Guidelines. pertaining tt;! furnaces that are covered products. is exempt from preemption.

(22) Minnesota Stat. 116}.19. Subd. 8. and Minnesota Stat. 1165.19. Subd. 14. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(23) Washington Energy Code. sections 411(c) and 602(a). enacted by section 51-12. Washington Administrative Code. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

(24) The local regulations of the City and County ofHonolulu. Hawaii County. and Kauai County which enacted Article Eight. section 16- 8.04(b)5 ofthe Uniform Building Code. and Chapter 196-5 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

. (Z5jThe State regulation that enacted the Tennessee Code for Energy Conservation in New Building Construction. sections 503.4(c) and 603.Z(b). pertaining to furnaces that are covered products. are exempt from preemption.

lFll Doc. 84-Z1864 Filed 8-1&-34, 8;

.. 5 .ml

IJIWNG CODE !l45IHH-I,t