Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37549 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part B was redesignated Part A. 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket Number EERE–2011–BT–STD– 

0011] 

RIN 1904–AC06 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Residential Furnaces and Residential 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including residential furnaces and 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps. EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (DOE) to 

determine whether more-stringent, 

amended standards for these products 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and would save 

a significant amount of energy. In this 

notice, DOE proposes energy 

conservation standards for residential 

furnaces and for residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps identical 

to those set forth in a direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. If DOE receives adverse 

comment and determines that such 

comment may provide a reasonable 

basis for withdrawing the direct final 

rule, DOE will publish a notice 

withdrawing the direct final rule and 

will proceed with this proposed rule. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding the proposed 

standards no later than October 17, 

2011. 

ADDRESSES: See section III, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for details. If DOE 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, DOE will hold a public 

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any public 

meeting in the Federal Register. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the proposed rule for Energy 

Conservation Standards for Residential 

Furnaces, Central Air Conditioners, and 

Heat Pumps, and provide the docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0011 

and/or regulatory information number 

(RIN) 1904–AC06. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: ResFurnaceAC-2011-Std0011@ee.doe.gov. Include Docket 

Numbers EERE–2008–BT–STD–0006 

and EE–2009–BT–STD–0022 and/or RIN 

number 1904–AC06 in the subject line 

of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

CD, in which case it is not necessary to 

include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

No telefacsimilies will be accepted. 

For detailed instructions on submitting 

comments and additional information 

on the rulemaking process, see section 

III of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

framework documents, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http:// 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket Web page can be 

found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#

!docketDetail;dct=FR+PR+

N+O+SR+PS;rpp=50;so=DESC;

sb=postedDate;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BTSTD-0011. The http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section III for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit or review public comments, or 

view hard copies of the docket in the 

Resource Room, contact Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by e-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan (furnaces) or Mr. 

Wesley Anderson (central air 

conditioners and heat pumps), U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892 or (202) 

586–7335. E-mail: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov or 

Wes.Anderson@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas or Ms. Jennifer 

Tiedeman, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of the General Counsel, GC–71, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–9507 or (202) 

287–6111. E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov 

or Jennifer.Tiedeman@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction and Authority 

II. Proposed Standards 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Residential Furnace, 

Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump 

Energy Efficiency 

2. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Residential Furnace, 

Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump 

Standby Mode and Off Mode Power 

3. Annualized Benefits and Costs of 

Proposed Standards for Residential 

Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and 

Heat Pump Energy Efficiency 

4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of 

Proposed Standards for Residential 

Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and 

Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Power 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Public Meeting 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction and Authority 

Title III, Part B of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

the Act), Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 

6291–6309, as codified) established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products Other Than 

Automobiles,1 a program covering most 

major household appliances 

(collectively referred to as ‘‘covered 

products’’), which includes the types of 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps and furnaces that are the 

subject of this rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 

6292(a)(3) and (5)) EPCA prescribed 

energy conservation standards for 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

and directed DOE to conduct two cycles 

of rulemakings to determine whether to 

amend these standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(d)(1)–(3)) The statute also 

prescribed standards for furnaces, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37550 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2 DOE Docket No. EERE–2009–BT–STD–0022, 

Comment 1.3.001; DOE Docket No. EERE–2008– 

BT–STD–0006, Comment 47. 

except for ‘‘small’’ furnaces (i.e., those 

units with an input capacity less than 

45,000 British thermal units per hour 

(Btu/h)), for which EPCA directed DOE 

to prescribe standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(1)–(2)) Finally, EPCA directed 

DOE to conduct rulemakings to 

determine whether to amend the 

standards for furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(f)(4)(A)–(C)) This rulemaking 

represents the second round of 

amendments to both the central air 

conditioner/heat pump and the furnaces 

standards, under the authority of 42 

U.S.C. 6295(d)(3)(B) and (f)(4)(C), 

respectively. 

DOE notes that this rulemaking is one 

of the required agency actions in two 

court orders. First, pursuant to the 

consolidated Consent Decree in State of 

New York, et al. v. Bodman et al., 05 

Civ. 7807 (LAP), and Natural Resources 

Defense Council, et al. v. Bodman, et al., 

05 Civ. 7808 (LAP), DOE is required to 

complete a final rule for amended 

energy conservation standards for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps that must be sent to the 

Federal Register by June 30, 2011. 

Second, pursuant to the Voluntary 

Remand in State of New York, et al. v. 

Department of Energy, et al., 08–0311– 

ag(L); 08–0312–ag(con), DOE agreed to 

complete a final rule to consider 

amendments to the energy conservation 

standards for residential furnaces which 

it anticipated would be sent to the 

Federal Register by May 1, 2011. 

DOE further notes that under 42 

U.S.C. 6295(m), the agency must 

periodically review its already 

established energy conservation 

standards for a covered product. Under 

this requirement, the next review that 

DOE would need to conduct must occur 

no later than six years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product. 

The Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. 

L. 110–140) amended EPCA, in relevant 

part, to grant DOE authority to issue a 

final rule (hereinafter referred to as a 

‘‘direct final rule’’) establishing an 

energy conservation standard on receipt 

of a statement submitted jointly by 

interested persons that are fairly 

representative of relevant points of view 

(including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates), as 

determined by the Secretary, that 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy or water conservation 

standard that are in accordance with the 

provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). A 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) 

that proposes an identical energy 

efficiency standard must be published 

simultaneously with the final rule, and 

DOE must provide a public comment 

period of at least 110 days on this 

proposal. 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later 

than 120 days after issuance of the 

direct final rule, if one or more adverse 

comments or an alternative joint 

recommendation are received relating to 

the direct final rule, the Secretary must 

determine whether the comments or 

alternative recommendation may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 

other applicable law. If the Secretary 

makes such a determination, DOE must 

withdraw the direct final rule and 

proceed with the simultaneouslypublished NOPR. DOE must publish in 

the Federal Register the reason why the 

direct final rule was withdrawn. Id. 

On January 15, 2010, AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI), American Council for 

an Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), 

Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project 

(ASAP), National Resources Defense 

Council (NRDC), and Northeast Energy 

Efficiency Partnership (NEEP) submitted 

a joint comment 2 to DOE’s residential 

furnaces and central air conditioners/ 

heat pumps rulemakings recommending 

adoption of a package of minimum 

energy conservation standards for 

residential central air conditioners, heat 

pumps, and furnaces, as well as 

associated compliance dates for such 

standards, which represents a 

negotiated agreement among a variety of 

interested stakeholders including 

manufacturers and environmental and 

efficiency advocates. More specifically, 

the original agreement was completed 

on October 13, 2009, and had 15 

signatories, including AHRI, ACEEE, 

ASE, NRDC, ASAP, NEEP, Northwest 

Power and Conservation Council 

(NPCC), California Energy Commission 

(CEC), Bard Manufacturing Company 

Inc., Carrier Residential and Light 

Commercial Systems, Goodman Global 

Inc., Lennox Residential, Mitsubishi 

Electric & Electronics USA, National 

Comfort Products, and Trane 

Residential. The consensus agreement 

signatories recommended specific 

energy conservation standards for 

residential furnaces and central air 

conditioners and heat pumps that they 

believed would satisfy the EPCA 

requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). 

DOE has considered the 

recommended energy conservation 

standards and believes that they meet 

the EPCA requirements for issuance of 

a direct final rule. As a result, DOE 

published a direct final rule establishing 

energy conservation standards for 

residential furnaces, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps elsewhere 

in today’s Federal Register. If DOE 

receives adverse comments that may 

provide a reasonable basis for 

withdrawal and withdraws the direct 

final rule, DOE will consider those 

comments and any other comments 

received in determining how to proceed 

with today’s proposed rule. 

For further background information 

on these proposed standards and the 

supporting analyses, please see the 

direct final rule published elsewhere in 

today’s Federal Register. That 

document includes additional 

discussion of the EPCA requirements for 

promulgation of energy conservation 

standards; the current standards for 

residential furnaces, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps; the 

history of the standards rulemakings 

establishing such standards; and 

information on the test procedures used 

to measure the energy efficiency of 

residential furnaces, central air 

conditioners, and heat pumps. The 

document also contains an in-depth 

discussion of the analyses conducted in 

support of this rulemaking, the 

methodologies DOE used in conducting 

those analyses, and the analytical 

results. 

II. Proposed Standards 

When considering proposed 

standards, the new or amended energy 

conservation standard that DOE adopts 

for any type (or class) of covered 

product shall be designed to achieve the 

maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that the Secretary determines 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(A)) In determining whether a 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens to the 

greatest extent practicable, in light of 

the seven statutory factors set forth in 

EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)) The 

new or amended standard must also 

result in significant conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) 

DOE considered the impacts of 

standards at each trial standard level 

(TSL), beginning with the maximum 

technologically feasible (max-tech) 

level, to determine whether that level 

was economically justified. Where the 

max-tech level was not economically 

justified, DOE then considered the next 

most efficient level and undertook the 

same evaluation until it reached the 

highest efficiency level that is both 

technologically feasible and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37551 

economically justified and saves a 

significant amount of energy. 

To aid the reader as DOE discusses 

the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL, 

DOE has included tables that present a 

summary of the results of DOE’s 

quantitative analysis for each TSL. In 

addition to the quantitative results 

presented in the tables, DOE also 

considers other burdens and benefits 

that affect economic justification. These 

include the impacts on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers, such as lowincome households and seniors, who 

may be disproportionately affected by 

an amended national standard. Section 

V.B.1 of the direct final rule published 

elsewhere in today’s Federal Register 

presents the estimated impacts of each 

TSL for these subgroups. 

1. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Residential Furnace, 

Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump 

Energy Efficiency 

Table II.1 through Table II.5 present 

summaries of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL for residential 

furnace, central air conditioner, and 

heat pump energy efficiency. The 

efficiency levels contained in each TSL 

are described in section V.A of the 

direct final rule. 

TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP ENERGY

EFFICIENCY TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 

National Energy Savings (quads) ..... 0.18 ................. 2.32 to 2.91 ..... 2.97 to 3.84 ..... 3.20 to 4.22 ..... 3.89 ................. 5.91 ................. 19.18. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate ............................... 0.76 ................. 10.61 to 11.56 13.35 to 15.29 14.73 to 17.55 15.69 ............... 8.18 ................. (45.12). 

7% discount rate ............................... 0.23 ................. 2.60 to 2.41 ..... 3.36 to 3.36 ..... 3.93 to 4.21 ..... 3.47 ................. (2.56) ............... (44.98). 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) ................... 15.2 ................. 62.8 to 61.2 ..... 971.1 to 113 .... 105 to 134 ....... 116 .................. 200 .................. 772. 

NOX (thousand tons) ......................... 12.3 ................. 55.5 to 56.7 ..... 83.1 to 98.5 ..... 90.1 to 117 ...... 102 .................. 168 .................. 640. 

Hg (tons) ........................................... 0.022 ............... 0.011 to (0.012) 0.086 to 0.059 0.097 to 0.071 0.059 ............... 0.270 ............... 1.160. 

Value of Emissions Reductions 

CO2 (2009$ billion)* .......................... 0.065 to 1.013 0.320 to 5.49 ... 0.496 to 9.58 ... 0.530 to 11.03 0.596 to 9.90 ... 0.987 to 16.21 3.93 to 65.09. 

NOX—3% discount rate (2009$ million).3.4 to 35.3 ....... 17.9 to 188 ...... 26.4 to 322 ...... 28.5 to 380 ...... 32.3 to 332 ...... 52.2 to 536 ...... 203 to 2082. 

NOX—7% discount rate (2009$ million).1.7 to 17.0 ....... 6.8 to 72.3 ....... 10.3 to 126 ...... 11.9 to 160 ...... 12.7 to 131 ...... 21.2 to 218 ...... 79.8 to 820. 

Generation Capacity Reduction 

(GW)**.

0.397 ............... 0.646 to 1.12 ... 3.61 to 3.53 ..... 3.81 to 3.69 ..... 3.56 ................. 10.5 ................. 35.6. 

Employment Impacts 

Changes in Domestic Production 

Workers in 2016 (thousands).

0.1 to (16.9) .... 0.3 to (16.9) .... 0.6 to (16.9) .... 0.8 to (16.9) .... 1 to (16.9) ....... 1.1 to (16.9) .... 1.2 to (16.9). 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands)** 0.5 ................... 2.7 ................... 6.1 ................... 6.3 ................... 6.3 ................... 18.5 ................. 81.4. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** Changes in 2045. 

TABLE II.2—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP ENERGY

EFFICIENCY TSLS: MANUFACTURER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 TSL 4 TSL 5 TSL 6 TSL 7 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV (2009$ million).8 to 33 ............. (324) to (498) .. (428) to (729) .. (478) to (900) .. (508) to (915) .. (680) to (1873) (1530) to 

(3820). 

Industry NPV (% change) ................. 0.4 to 0.1 ......... (3.8) to (5.9) .... (5.0) to (8.6) .... (5.6) to (10.6) .. (6.0) to (10.8) .. (8.0) to (22.0) .. (18.0) to (45.0). 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37552 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27JN11.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37553 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27JN11.014</GPH>
37554 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27JN11.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37555 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 

DOE first considered TSL 7, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 7 would save 19.18 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 7, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be ¥$44.98 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and ¥$45.12 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 7 are 772 Mt of CO2, 640 

thousand tons of NOX, and 1.160 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 7 ranges from $3.93 billion to $65.1 

billion. Total generating capacity in 

2045 is estimated to decrease by 35.6 

GW under TSL 7. 

At TSL 7, the average LCC impact is 

a savings (LCC decrease) of $198 for 

non-weatherized gas furnaces in the 

northern region and a cost (LCC 

increase) of $181 in the southern region; 

a savings of $585 for mobile home gas 

furnaces in the northern region and a 

savings of $391 in the southern region; 

and a savings of $272 for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the average consumer LCC impact 

is a cost of $1,343 in the rest of country, 

a cost of $797 in the hot-humid region, 

and a cost of $1,182 in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the average LCC impact is 

a cost of $903 in the rest of country, a 

cost of $130 in the hot-humid region, 

and a cost of $311 in the hot-dry region. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2EP27JN11.016</GPH> EP27JN11.017</GPH>
37556 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

For split-system heat pumps, the 

average LCC impact is a cost of $604 in 

the rest of country, a savings of $103 in 

the hot-humid region, and a savings of 

$477 in the hot-dry region. For singlepackage air conditioners, the average 

LCC impact is a cost of $492. For singlepackage heat pumps, the average LCC 

impact is a cost of $363. For SDHV air 

conditioners, the average LCC impact is 

a cost of $294 in the rest of country, a 

cost of $25 in the hot-humid region, and 

a cost of $106 in the hot-dry region. 

At TSL 7, the median payback period 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces is 17.1 

years in the northern region and 28.9 

years in the southern region; 11.5 years 

for mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 13 years in the 

southern region; and 18.2 years for oilfired furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the median payback period is 100 

years in the rest of country, 47 years in 

the hot-humid region, and 71 years in 

the hot-dry region. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the median 

payback period is 100 years in the rest 

of country, 21 years in the hot-humid 

region, and 31 years in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system heat pumps, the 

median payback period is 33 years in 

the rest of country, 13 years in the hothumid region, and 9 years in the hot-dry 

region. For single-package air 

conditioners, the median payback 

period is 46 years. For single-package 

heat pumps, the median payback period 

is 21 years. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the median payback period is 75 years 

in the rest of country, 17 years in the 

hot-humid region, and 23 years in the 

hot-dry region. 

At TSL 7, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 41 

percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 27 

percent in the southern region; 46 

percent for mobile home gas furnaces in 

the northern region and 45 percent in 

the southern region; and 48 percent for 

oil-fired furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit at TSL 7 is 

1 percent in the rest of country, 10 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 9 

percent in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem air conditioners (blower-coil), 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 3 percent in the rest 

of country, 29 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 23 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system heat pumps, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 13 percent in the rest of 

country, 40 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 49 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For single-package air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 16 

percent. For single-package heat pumps, 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 21 percent. For SDHV 

air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 8 percent in the rest of country, 33 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 26 

percent in the hot-dry region. 

At TSL 7, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 59 percent 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 72 percent in the 

southern region; 46 percent for mobile 

home gas furnaces in the northern 

region and 51 percent in the southern 

region; and 51 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 99 percent 

in the rest of country, 90 percent in the 

hot-humid region, and 91 percent in the 

hot-dry region. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 96 percent in the rest of country, 70 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 76 

percent in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem heat pumps, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

87 percent in the rest of country, 60 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 51 

percent in the hot-dry region. For singlepackage air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

84 percent. For single-package heat 

pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 79 percent. 

For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 92 percent in the rest of country, 67 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 74 

percent in the hot-dry region. 

At TSL 7, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,530 

million to a decrease of $3,820 million. 

At TSL 7, DOE recognizes the risk of 

large negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 7 could result in a net loss 

of 45.0 percent in INPV to furnace, 

central air conditioner, and heat pump 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary preliminarily concludes 

that at TSL 7 for furnace, central air 

conditioner, and heat pump energy 

efficiency, the benefits of energy 

savings, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the large 

increases in product cost, and the 

capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

very large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 7 is 

not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 6. TSL 6 

would save 5.91 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 6, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be ¥$2.56 billion, using 

a discount rate of 7 percent, and $8.18 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 6 are 200 Mt of CO2, 168 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.270 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 6 ranges from $0.987 billion to 

$16.2 billion. Total generating capacity 

in 2045 is estimated to decrease by 10.5 

GW under TSL 6. 

At TSL 6, the average LCC impact is 

a savings (LCC decrease) of $323 for 

non-weatherized gas furnaces in the 

northern region and not applicable in 

the south, a savings of $585 for mobile 

home gas furnaces in the northern 

region and not applicable in the south, 

and a cost of $18 for oil-fired furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the average LCC impact is a cost 

of $26 in the rest of country, a cost of 

$303 in the hot-humid region, and a cost 

of $468 in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem air conditioners (blower-coil), 

the average LCC impact is a cost of $30 

in the rest of country, a savings of $177 

in the hot-humid region, and a savings 

of $196 in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem heat pumps, the average LCC 

impact is a cost of $89 in the rest of 

country, a savings of $137 in the hothumid region, and a savings of $274 in 

the hot-dry region. For single-package 

air conditioners, the average LCC impact 

is a cost of $68. For single-package heat 

pumps the average LCC impact is a 

savings of $15. For SDHV air 

conditioners, the average LCC impact is 

a cost of $202 in the rest of country, a 

cost of $14 in the hot-humid region, and 

a cost of $65 in the hot-dry region. 

At TSL 6, the median payback period 

is 9.4 years for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and not 

applicable in the south; 11.5 years for 

mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and not applicable in 

the south; and 19.8 years for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the median payback period is 33 

years in the rest of country, 34 years in 

the hot-humid region, and 49 years in 

the hot-dry region. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the median 

payback period is 28 years in the rest of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37557 

3 DOE presents ranges of values throughout the 

document when analyzing multiple scenarios. For 

consistency, DOE presents the ranges in order of a 

first scenario followed by a second scenario, and 

then maintains the same order of scenarios when 

presenting results throughout the document, 

regardless of whether the values are arranged in 

order of lowest to highest. In certain cases in this 

document when DOE presents a range of impacts, 

the results do not go from a lower value to a higher 

value (as would normally be expected) because 

DOE presents the values in a manner that they are 

consistent with the presentation of the rest of the 

results for those scenarios. 

country, 8 years in the hot-humid 

region, and 11 years in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system heat pumps, the 

median payback period is 20 years in 

the rest of country, 7 years in the hothumid region, and 5 years in the hot-dry 

region. For single-package air 

conditioners, the median payback 

period is 24 years. For single-package 

heat pumps, the median payback period 

is 14 years. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the median payback period is 74 years 

in the rest of country, 18 years in the 

hot-humid region, and 26 years in the 

hot-dry region. 

At TSL 6, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 54 

percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 0 

percent in the south; 46 percent for 

mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 0 percent in the 

south; and 33 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 16 

percent in the rest of country, 12 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 9 

percent in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem air conditioners (blower-coil), 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 12 percent in the rest 

of country, 39 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 31 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system heat pumps, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 19 percent in the rest of 

country, 48 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 52 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For single-package air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 27 

percent. For single-package heat pumps, 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 35 percent. For SDHV 

air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 5 percent in the rest of country, 32 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 26 

percent in the hot-dry region. 

At TSL 6, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 23 percent 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 0 percent in the 

south; 46 percent for mobile home gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 0 

percent in the south; and 35 percent for 

oil-fired furnaces. 

For split-system air conditioners (coilonly), the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 56 percent 

in the rest of country, 73 percent in the 

hot-humid region, and 75 percent in the 

hot-dry region. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 43 percent in the rest of country, 25 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 33 

percent in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem heat pumps, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

58 percent in the rest of country, 29 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 25 

percent in the hot-dry region. For singlepackage air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

72 percent. For single-package heat 

pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 63 percent. 

For SDHV air conditioners, the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 95 percent in the rest of country, 68 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 74 

percent in the hot-dry region. 

At TSL 6, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $680 

million to a decrease of $1,873 million. 

At TSL 6, DOE recognizes the risk of 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 6 could result in a net loss 

of 22.0 percent in INPV to furnace, 

central air conditioner, and heat pump 

manufacturers. 

The Secretary preliminarily concludes 

that at TSL 6 for furnace and central air 

conditioner and heat pump energy 

efficiency, the benefits of energy 

savings, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits, the 

economic burden on a significant 

fraction of consumers due to the 

increases in installed product cost, and 

the capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

very large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 6 is 

not economically justified. 

As discussed in the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register, DOE calculated a range of 

results for national energy savings and 

NPV of consumer benefit under TSL 4. 

Because the range of results for TSL 4 

overlaps with the results for TSL 5, and 

because TSLs 4 and 5 are similar in 

many aspects, DOE discusses the 

benefits and burdens of TSLs 4 and 5 

together below. 

TSL 5 would save 3.98 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. TSL 4 would save 3.20 to 

4.22 quads of energy, an amount DOE 

considers significant. Under TSL 5, the 

NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$3.47 billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $15.69 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. Under TSL 4, 

the NPV of consumer benefit would be 

$3.93 billion to $4.21 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $14.73 

billion to $17.55 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 5 are 116 Mt of CO2, 102 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.059 ton of 

Hg. The cumulative emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 are 105 to 134 Mt 

of CO2, 90.1 to 117 thousand tons of 

NOX, and 0.097 to 0.071 3 ton of Hg. The 

estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 5 ranges from $0.596 billion to 

$9.90 billion. The estimated monetary 

value of the cumulative CO2 emissions 

reductions at TSL 4 ranges from $0.530 

billion to $11.0 billion. Total generating 

capacity in 2045 is estimated to 

decrease by 3.56 GW under TSL 5, and 

by 3.81 to 3.69 GW under TSL 4. 

At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is 

a savings (LCC decrease) of $323 for 

non-weatherized gas furnaces in the 

northern region and not applicable in 

the south; a savings of $585 for mobile 

home gas furnaces in the northern 

region and not applicable in the south; 

and a cost of $18 for oil-fired furnaces. 

At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a 

savings of $155 for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and not 

applicable in the south, a savings of 

$419 for mobile home gas furnaces in 

the northern region and not applicable 

in the south, and a savings of $15 for 

oil-fired furnaces. 

For central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, the average LCC impacts for 

TSL 5 and TSL 4 are the same. For splitsystem air conditioners (coil-only), the 

average LCC impact is not applicable in 

the rest of country, but is a savings of 

$93 in the hot-humid region, and a 

savings of $107 in the hot-dry region. 

For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the average LCC impact is 

not applicable in the rest of country, but 

is a savings of $89 in the hot-humid 

region, and a savings of $101 in the hotdry region. For split-system heat pumps, 

the average LCC impact is a savings of 

$4 in the rest of country, a savings of 

$102 in the hot-humid region, and a 

savings of $175 in the hot-dry region. 

For single-package air conditioners, the 

average LCC impact is a cost of $37. For 

single-package heat pumps, the average 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37558 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

LCC impact is a cost of $104. For SDHV 

air conditioners, the average LCC impact 

is not applicable for all regions. 

At TSL 5, the median payback period 

is 9.4 years for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and not 

applicable in the south, 11.5 years for 

mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and not applicable in 

the south, and 19.8 years for oil-fired 

furnaces. At TSL 4, the median payback 

period is 10.1 years for non-weatherized 

gas furnaces in the northern region and 

not applicable in the south, 10.7 years 

for mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and not applicable in 

the south, and 1.0 year for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, the median payback periods for 

TSL 5 and TSL 4 are the same. For splitsystem air conditioners (coil-only), the 

median payback period is not applicable 

in the rest of country, 7 years in the hothumid region, and 10 years in the hotdry region. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the median 

payback period is not applicable in the 

rest of country, 8 years in the hot-humid 

region, and 11 years in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system heat pumps, the 

median payback period is 13 years in 

the rest of country, 6 years in the hothumid region, and 5 years in the hot-dry 

region. For single-package air 

conditioners, the median payback 

period is 15 years. For single-package 

heat pumps, the median payback period 

is 8 years. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the median payback period is not 

applicable in all regions. 

At TSL 5, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 54 

percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 0 

percent in the south, 46 percent for 

mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 0 percent in the 

south, and 33 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces. At TSL 4, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 19 percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 0 

percent in the south, 47 percent for 

mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 0 percent in the 

south, and 32 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, at TSL 5 and at TSL 4, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is the same. For splitsystem air conditioners (coil-only), the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC benefit is 0 percent in the rest of 

country, 46 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 36 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 0 percent 

in the rest of country, 34 percent in the 

hot-humid region, and 27 percent in the 

hot-dry region. For split-system heat 

pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 20 

percent in the rest of country, 38 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 40 

percent in the hot-dry region. For singlepackage air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 33 percent. For single-package heat 

pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 35 

percent. For SDHV air conditioners, no 

consumers experience an LCC benefit in 

any of the regions. 

At TSL 5, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 23 percent 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 0 percent in the 

south, 46 percent for mobile home gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 0 

percent in the south, and 35 percent for 

oil-fired furnaces. At TSL 4, the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 10 percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces in the northern region and 0 

percent in the south, 44 percent for 

mobile home gas furnaces in the 

northern region and 0 percent in the 

south, and 10 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces. 

For central air conditioners and heat 

pumps, at TSL 5 and at TSL 4, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is the same. For split-system 

air conditioners (coil-only), the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC cost 

is 0 percent in the rest of country, 26 

percent in the hot-humid region, and 37 

percent in the hot-dry region. For splitsystem air conditioners (blower-coil), 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 0 percent in the rest of 

country, 21 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 28 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For split-system heat pumps, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 35 percent in the rest of 

country, 17 percent in the hot-humid 

region, and 15 percent in the hot-dry 

region. For single-package air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 37 percent. 

For single-package heat pumps, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 29 percent. For SDHV air 

conditioners, no consumers experience 

an LCC cost in any of the regions. 

At TSL 5, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from a decrease of $508 

million to a decrease of $915 million. At 

TSL 5, DOE recognizes the risk of 

negative impacts if manufacturers’ 

expectations concerning reduced profit 

margins are realized. If the high end of 

the range of impacts is reached as DOE 

expects, TSL 5 could result in a net loss 

of 10.8 percent in INPV to furnace, 

central air conditioner, and heat pump 

manufacturers. At TSL 4, the projected 

change in INPV ranges from a net loss 

of $478 million to a net loss of $900 

million. At TSL 4, DOE recognizes the 

risk of negative impacts if 

manufacturers’ expectations concerning 

reduced profit margins are realized. If 

the high end of the range of impacts is 

reached as DOE expects, TSL 4 could 

result in a net loss of 10.6 percent in 

INPV to furnace, central air conditioner, 

and heat pump manufacturers. 

The Secretary preliminarily concludes 

that at TSL 5 for furnace and central air 

conditioner and heat pump energy 

efficiency, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions are outweighed by the 

economic burden on some consumers 

due to large increases in installed cost, 

and the capital conversion costs and 

profit margin impacts that could result 

in a large reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. Consequently, the 

Secretary has concluded that TSL 5 is 

not economically justified. 

The Secretary preliminarily concludes 

that at TSL 4 for furnace and central air 

conditioner and heat pump energy 

efficiency, the benefits of energy 

savings, positive NPV of consumer 

benefits, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would outweigh the 

economic burden on some consumers 

due to increases in installed cost, and 

the capital conversion costs and profit 

margin impacts that could result in a 

moderate reduction in INPV for the 

manufacturers. TSL 4 may yield greater 

cumulative energy savings than TSL 5, 

and also a higher NPV of consumer 

benefits at both 3-percent and 7-percent 

discount rates. 

In addition, the efficiency levels in 

TSL 4 correspond to the recommended 

levels in the consensus agreement, 

which DOE believes sets forth a 

statement by interested persons that are 

fairly representative of relevant points 

of view (including representatives of 

manufacturers of covered products, 

States, and efficiency advocates) and 

contains recommendations with respect 

to an energy conservation standard that 

are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o). Moreover, DOE has encouraged 

the submission of consensus agreements 

as a way to get diverse stakeholders 

together, to develop an independent and 

probative analysis useful in DOE 

standard setting, and to expedite the 

rulemaking process. In the present case, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37559 

one outcome of the consensus 

agreement was a recommendation to 

accelerate the compliance dates for 

these products, which would have the 

effect of producing additional energy 

savings at an earlier date. DOE also 

believes that standard levels 

recommended in the consensus 

agreement may increase the likelihood 

for regulatory compliance, while 

decreasing the risk of litigation. 

After considering the analysis, 

comments to the furnaces RAP and the 

preliminary TSD for central air 

conditioners and heat pumps, and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 4, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

this trial standard level offers the 

maximum improvement in efficiency 

that is technologically feasible and 

economically justified, and will result 

in significant conservation of energy. 

Therefore, DOE today adopts TSL 4 for 

furnaces and central air conditioners 

and heat pumps. Today’s amended 

energy conservation standards for 

furnaces, central air conditioners, and 

heat pumps, expressed in terms of 

minimum energy efficiency, are shown 

in Table II.6. 

TABLE II.6—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP ENERGY

EFFICIENCY

Product class Proposed national standard levels Proposed northern region ** 

standard levels 

Residential Furnaces * 

Non-weatherized gas .............................................................................. AFUE = 80% ................................. AFUE = 90%. 

Mobile home gas ..................................................................................... AFUE = 80% ................................. AFUE = 90%. 

Non-weatherized oil-fired ........................................................................ AFUE = 83% ................................. AFUE = 83%. 

Weatherized gas ..................................................................................... AFUE = 81% ................................. AFUE = 81%. 

Mobile home oil-fired ‡ ‡ ........................................................................... AFUE = 75% ................................. AFUE = 75%. 

Weatherized oil-fired ‡ ‡ ........................................................................... AFUE = 78% ................................. AFUE = 78%. 

Electric ‡ ‡ ................................................................................................. AFUE = 78% ................................. AFUE = 78%. 

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps †

Product Class Proposed national 

standard levels 

Proposed southeastern (hot-humid) 

region † †standard levels 

Proposed southwestern (hot-dry) region ‡ 

standard levels 

Split-system air conditioners ............................. SEER = 13 ................ SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14 

EER = 12.2 (for units with a rated cooling capacity less than 45,000 Btu/h) EER = 11.7 

(for units with a rated cooling capacity equal 

to or greater than 45,000 Btu/h). 

Split-system heat pumps .................................. SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14. 

HSPF = 8.2 ............... HSPF = 8.2 ............... HSPF = 8.2. 

Single-package air conditioners ....................... SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14 

EER = 11.0. 

Single-package heat pumps ............................. SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14 ................ SEER = 14. 

HSPF = 8.0 ............... HSPF = 8.0 ............... HSPF = 8.0. 

Small-duct, high-velocity systems .................... SEER = 13 ................ SEER = 13 ................ SEER = 13. 

HSPF = 7.7 ............... HSPF = 7.7 ............... HSPF = 7.7. 

Space-constrained products—air conditioners ‡ ‡ SEER = 12 ................ SEER = 12 ................ SEER = 12. 

Space-constrained products—heat pumps ‡ ‡ .. SEER = 12 ................ SEER = 12 ................ SEER = 12. 

HSPF = 7.4 ............... HSPF = 7.4 ............... HSPF = 7.4. 

* AFUE is Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency. 

** The Northern region for furnaces contains the following States: Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. †SEER is Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio; EER is Energy Efficiency Ratio; HSPF is Heating Seasonal Performance Factor; and Btu/h is British Thermal Units per hour. † †The Southeastern region for central air conditioners and heat pumps contains the following States: Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, and 

the District of Columbia. ‡The Southwestern region for central air conditioners and heat pumps contains the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, and New Mexico. 

‡ ‡ DOE is not proposing to amend the energy conservation standards for these product classes in this NOPR. 

2. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs 

Considered for Residential Furnace, 

Central Air Conditioner, and Heat Pump 

Standby Mode and Off Mode Power 

Table II.7 through Table II.9 present a 

summary of the quantitative impacts 

estimated for each TSL considered for 

furnace, central air conditioner, and 

heat pump standby mode and off mode 

power. The efficiency levels contained 

in each TSL are described in section 

V.A of the direct final rule. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37560 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE II.7—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE POWER TSLS: NATIONAL IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

National Energy Savings (quads) ....................................................................... 0.153 ...................... 0.160 ...................... 0.186. 

NPV of Consumer Benefits (2009$ billion) 

3% discount rate ................................................................................................. 1.14 ........................ 1.18 ........................ 1.01. 

7% discount rate ................................................................................................. 0.371 ...................... 0.373 ...................... 0.235. 

Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................................... 8.23 ........................ 8.73 ........................ 10.1. 

NOX (thousand tons) .......................................................................................... 6.60 ........................ 7.00 ........................ 8.11. 

Hg (ton) ............................................................................................................... 0.056 ...................... 0.072 ...................... 0.079. 

Value of Cumulative Emissions Reduction 

CO2 (2009$ million)* ........................................................................................... 41.7 to 694 ............ 44.3 to 738 ............ 51.7 to 862. 

NOX¥3% discount rate (2009$ million) ............................................................. 2.07 to 21.3 ........... 2.20 to 22.6 ........... 2.56 to 26.3. 

NOX¥7% discount rate (2009$ million) ............................................................. 0.793 to 8.15 ......... 0.841 to 8.65 ......... 0.975 to 10.0. 

Generation Capacity Reduction (GW) ** ............................................................ 0.103 ...................... 0.110 ...................... 0.127. 

Employment Impacts 

Total Potential Change in Domestic Production Workers in 2016 (thousands).negligible ................ negligible ................ negligible. 

Indirect Domestic Jobs (thousands) ** ................................................................ 0.80 ........................ 0.86 ........................ 1.02. 

Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. 

* Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions. 

** Changes in 2045. 

TABLE II.8—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE POWER TSLS: MANUFACTURER AND CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Manufacturer Impacts 

Change in Industry NPV (2009$ million) ....................................................................... 4 to (253) ........... 5 to (253) ........... 23 to (255). 

Industry NPV (% change) ............................................................................................. 0.05 to (2.91) ..... 0.06 to (2.91) ...... 0.26 to (2.93). 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings* (2009$) 

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces ................................................................................... 2 ......................... 2 ......................... 0. 

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces ......................................................................................... 0 ......................... 0 ......................... (1). 

Oil-Fired Furnaces ......................................................................................................... 1 ......................... 1 ......................... 1. 

Electric Furnaces ........................................................................................................... 0 ......................... 0 ......................... (1). 

Split-System Air Conditioners (coil-only) ....................................................................... 84 ....................... 84 ....................... 84. 

Split-System Air Conditioners (blower-coil) ................................................................... 84 ....................... 40 ....................... 35. 

Split-System Heat Pumps ............................................................................................. 9 ......................... 9 ......................... (1). 

Single-Package Air Conditioners .................................................................................. 84 ....................... 41 ....................... 36. 

Single-Package Heat Pumps ........................................................................................ 9 ......................... 9 ......................... (1). 

SDHV Air Conditioners .................................................................................................. 84 ....................... 37 ....................... 32. 

Space-Constrained Air Conditioners ............................................................................. 84 ....................... 42 ....................... 37. 

Space-Constrained Heat Pumps ................................................................................... 9 ......................... 9 ......................... (1). 

Consumer Median PBP (years) 

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces ................................................................................... 11 ....................... 11 ....................... 16. 

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces ......................................................................................... 12 ....................... 12 ....................... 18. 

Oil-Fired Furnaces ......................................................................................................... 8 ......................... 8 ......................... 12. 

Electric Furnaces ........................................................................................................... 10 ....................... 10 ....................... 16. 

Split-System Air Conditioners (coil-only) ....................................................................... 1 ......................... 1 ......................... 1. 

Split-System Air Conditioners (blower-coil) ................................................................... 1 ......................... 6 ......................... 7. 

Split-System Heat Pumps ............................................................................................. 4 ......................... 4 ......................... 5. 

Single-Package Air Conditioners .................................................................................. 1 ......................... 6 ......................... 7. 

Single-Package Heat Pumps ........................................................................................ 4 ......................... 4 ......................... 5. 

SDHV Air Conditioners .................................................................................................. 1 ......................... 7 ......................... 7. 

Space-Constrained Air Conditioners ............................................................................. 1 ......................... 6 ......................... 7. 

Space-Constrained Heat Pumps ................................................................................... 4 ......................... 4 ......................... 5. 

* Parentheses indicate negative (¥) values. For LCCs, a negative value means an increase in LCC by the amount indicated. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37561 

TABLE II.9—SUMMARY OF RESULTS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP STANDBY

MODE AND OFF MODE POWER TSLS: DISTRIBUTION OF CONSUMER IMPACTS

Category TSL 1 TSL 2 TSL 3 

Distribution of Consumer LCC Impacts 

Non-Weatherized Gas Furnaces 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 9 9 17

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 72 72 72

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 18 18 11 

Mobile Home Gas Furnaces 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 6 6 8 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 91 91 91

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 4 4 2 

Oil-Fired Furnaces 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 1 1 4 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 91 91 91

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 8 8 6 

Electric Furnaces 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 4 4 7 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 90 90 90

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 5 5 3 

Split-System Air Conditioners (coil-only) 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 0 0 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 94 94 94

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Split-System Air Conditioners (blower-coil) 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 3 3 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 94 91 91

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Split-System Heat Pumps 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 0 19

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 67 67 57

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 33 33 24 

Single-Package Air Conditioners 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 3 3 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 94 91 91

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Single-Package Heat Pumps 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 0 19

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 66 66 57

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 34 34 24 

SDHV Air Conditioners 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 3 3 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 94 91 91

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Space-Constrained Air Conditioners 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 3 3 

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 94 91 91

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 6 6 6 

Space-Constrained Heat Pumps 

Net Cost (%) ............................................................................................................. 0 0 19

No Impact (%) .......................................................................................................... 67 67 58

Net Benefit (%) ......................................................................................................... 33 33 23 

Values in the table are rounded off, and, thus, sums may not equal 100 percent in all cases. 

DOE first considered TSL 3, which 

represents the max-tech efficiency 

levels. TSL 3 would save 0.186 quads of 

energy, an amount DOE considers 

significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of 

consumer benefit would be $0.235 

billion, using a discount rate of 7 

percent, and $1.01 billion, using a 

discount rate of 3 percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 3 are 10.1 Mt of CO2, 8.11 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.079 ton of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 3 ranges from $51.7 million to $862 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2045 is estimated to decrease by 0.127 

GW under TSL 3. 

At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is 

a cost (LCC increase) of $0 for nonweatherized gas furnaces, a cost of $1 

for mobile home gas furnaces, a savings 

of $1 for oil-fired furnaces, and a cost of 

$1 for electric furnaces. For split-system 

air conditioners (coil-only), the average 

LCC impact is a savings (LCC decrease) 

of $84. For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $35. For split-system heat 

pumps, the average LCC impact is a cost 

of $1. For single-package air 

conditioners, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $36. For single-package heat 

pumps, the average LCC impact is a cost 

of $1. For SDHV air conditioners, the 

average LCC impact is a savings of $32. 

For space-constrained air conditioners, 

the average LCC impact is a savings of 

$37. For space-constrained heat pumps, 

the average LCC impact is a cost of $1. 

At TSL 3, the median payback period 

is 16 years for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces; 18 years for mobile home gas 

furnaces; 12 years for oil-fired furnaces; 

and 16 years for electric furnaces. For 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37562 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

split-system air conditioners (coil-only), 

the median payback period is 1 year. 

For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the median payback 

period is 7 years. For split-system heat 

pumps, the median payback period is 5 

years. For single-package air 

conditioners, the median payback 

period is 7 years. For single-package 

heat pumps, the median payback period 

is 5 years. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the median payback period is 7 years. 

For space-constrained air conditioners, 

the median payback period is 7 years. 

For space-constrained heat pumps, the 

median payback period is 5 years. 

At TSL 3, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 11 

percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, 2 percent for mobile home gas 

furnaces, 6 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces, and 3 percent for electric 

furnaces. For split-system air 

conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 6 percent. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC 

benefit is 6 percent. For split-system 

heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 24 

percent. For single-package air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 

percent. For single-package heat pumps, 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 24 percent. For SDHV 

air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 6 percent. For space-constrained air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 

percent. For space-constrained heat 

pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 23 

percent. 

At TSL 3, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 17 percent 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces, 8 

percent for mobile home gas furnaces, 4 

percent for oil-fired furnaces, and 7 

percent for electric furnaces. For splitsystem air conditioners (coil-only), the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 0 percent. For split-system 

air conditioners (blower-coil), the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 3 percent. For split-system 

heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 19 percent. 

For single-package air conditioners, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 3 percent. For singlepackage heat pumps, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

19 percent. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 3 percent. For spaceconstrained air conditioners, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 3 percent. For spaceconstrained heat pumps, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

19 percent. 

At TSL 3, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from an increase of $23 

million to a decrease of $255 million. 

The model anticipates impacts on INPV 

to range from 0.26 percent to ¥2.93 

percent. In general, the cost of standby 

mode and off mode features is not 

expected to significantly affect 

manufacturer profit margins for furnace, 

central air conditioner, and heat pump 

products. 

The Secretary preliminarily concludes 

that at TSL 3 for furnace and central air 

conditioner and heat pump standby 

mode and off mode power, the benefits 

of energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits at 3-percent discount 

rate, generating capacity reductions, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the CO2 emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

negative NPV of consumer benefits at 7 

percent and the economic burden on 

some consumers due to the increases in 

product cost. Of the consumers of 

furnaces and heat pumps who would be 

impacted, many more would be 

burdened by standards at TSL 3 than 

would benefit. Consequently, the 

Secretary has tentatively concluded that 

TSL 3 is not economically justified. 

DOE then considered TSL 2. TSL 2 

would save 0.16 quads of energy, an 

amount DOE considers significant. 

Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer 

benefit would be $0.373 billion, using a 

discount rate of 7 percent, and $1.18 

billion, using a discount rate of 3 

percent. 

The cumulative emissions reductions 

at TSL 2 are 8.73 Mt of CO2, 7.00 

thousand tons of NOX, and 0.072 tons of 

Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 

cumulative CO2 emissions reductions at 

TSL 2 ranges from $44.3 million to $738 

million. Total generating capacity in 

2045 is estimated to decrease by 0.11 

GW under TSL 2. 

At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is 

a savings (LCC decrease) of $2 for nonweatherized gas furnaces, a savings of 

$0 for mobile home gas furnaces, a 

savings of $1 for oil-fired furnaces, and 

a savings of $0 for electric furnaces. For 

split-system air conditioners (coil-only), 

the average LCC impact is a savings of 

$84. For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $40. For split-system heat 

pumps, the average LCC impact is a 

savings of $9. For single-package air 

conditioners, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $41. For single-package heat 

pumps, the average LCC impact is a 

savings of $9. For SDHV air 

conditioners, the average LCC impact is 

a savings of $37. For space-constrained 

air conditioners, the average LCC impact 

is a savings of $42. For spaceconstrained heat pumps, the average 

LCC impact is a savings of $9. 

At TSL 2, the median payback period 

is 11 years for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces; 12 years for mobile home gas 

furnaces; 8 years for oil-fired furnaces; 

and 10 years for electric furnaces. For 

split-system air conditioners (coil-only), 

the median payback period is 1 year. 

For split-system air conditioners 

(blower-coil), the median payback 

period is 6 years. For split-system heat 

pumps, the median payback period is 4 

years. For single-package air 

conditioners, the median payback 

period is 6 years. For single-package 

heat pumps, the median payback period 

is 4 years. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the median payback period is 7 years. 

For space-constrained air conditioners, 

the median payback period is 6 years. 

For space-constrained heat pumps, the 

median payback period is 4 years. 

At TSL 2, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 18 

percent for non-weatherized gas 

furnaces, 4 percent for mobile home gas 

furnaces, 8 percent for oil-fired 

furnaces, and 5 percent for electric 

furnaces. For split-system air 

conditioners (coil-only), the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 6 percent. For split-system air 

conditioners (blower-coil), the fraction 

of consumers experiencing an LCC 

benefit is 6 percent. For split-system 

heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 33 

percent. For single-package air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 

percent. For single-package heat pumps, 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC benefit is 34 percent. For SDHV 

air conditioners, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC benefit 

is 6 percent. For space-constrained air 

conditioners, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 6 

percent. For space-constrained heat 

pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC benefit is 33 

percent. 

At TSL 2, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 9 percent 

for non-weatherized gas furnaces, 6 

percent for mobile home gas furnaces, 1 

percent for oil-fired furnaces, and 4 

percent for electric furnaces. For splitsystem air conditioners (coil-only), the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 0 percent. For split-system 

air conditioners (blower-coil), the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37563 

4 DOE used a two-step calculation process to 

convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 

annualized values. First, DOE calculated a present 

value in 2011, the year used for discounting the 

NPV of total consumer costs and savings, for the 

time-series of costs and benefits using discount 

rates of three and seven percent for all costs and 

Continued 

LCC cost is 3 percent. For split-system 

heat pumps, the fraction of consumers 

experiencing an LCC cost is 0 percent. 

For single-package air conditioners, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 3 percent. For singlepackage heat pumps, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

0 percent. For SDHV air conditioners, 

the fraction of consumers experiencing 

an LCC cost is 3 percent. For spaceconstrained air conditioners, the 

fraction of consumers experiencing an 

LCC cost is 3 percent. For spaceconstrained heat pumps, the fraction of 

consumers experiencing an LCC cost is 

0 percent. 

At TSL 2, the projected change in 

INPV ranges from an increase of $5 

million to a decrease of $253 million. 

The modeled impacts on INPV range 

from 0.06 percent to ¥2.91 percent. In 

general, the incremental cost of standby 

mode and off mode features are not 

expected to significantly affect INPV for 

the furnace, central air conditioner, and 

heat pump industry at this level. 

The Secretary preliminarily concludes 

that at TSL 2 for furnace, central air 

conditioner, and heat pump standby 

mode and off mode power, the benefits 

of energy savings, positive NPV of 

consumer benefits at both 7-percent and 

3-percent discount rates, generating 

capacity reductions, emission 

reductions, and the estimated monetary 

value of the CO2 emissions reductions 

would outweigh the economic burden 

on a small fraction of consumers due to 

the increases in product cost. With the 

exception of consumers of mobile home 

gas furnaces (whose mean LCC impact 

is zero), the majority of the consumers 

that would be affected by standards at 

TSL 2 would see an LCC benefit. 

Consequently, the Secretary has 

tentatively concluded that TSL 2 is 

economically justified. 

After considering the analysis and the 

benefits and burdens of TSL 2, the 

Secretary has preliminarily concluded 

that this trial standard level would offer 

the maximum improvement in energy 

efficiency that is technologically 

feasible and economically justified, and 

would result in the significant 

conservation of energy. Therefore, DOE 

is proposing TSL 2 for furnace, central 

air conditioner, and heat pump standby 

mode and off mode. The proposed 

energy conservation standards for 

standby mode and off mode, expressed 

as maximum power in watts, are shown 

in Table II.10. 

TABLE II.10—PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP

STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE * 

Product class 

Proposed standby mode 

and off mode standard 

levels 

Residential Furnaces ** 

Non-Weatherized Gas .................................................................................................................................................... PW,SB = 10 watts. 

PW,OFF = 10 watts. 

Mobile Home Gas ........................................................................................................................................................... PW,SB = 10 watts. 

PW,OFF = 10 watts. 

Non-Weatherized Oil-Fired ............................................................................................................................................. PW,SB = 11 watts. 

PW,OFF = 11 watts. 

Mobile Home Oil-Fired .................................................................................................................................................... PW,SB = 11 watts. 

PW,OFF = 11 watts. 

Electric ............................................................................................................................................................................ PW,SB = 10 watts. 

PW,OFF = 10 watts. 

Product class Proposed off mode 

standard levels ††

Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps †

Split-system air conditioners ........................................................................................................................................... PW,OFF = 30 watts. 

Split-system heat pumps ................................................................................................................................................ PW,OFF = 33 watts. 

Single-package air conditioners ..................................................................................................................................... PW,OFF = 30 watts. 

Single-package heat pumps ........................................................................................................................................... PW,OFF = 33 watts. 

Small-duct, high-velocity systems .................................................................................................................................. PW,OFF = 30 watts. 

Space-constrained air conditioners ................................................................................................................................ PW,OFF = 30 watts. 

Space-constrained heat pumps ...................................................................................................................................... PW,OFF = 33 watts. 

* PW,SB is standby mode electrical power consumption, and PW,OFF is off mode electrical power consumption for furnaces. 

** Standby mode and off mode energy consumption for weatherized gas and oil-fired furnaces is regulated as a part of single-package air conditioners and heat pumps, as discussed in detail in the direct final rule published elsewhere in today’s Federal Register. † PW,OFF is off mode electrical power consumption for central air conditioners and heat pumps. †† DOE is not proposing to adopt a separate standby mode standard level for central air conditioners and heat pumps, because standby mode 

power consumption for these products is already regulated by SEER and HSPF. 

3. Annualized Benefits and Costs of 

Proposed Standards for Residential 

Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and 

Heat Pump Energy Efficiency 

The benefits and costs of the proposed 

standards can also be expressed in terms 

of annualized values over the analysis 

period. The annualized monetary values 

are the sum of: (1) The annualized 

national economic value (expressed in 

2009$) of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the proposed 

standards (consisting primarily of 

operating cost savings from using less 

energy, minus increases in equipment 

purchase costs, which is another way of 

representing consumer NPV); and (2) 

the monetary value of the benefits of 

emission reductions, including CO2

emission reductions.4 The value of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37564 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

benefits except for the value of CO2 reductions. For 

the latter, DOE used a range of discount rates, as 

shown in Table II.11. From the present value, DOE 

then calculated the fixed annual payment over a 32- 

year period, starting in 2011, that yields the same 

present value. The fixed annual payment is the 

annualized value. Although DOE calculated 

annualized values, this does not imply that the 

time-series of cost and benefits from which the 

annualized values were determined would be a 

steady stream of payments. 

CO2 reductions, otherwise known as the 

Social Cost of Carbon (SCC), is 

calculated using a range of values per 

metric ton of CO2 developed by a recent 

Federal interagency process. The 

monetary costs and benefits of 

cumulative emissions reductions are 

reported in 2009$ to permit 

comparisons with the other costs and 

benefits in the same dollar units. 

Although combining the values of 

operating savings and CO2 reductions 

provides a useful perspective, two 

issues should be considered. First, the 

national operating savings are domestic 

U.S. consumer monetary savings that 

occur as a result of market transactions, 

while the value of CO2 reductions is 

based on a global value. Second, the 

assessments of operating cost savings 

and CO2 savings are performed with 

different methods that use quite 

different time frames for analysis. The 

national operating cost savings is 

measured for the lifetime of products 

shipped in 2013–2045 for furnaces and 

2015–2045 for central air conditioners 

and heat pumps. The SCC values, on the 

other hand, reflect the present value of 

future climate-related impacts resulting 

from the emission of one metric ton of 

carbon dioxide in each year. These 

impacts continue well beyond 2100. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for 

residential furnace, central air 

conditioner, and heat pump energy 

efficiency are shown in Table II.11. 

Using a 7-percent discount rate and the 

SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 (in 

2009$), the cost of the energy efficiency 

standards in today’s direct final rule is 

$527 million to $773 million per year in 

increased equipment installed costs, 

while the annualized benefits are $837 

million to $1106 million per year in 

reduced equipment operating costs, 

$140 million to $178 million in CO2

reductions, and $5.3 million to $6.9 

million in reduced NOX emissions. In 

this case, the net benefit amounts to 

$456 million to $517 million per year. 

Using a 3-percent discount rate and the 

SCC value of $22.1/metric ton in 2010 

(in 2009$), the cost of the energy 

efficiency standards in today’s direct 

final rule is $566 million to $825 

million per year in increased equipment 

installed costs, while the benefits are 

$1289 million to $1686 million per year 

in reduced operating costs, $140 million 

to $178 million in CO2 reductions, and 

$7.9 million to $10.2 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $871 million to 

$1049 million per year. 

TABLE II.11—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR

CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP ENERGY EFFICIENCY (TSL 4) 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................. 7% .......................... 837 to 1,106 .......... 723 to 959 ............. 955 to 1,258. 

3% .......................... 1,289 to 1,686 ....... 1,083 to 1,422 ....... 1,493 to 1,948. 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t ** .............................................. 5% .......................... 34 to 43 ................. 34 to 43 ................. 34 to 43. 

CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t ** ............................................ 3% .......................... 140 to 178 ............. 141 to 178 ............. 140 to 178. 

CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t ** ............................................ 2.5% ....................... 224 to 284 ............. 225 to 285 ............. 224 to 284. 

CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t ** ............................................ 3% .......................... 427 to 541 ............. 428 to 543 ............. 427 to 541. 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton ** ..................................... 7% .......................... 5.3 to 6.9 ............... 5.3 to 7.0 ............... 5.3 to 6.9. 

3% .......................... 7.9 to 10.2 ............. 7.9 to 10.3 ............. 7.9 to 10.2. 

Total † ...................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 876 to 1,653 .......... 762 to 1,509 .......... 994 to 1,805. 

7% .......................... 983 to 1,290 .......... 869 to 1,144 .......... 1,100 to 1,442. 

3% .......................... 1,437 to 1,874 ....... 1,232 to 1,611 ....... 1,641 to 2,136. 

3% plus CO2 range 1,330 to 2,237 ....... 1,125 to 1,975 ....... 1,535 to 2,499. 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ............................................. 7% .......................... 527 to 773 ............. 574 to 840 ............. 555 to 819. 

3% .......................... 566 to 825 ............. 630 to 916 ............. 599 to 876. 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Total † ...................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 349 to 880 ............. 188 to 669 ............. 438 to 986. 

7% .......................... 456 to 517 ............. 295 to 305 ............. 545 to 623. 

3% .......................... 871 to 1,049 .......... 601 to 695 ............. 1,042 to 1,260. 

3% plus CO2 range 764 to 1,412 .......... 494 to 1,059 .......... 935 to 1,623. 

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

** The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values of $4.9, 

$22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for NOX

(in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. †Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/ton in 2010 

(in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37565 

4. Annualized Benefits and Costs of 

Proposed Standards for Residential 

Furnace, Central Air Conditioner, and 

Heat Pump Standby Mode and Off Mode 

Power 

As explained above, the benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for 

standby mode and off mode power can 

also be expressed in terms of annualized 

values. The annualized monetary values 

are the sum of: (1) The annualized 

national economic value (expressed in 

2009$) of the benefits from operating 

products that meet the standards 

(consisting primarily of operating cost 

savings from using less energy, minus 

increases in equipment purchase costs, 

which is another way of representing 

consumer NPV); and (2) the monetary 

value of the benefits of emission 

reductions, including CO2 emission 

reductions. 

Estimates of annualized benefits and 

costs of the proposed standards for 

residential furnace, central air 

conditioner, and heat pump standby 

mode and off mode power are shown in 

Table II.12. Using a 7-percent discount 

rate and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 

2010 (in 2009$), the cost of the standby 

mode and off mode standards in this 

proposed rule is $16.4 million per year 

in increased equipment costs, while the 

annualized benefits are $46.5 million 

per year in reduced equipment 

operating costs, $12.4 million in CO2

reductions, and $0.4 million in reduced 

NOX emissions. In this case, the net 

benefit amounts to $42.8 million per 

year. Using a 3-percent discount rate 

and the SCC value of $22.1/ton in 2010 

(in 2009$), the cost of the standby mode 

and off mode standards in this proposed 

rule is $19.1 million per year in 

increased equipment costs, while the 

benefits are $79.3 million per year in 

reduced operating costs, $12.4 million 

in CO2 reductions, and $0.6 million in 

reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 

net benefit amounts to $73.2 million per 

year. 

TABLE II.12—ANNUALIZED BENEFITS AND COSTS OF PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL FURNACE, CENTRAL AIR

CONDITIONER, AND HEAT PUMP STANDBY MODE AND OFF MODE POWER (TSL 2) 

Discount rate 

Monetized (million 2009$/year) 

Primary estimate * Low estimate * High estimate * 

Benefits 

Operating Cost Savings ................................................. 7% .......................... 46.5 ........................ 40.4 ........................ 52.8. 

3% .......................... 79.3 ........................ 67.9 ........................ 90.8. 

CO2 Reduction at $4.9/t** .............................................. 5% .......................... 2.9 .......................... 2.9 .......................... 2.9. 

CO2 Reduction at $22.1/t** ............................................ 3% .......................... 12.4 ........................ 12.4 ........................ 12.4. 

CO2 Reduction at $36.3/t** ............................................ 2.5% ....................... 19.9 ........................ 19.9 ........................ 19.9. 

CO2 Reduction at $67.1/t** ............................................ 3% .......................... 37.6 ........................ 37.6 ........................ 37.6. 

NOX Reduction at $2,519/ton** ...................................... 7% .......................... 0.4 .......................... 0.4 .......................... 0.4. 

3% .......................... 0.6 .......................... 0.6 .......................... 0.6. 

Total † ...................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 49.7 to 84.5 ........... 43.6 to 78.4 ........... 56.1 to 90.8. 

7% .......................... 59.2 ........................ 53.1 ........................ 65.5. 

3% .......................... 92.3 ........................ 80.9 ........................ 103.8. 

3% plus CO2 range 82.8 to 117.5 ......... 71.4 to 106.2 ......... 94.3 to 129.1. 

Costs 

Incremental Product Costs ............................................. 7% .......................... 16.4 ........................ 15.2 ........................ 17.7. 

3% .......................... 19.1 ........................ 17.6 ........................ 20.6. 

Net Benefits/Costs 

Total † ...................................................................... 7% plus CO2 range 33.3 to 68.1 ........... 28.5 to 63.2 ........... 38.4 to 73.1. 

7% .......................... 42.8 ........................ 38.0 ........................ 47.9. 

3% .......................... 73.2 ........................ 63.3 ........................ 83.2. 

3% plus CO2 range 63.7 to 98.4 ........... 53.8 to 88.5 ........... 73.7 to 108.5. 

* The Primary, Low, and High Estimates utilize forecasts of energy prices and housing starts from the AEO2010 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. 

**&thnsp;The CO2 values represent global values (in 2009$) of the social cost of CO2 emissions in 2010 under several scenarios. The values 

of $4.9, $22.1, and $36.3 per ton are the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5-percent, 3-percent, and 2.5-percent discount rates, respectively. The value of $67.1 per ton represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The value for 

NOX (in 2009$) is the average of the low and high values used in DOE’s analysis. †Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the SCC value calculated at a 3% discount rate, which is $22.1/ton in 2010 

(in 2009$). In the rows labeled as ‘‘7% plus CO2 range’’ and ‘‘3% plus CO2 range,’’ the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the 

labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values. 

III. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule until the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this proposed 

rule. Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

regulations.gov. The regulations.gov 

Web page will require you to provide 

your name and contact information. 

Your contact information will be 

viewable to DOE Building Technologies 

staff only. Your contact information will 

not be publicly viewable except for your 

first and last names, organization name 

(if any), and submitter representative 

name (if any). If your comment is not 

processed properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37566 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

regulations.gov cannot be claimed as 

CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through regulations.gov before posting. 

Normally, comments will be posted 

within a few days of being submitted. 

However, if large volumes of comments 

are being processed simultaneously, 

your comment may not be viewable for 

up to several weeks. Please keep the 

comment tracking number that 

regulations.gov provides after you have 

successfully uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via e-mail, 

hand delivery/courier, or mail. 

Comments and documents submitted 

via e-mail, hand delivery, or mail also 

will be posted to regulations.gov. If you 

do not want your personal contact 

information to be publicly viewable, do 

not include it in your comment or any 

accompanying documents. Instead, 

provide your contact information in a 

cover letter. Include your first and last 

names, e-mail address, telephone 

number, and optional mailing address. 

The cover letter will not be publicly 

viewable as long as it does not include 

any comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. E-mail 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery/courier, 

please provide all items on a CD, if 

feasible. It is not necessary to submit 

printed copies. No facsimiles (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential business information. 

According to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 

person submitting information that he 

or she believes to be confidential and 

exempt by law from public disclosure 

should submit via e-mail, postal mail, or 

hand delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked confidential including all the 

information believed to be confidential, 

and one copy of the document marked 

non-confidential with the information 

believed to be confidential deleted. 

Submit these documents via e-mail or 

on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its 

own determination about the 

confidential status of the information 

and treat it according to its 

determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Public Meeting 

As stated previously, if DOE 

withdraws the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a public 

meeting to allow for additional 

comment on this proposed rule. DOE 

will publish notice of any meeting in 

the Federal Register. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

The regulatory reviews conducted for 

this proposed rule are identical to those 

conducted for the direct final rule 

published elsewhere in today’s Federal 

Register. Please see the direct final rule 

for further details. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s proposed rule. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 430 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Household appliances, Imports, 

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, and 

Small businesses. 

Issued in Washington, DC on June 6, 2011. 

Henry Kelly, 

Acting Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

430 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

to read as set forth below: 

PART 430—ENERGY CONSERVATION 

PROGRAM FOR CONSUMER 

PRODUCTS 

1. The authority for part 430 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6309; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

2. Section 430.23 is amended by: 

a. Redesignating paragraphs (m)(4), 

(m)(5), and (n)(5) as paragraphs (m)(5), 

(m)(6), and (n)(6), respectively; 

b. Adding new paragraphs (m)(4) and 

(n)(5); and 

c. Revising paragraph (n)(2). 

The additions and revision read as 

follows: 

§ 430.23 Test procedures for the 

measurement of energy and water 

consumption. 

* * * * * 

(m) * * * 

(4) The average off mode power 

consumption for central air conditioners 

and central air conditioning heat pumps 

shall be determined according to 

appendix M of this subpart. Round the 

average off mode power consumption to 

the nearest watt. 

* * * * * 

(n) * * * 

(2) The annual fuel utilization 

efficiency for furnaces, expressed in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37567 

percent, is the ratio of the annual fuel 

output of useful energy delivered to the 

heated space to the annual fuel energy 

input to the furnace determined 

according to section 10.1 of appendix N 

of this subpart for gas and oil furnaces 

and determined in accordance with 

section 11.1 of the American National 

Standards Institute/American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers (ANSI/ 

ASHRAE) Standard 103–1993 

(incorporated by reference, see § 430.3) 

for electric furnaces. Round the annual 

fuel utilization efficiency to the nearest 

whole percentage point. 

* * * * * 

(5) The average standby mode and off 

mode electrical power consumption for 

furnaces shall be determined according 

to section 8.6 of appendix N of this 

subpart. Round the average standby 

mode and off mode electrical power 

consumption to the nearest watt. 

* * * * * 

3. Appendix M to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by adding a note after 

the heading that reads as follows: 

Appendix M to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Central Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Note: The procedures and calculations that 

refer to off mode energy consumption (i.e., 

sections 3.13 and 4.2.8 of this appendix M) 

need not be performed to determine 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards for central air conditioners and 

heat pumps at this time. However, any 

representation related to standby mode and 

off mode energy consumption of these 

products made after corresponding revisions 

to the central air conditioners and heat 

pumps test procedure must be based upon 

results generated under this test procedure, 

consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2). For residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2015, compliance with 

the applicable provisions of this test 

procedure is required in order to determine 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards. 

* * * * * 

4. Appendix N to subpart B of part 

430 is amended by: 

a. Removing all references to ‘‘POFF’’ 

and adding in their place ‘‘PW,OFF’’ in 

sections 8.6.2, 9.0, and 10.9; 

b. Removing all references to ‘‘PSB’’ 

and adding in their place ‘‘PW,SB’’ in 

sections 8.6.1, 8.6.2, 9.0, and 10.9; and 

c. Revising the note after the heading. 

The revision reads as follows: 

Appendix N to Subpart B of Part 430— 

Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 

Energy Consumption of Furnaces and 

Boilers 

Note: The procedures and calculations that 

refer to off mode energy consumption (i.e., 

sections 8.6 and 10.9 of this appendix N) 

need not be performed to determine 

compliance with energy conservation 

standards for furnaces and boilers at this 

time. However, any representation related to 

standby mode and off mode energy 

consumption of these products made after 

April 18, 2011 must be based upon results 

generated under this test procedure, 

consistent with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 

6293(c)(2). For furnaces manufactured on or 

after May 1, 2013, compliance with the 

applicable provisions of this test procedure is 

required in order to determine compliance 

with energy conservation standards. For 

boilers, the statute requires that after July 1, 

2010, any adopted energy conservation 

standard shall address standby mode and off 

mode energy consumption for these 

products, and upon the compliance date for 

such standards, compliance with the 

applicable provisions of this test procedure 

will be required. 

* * * * * 

5. Section 430.32 is amended by: 

a. Revising paragraph (c)(2); 

c. Adding paragraphs (c)(3), (c)(4), 

(c)(5), (c)(6); 

d. Revising paragraphs (e)(1)(i) and 

(e)(1)(ii); and 

d. Adding paragraphs (e)(1)(iii), and 

(e)(1)(iv). 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 430.32 Energy and water conservation 

standards and their effective dates. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(2) Central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps 

manufactured on or after January 23, 

2006, and before January 1, 2015, shall 

have Seasonal Energy Efficiency Ratio 

and Heating Seasonal Performance 

Factor no less than: 

Product class 

Seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio (SEER) 

Heating seasonal performance factor 

(HSPF) 

(i) Split-system air conditioners ............................................................................................................................... 13 ........................

(ii) Split-system heat pumps .................................................................................................................................... 13 7.7 

(iii) Single-package air conditioners ........................................................................................................................ 13 ........................

(iv) Single-package heat pumps .............................................................................................................................. 13 7.7 

(v)(A) Through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pumps—split system 1 .............................................................. 10 .9 7.1 

(v)(B) Through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pumps—single package 1 ......................................................... 10 .6 7.0 

(vi) Small-duct, high-velocity systems ..................................................................................................................... 13 7.7 

(vii)(A) Space-constrained products—air conditioners ............................................................................................ 12 ........................

(vii)(B) Space-constrained products—heat pumps .................................................................................................. 12 7.4 

1The ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pump—split system’’ and ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioner and heat pump—single package’’ 

product classes only applied to products manufactured prior to January 23, 2010. Products manufactured as of that date must be assigned to 

one of the remaining product classes listed in this table. The product class assignment depends on the product’s characteristics. Product class 

definitions can be found in 10 CFR 430.2 and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M. DOE believes that most, if not all, of the historically 

characterized ‘‘through-the-wall’’ products will be assigned to one of the space-constrained product classes. 

(3) Central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015, shall have a Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio and Heating Seasonal 

Performance Factor not less than: 

Product class 1

Seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio (SEER) 

Heating seasonal performance factor 

(HSPF) 

(i) Split-system air conditioners ............................................................................................................................... 13 ........................

(ii) Split-system heat pumps .................................................................................................................................... 14 8.2 

(iii) Single-package air conditioners ........................................................................................................................ 14 ........................


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
37568 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Product class 1

Seasonal energy efficiency 

ratio (SEER) 

Heating seasonal performance factor 

(HSPF) 

(iv) Single-package heat pumps .............................................................................................................................. 14 8.0 

(v) Small-duct, high-velocity systems ...................................................................................................................... 13 7.7 

(vi)(A) Space-constrained products—air conditioners ............................................................................................. 12 ........................

(vii)(B) Space-constrained products—heat pumps .................................................................................................. 12 7.4 

1The ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioners and heat pump—split system’’ and ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioner and heat pump—single package’’ 

product classes only applied to products manufactured prior to January 23, 2010. Products manufactured as of that date must be assigned to 

one of the remaining product classes listed in this table. The product class assignment depends on the product’s characteristics. Product class 

definitions can be found in 10 CFR 430.2 and 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M. DOE believes that most, if not all, of the historically 

characterized ‘‘through-the-wall’’ products will be assigned to one of the space-constrained product classes. 

(4) In addition to meeting the 

applicable requirements in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section, products in 

product class (i) of that paragraph (i.e., 

split-system air conditioners) that are 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015, and installed in the States of 

Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, 

Georgia, Hawaii, Kentucky, Louisiana, 

Maryland, Mississippi, North Carolina, 

Oklahoma, South Carolina, Tennessee, 

Texas, or Virginia, or in the District of 

Columbia, shall have a Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio not less than 14. 

(5) In addition to meeting the 

applicable requirements in paragraph 

(c)(3) of this section, products in 

product classes (i) and (iii) of paragraph 

(c)(3) (i.e., split-system air conditioners 

and single-package air conditioners) that 

are manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015, and installed in the States of 

Arizona, California, Nevada, or New 

Mexico shall have a Seasonal Energy 

Efficiency Ratio not less than 14 and 

have an Energy Efficiency Ratio (at a 

standard rating of 95 °F dry bulb 

outdoor temperature) not less than the 

following: 

Product class 

Energy efficiency ratio 

(EER) 

(i) Split-system rated cooling 

capacity less than 45,000 

Btu/hr ................................. 12.2 

(ii) Split-system rated cooling 

capacity equal to or greater than 45,000 Btu/hr ........ 11.7 

(iii) Single-package systems 11.0 

(6) Central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2015, shall have an average off mode 

electrical power consumption not more 

than the following: 

Product class 

Average off 

mode power 

consumption 

PW,OFF (watts) 

(i) Split-system air conditioners ............................... 30 

(ii) Split-system heat pumps 33 

(iii) Single-package air conditioners ............................... 30 

(iv) Single-package heat 

pumps ............................... 33 

(v) Small-duct, high-velocity 

systems ............................. 30 

(vi) Space-constrained air 

conditioners ....................... 30 

(vii) Space-constrained heat 

pumps ............................... 33 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(i) The Annual Fuel Utilization 

Efficiency (AFUE) of residential 

furnaces shall not be less than the 

following for non-weatherized furnaces 

manufactured before May 1, 2013, and 

weatherized furnaces manufactured 

before January 1, 2015: 

Product class AFUE 

(percent) 1

(A) Furnaces (excluding 

classes noted below) ........ 78 

(B) Mobile Home furnaces ... 75 

(C) Small furnaces (other 

than those designed solely 

for installation in mobile 

homes) having an input 

rate of less than 45,000 

Btu/hr 

(1) Weatherized (outdoor) ........................... 78 

(2) Non-weatherized (indoor) ........................... 78 

1Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, as determined in § 430.23(n)(2) of this part. 

(ii) The AFUE of residential nonweatherized furnaces manufactured on 

or after May 1, 2013, and weatherized 

gas and oil-fired furnaces manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2015 shall be not 

less than the following: 

Product class AFUE 

(percent) 1

(A) Non-weatherized gas furnaces (not including mobile home furnaces) .......... 80 

(B) Mobile Home gas furnaces ................................. 80 

(C) Non-weatherized oil-fired 

furnaces (not including 

mobile home furnaces) ..... 83 

(D) Mobile Home oil-fired furnaces ................................. 75 

(E) Weatherized gas furnaces ................................. 81 

(F) Weatherized oil-fired furnaces ................................. 78 

(G) Electric furnaces ............. 78 

1Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency, as determined in § 430.23(n)(2) of this part. 

(iii) In addition to meeting the 

applicable requirements in paragraph 

(e)(1)(ii) of this section, products in 

product classes (A) and (B) of that 

paragraph (i.e., residential nonweatherized gas furnaces (including 

mobile home furnaces)) that are 

manufactured on or after May 1, 2013, 

and installed in the States of Alaska, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Idaho, Illinois, 

Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, 

Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South 

Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Washington, 

West Virginia, Wisconsin, and 

Wyoming, shall have an AFUE not less 

than 90 percent. 

(iv) Furnaces manufactured on or after 

May 1, 2013, shall have an electrical 

standby mode power consumption 

(PW,SB) and electrical off mode power 

consumption (PW,OFF) not more than the 

following: 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 123 / Monday, June 27, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37569 

Product class 

Maximum 

standby mode 

electrical 

power consumption, 

PW,SB (watts) 

Maximum off 

mode electrical power 

consumption, 

PW,OFF (watts) 

(A) Non-weatherized gas furnaces (including mobile home furnaces) ................................................................... 10 10 

(B) Non-weatherized oil-fired furnaces (including mobile home furnaces) ............................................................. 11 11 

(C) Electric furnaces ................................................................................................................................................ 10 10 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2011–14556 Filed 6–24–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2