EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Friday, 

January 12, 2001 

Part X 

Department of 

Energy 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Efficiency Standards for Commercial 

Heating, Air Conditioning and Water 

Heating Equipment; Final Rule 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3336 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EE-RMlSTD-OG-100] 

RIN 1904-AB06 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Efficiency Standards for Commercial 

Heating, Air Conditioning and Water 

Heating Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (EPCA), as amended, 

establishes energy efficiency standards 

for certain commercial heating, air 

conditioning and water heating 

products. For some of these products, 

the Department of Energy (DOE, 

Department or we) is adopting 

efficiency standards contained in the 

new American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE) and 

Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1, 

as revised in October 1999, as uniform 

national standards. This final rule also 

identifies other products covered by the 

recently revised ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 that DOE will 

analyze further to determine whether 

more stringent standards are warranted. 

DATES: Effective date: This rule is 

effective February 12, 2001. 

Compliance Dates: The compliance 

date of standards adopted in this rule 

for central water-cooled air 

conditioners, water source heat pumps, 

and evaporatively-cooled air 

conditioning products with cooling 

capacities rated at or above 135,000 Btul 

h and below 240,000 Btu/h is October 

29, 2004. For all other standards 

adopted in this rule, the compliance 

date is October 29, 2003. 

ADDRESSES: You can read the transcript 

of the public workshop regarding this 

rulemaking, the public comments 

received, and the Screening Analysis 

report referred to in this notice in the 

Freedom of Information Reading Room 

(Room No. lE-190) at the U.S. 

Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, between 

the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, except Federal 

holidays. You can also obtain the 

Screening Analysis report electronically 

from the Office of Building Research 

and Standards world wide web site at 

the following URL address: [http:// 

www.eren.doe.gov!buildings! 

codes standards!index.htm]. 

This final rule also refers to certain 

industry standards established by 

ASHRAE and IESNA. These industry 

standards are referenced by the single 

comprehensive title "ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1." The revision of 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 

published in 1999 is referenced by the 

title "ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-

1999." You can view this standard at 

the Department's Information Reading 

Room at the address stated above. You 

can also obtain copies by mail from the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc., 1971 Tullie Circle, NE, 

Atlanta, GA 30329, or electronically 

from ASHRAE's web site, [http:// 

www.ashrae.org!book!bookshop.html. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cyrus H. Nasseri, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Mail Station, EE-41, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-

9138, FAX (202) 586-4617, e-mail: 

Cyrus.Nasseri@ee.doe.gov, or Edward 

Levy, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of General Counsel, Mail Station, 

GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 

SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-

9507, e-mail: Edward.LeVY@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

1. Introduction 

A. Consumer Overview 

B. Authority 

C. Background 

1. General 

2. ASHRAE Action 

II. Discussion 

A. The Screening Analysis and Results 

1. Content and Results ofthe Screening 

Analysis 

2. Discussion of Issues Raised Concerning 

the Screening Analysis 

B. Treatment of Specific Products 

1. DOE Views Expressed in the Workshop 

Notice 

2. Discussion of Comments on General 

Issues Surrounding Adoption of 

Efficiency Standards in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 

3. Discussion of DOE Views Regarding . Specific Products 

C. Final Rule and Other DOE Actions 

III. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, 

"Regulatory Planning and Review" 

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

D. Review Under Executive Order 13132, 

"Federalism" 

E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, 

"Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights" . F. Review Under the Paperwork ReductlOn 

Act 

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988, 

"Civil Justice Reform" 

H. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974 

1. Review Under Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

J. Review Under the Plain Language 

Directives 

K. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

1. Review Under the Small Business and 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

I. Introduction 

A. Consumer Overview 

This rule adopts amended ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 energy 

efficiency standards for 18 product 

categories of commercial air 

conditioners, heat pumps, furnaces, 

water heaters, and hot water storage 

tanks. The effect is to replace standards 

specified in EPCA for these product 

categories for equipment manufactured 

after October 29, 2003, or October 29, 

2004, in the case of large packaged air 

conditioners and heat pumps. DOE 

expects the imposition of these new 

standards to save in excess of 1.1 

quadrillion Btu (Quads) of energy 

nationwide between 2004 and 2030. 

The commercial air conditioners, heat 

pumps, furnaces, water heaters and hot 

water storage tanks subject to the 

standards adopted today apply to 

equipment generally found in 

commercial buildings. Today's 

standards do not apply to consumer 

products. EPCA established the 

efficiency standards for consumer 

appliances, and the Department is 

considering amendments for residential 

central air conditioners and heat pumps, 

clothes washers and water heaters under 

separate proceedings. The new 

commercial standards apply to products 

manufactured after the dates specified, 

to products installed in new 

construction as well as existing 

buildings. 

DOE expects the energy costs for 

space heating and cooling and water 

heating in commercial buildings to be 

reduced as a result of today's standards. 

In addition to reducing building cost-ofoperation, the standards will result in 

lower emissions due to less fuel being 

used for heating and for generating 

electricity. 

In addition, the Department is 

considering more stringent standards 

than those adopted by ASHRAE for 11 

categories of commercial products. The 

Department believes more stringent 

standards than those found in ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 may save 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9/ Friday, January 12, 2001/ Rules and Regulations 3337 

significant additional amounts of energy 

and be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE also plans 

to recommend to ASHRAE that it 

consider new, amended standards for 

four categories of commercial central air 

conditioners and heat pumps not 

considered in the update of ASHRAE/ 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. Finally, the 

Department is rejecting a standard for 

electric water heaters that will increase 

energy use over the level specified in 

EPCA and leaving the EPCA level in 

place. A summary of the actions taken 

by the Department is presented in Table 

1. 

BILUNG CODe 6451Hl1-P 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3338 Federal Register IVaI. 66, No.9 I Friday, January 12, 2001 I Rules and Regulations 

Table 1. Summary of DOE Actions 

Action Product Category 

Adopt the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Central Water Source HP <17 kBtulh 

90.1-1999 efficiency level. Central Water Source HP 17 - 65 kBtulh 

Central Water Source HP 65 - 135 kBtulh 

Central Water Source HP 135 - 240 kBtuIh 

Central Water Cooled AC <65 kBtuIh 

Central Water Cooled AC 65 - 135 kBtulh 

Central Water Cooled AC 135 - 240 kBtulh 

Evaporatively Cooled AC Products 

Gas-Fired Warm Air Furnaces 2 225 kBtulh 

Oil-Fired Warm Air Furnaces, 2 225 kBtulh 

Gas Storage Water Heaters:::; 155 kBtulh 

Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters:::; 155 kBtulh 

Gas Storage Water Heaters >155 kBtulh 

Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters >155 kBtulh 

Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters with Tanks 

Oil-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters with Tanks 

Tankless Oil-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters 

Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks 

Propose consideration of an addendum 3-Phase Single Package Air Source AC <65 kBtuIh 

to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1- 3-Phase Split Air Source AC <65 kBtulh 

1999. 3-Phase Single Package Air Source HP <65 kBtulh 

3-Phase Split Air Source HP <65 kBtulh 

Propose consideration of an addendum Central Air Source AC 65 - 135 kBtulh 

to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1- Central Air Source HP 65 - 135 kBtulh 

1999 and evaluate whether a higher Central Air Source AC 135 - 240 kBtulh 

standard is justified. Central Air Source HP 135 - 240 kBtulh 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps 

Large Gas-Fired Boilers >2.5 MMBtulh 

Large Oil-Fired Boilers >2.5 MMBtulh 

Small Gas-Fired Boilers 0.3 - 2.5 MMBtulh 

Small Oil-Fired Boilers 0.3 - 2.5 MMBtulh 

Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters 

Reject the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard Electric Water Heaters 

90.1-1999 efficiency level. 

Q:\EE-41 \priority ruleslCmrcl HV AC and Wtr htrlStandards Final Rule. I 8.wpd 

December 26, 2000 

BILLING CODE 64SG-Ol-C 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9/ Friday, January 12, 2001/ Rules and Regulations 3339 

B. Authority 

Part B of Title III of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act (EPCA) of 1975, 

Pub. L. 94-163, as amended, by the 

National Energy Conservation Policy 

Act of 1978 (NECPA), Pub. L. 95-619, 

the National Appliance Energy 

Conservation Act of 1987 (NAECA), 

Pub. L. 100-12, the National Appliance 

Energy Conservation Amendments of 

1988 (NAECA 1988), Pub. L. 100-357, 

and the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPACT), Pub. L. 102-486, established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Consumer Products other than 

Automobiles. Part 3 of Title IV of 

NECP A amended EPCA to add "Energy 

Efficiency of Industrial Equipment," 

which included air conditioners, 

furnaces, and other types of equipment. 

EP ACT also amended EPCA with 

respect to industrial equipment, 

providing definitions, test procedures, 

labeling provisions, energy conservation 

standards, and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers. EPCA sections 340-345, 

42 U.S.C. 6311-6316. For example, 

EPCA specifies explicit minimum 

energy efficiency levels for certain 

commercial packaged air conditioning 

and heating products, packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged 

boilers, water heaters and unfired hot 

water storage tanks. EPCA section 

342(a)(1)-:(5), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(5). 

The efficiency requirements in the 

statute correspond to the levels in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in 

effect on October 24,1992. The statute 

further provides that if the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 

are amended after that date for any of 

the covered products, the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) must establish an 

amended uniform national standard at 

the new minimum level for each 

effective date specified in ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1, unless (s)he 

determines, through a rulemaking 

supported by clear and convincing 

evidence, that a more stringent standard 

is technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant additional energy 

conservation. EPCA section 

342(a)(6)(A), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 

If the Secretary elects to publish such 

a rule, it must contain the amended 

standard, and the determination must 

consider, to the greatest extent 

practicable: the economic impact on the 

manufacturers and consumers of the 

affected products; savings in operating 

cost throughout the life of the product, 

compared to any increases in initial cost 

or maintenance expense; the total 

projected amount of energy savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; any 

lessening oftheutility or performance 

of the affected products; the impact of 

any lessening of competition; the need 

for national energy conservation; and 

other factors the Secretary considers 

relevant. The Secretary may not 

prescribe such an amended standard if 

(s)he finds (and publishes the finding) 

that interested persons have established 

by a preponderance of evidence that the 

amended standard is likely to result in 

unavailability in the United States of 

products with performance 

characteristics (including reliability), 

features, sizes, capacities and volumes 

that are substantially the same as those 

generally available in the United States 

at the time of the Secretary's finding. 

EPCA section 342(a)(6)(B), 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B). 

Finally, the Secretary may not 

prescribe any amended standard which 

increases maximum allowable energy 

use or decreases minimum required 

energy efficiency. EPCA section 

342(a)(6)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.c. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii). 

C. Background 

1. General 

Pursuant to the EP ACT amendments 

to EPCA in 1992, DOE extended its 

energy conservation program for 

consumer products to certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

and created a new Part 431 in Title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations, 

entitled, "Energy Conservation Program 

for Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment." This part includes 

commercial heating, air conditioning 

and water heating products, as well as 

large electric motors. The new program 

consists of: test procedures, Federal 

energy conservation standards, labeling, 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. 

2. ASHRAE Action 

ASHRAE's Board of Directors gave 

final approval to certain revisions to 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 on 

October 29,1999. The revised Standard 

indicates that the amended commercial 

HVAC and water heater equipment 

efficiencies will become effective as part 

of the Standard two years after final 

ASHRAE approval (Le., on October 29, 

2001). 

ASHRAE changed the efficiency 

standards only for some products 

covered by the ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1. For the remaining 

products, ASHRAE considered some 

efficiency levels in the course of 

revising Standard 90.1 but left them at 

their preexisting values, and it deferred 

consideration of other products. The 

standard levels prescribed in EPCA and 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

appear in Tables 2 and 3. 

II. Discussion 

A. The Screening Analysis and Results 

1. Content and Results of the Screening 

Analysis 

To decide whether to adopt efficiency 

standards contained in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 or to initiate the 

process of developing and analyzing 

more stringent standards for particular 

product categories, DOE performed a 

simplified Screening Analysis and 

evaluated other information. This 

process was designed to identify 

products covered by EPCA for which it 

was unlikely that a more detailed 

analysis would reveal evidence 

sufficient to justify more stringent 

requirements, and also to identify 

products for which it was reasonably 

possible such evidence would be 

revealed by further analysis. Screening 

products in this way allows DOE to 

adopt several ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 standards expeditiously 

without hindering appropriate 

consideration of the remaining 

products. 

BILLING CODE 645!Hll-P 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3340 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

Table 2. Standard Levels for Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

I 

Efficiency Level' 

Product ASHRAE 90.1-

Category Product Subcategory EPCA 1999 

Small <65 kBtuIh, Air-Cooled, 3 Phase, Central Split SEER: 10.0, SEER: 10.0, 

Commercial SystemAC, HP HSPF: 6.8 HSPF: 6.8 

Packaged Air <65 kBtuIh, Air-Cooled, 3 Phase, Central Single I SEER: 9.7, SEER: 9.7, 

Conditioning Package AC, HP HSPF: 6.6 HSPF: 6.6 

and Heating 2: 65 kBtuIh and <135 kBtulh, Air-Cooled, Central I EERb: 8.9, EERb: 10.3, 

Equipment AC,HP cope: 3 cope: 3.2 

I <65 kBtuIh, Evaporatively-Cooled, Central AC I EERb: 9.3 I EERb: 12.1 I 

I <65 kBtuIh, Water-Cooled, Central AC I EERd: 9.3 I EERd: 12.1 I 

I <17 kBtuIh, Water-Source, Central HP I EERd: 9.3 I EERc

: 11.2 I 2: 17 kBtuIh and <65 kBtulh, Water-Source, I EERd: 9.3 I EERc

: 12.0 

Central HP I 2: 65 kBtulh and <135 kBtuIh, Evaporatively- I EERb: 10.5 I EERb: 1l.5 

Cooled, Central AC I 2: 65 kBtuIh and <135 kBtuIh, Water-Cooled, I EERd: 10.5 I EERd: 11.5 

Central AC I 2: 65 kBtuIh and <135 kBtuIh, Water-Source, I EERd: 10.5 I EERc

: 12.0 

Central HP l 

I <135 kBtuIh, Water-Source, Central HP I COpf: 3.8 I coPg: 4.2 I 

Large 2: 135 kBtuIh and <240 kBtuIh, Air-Cooled, ! EERb: 8.5 I EERb: 9.7 

Commercial Central AC I 

Packaged Air 2: 135 kBtulh and <240 kBtuIh, Air-Cooled, I EERb; 8.5, EERb: 9.3, 

Conditioning Central HP cope: 2.9 cope: 3.1 

and Heating 2: 135 kBtulh and <240 kBtuIh, Water cooled, I EERh; 9.6 I EERh: 11.0 I Equipment Evaporatively-Cooled, Central AC 

Packaged Air-Cooled EER, cop vary EER, COP vary 

Terminal Air by capacity by capacity 

Conditioners (different (different 

and Heat Pumps formulas) formulas) 

• Heating efficiency levels do not apply to cooling only air conditioners. 

b At 95°F dry-bulb temperature. 

c At 47°F dry-bulb temperature. 

d At 85°F entering water temperature. 

c At 86°F entering water temperature. 

r At 70°F entering water temperature. 

g At 68°F entering water temperature. 

h According to ARl Standard 360. 

Q:\EE-41 \Priority rules\Cmrcl HVAC and Wtr htrlStandards Final Rule. 1 8.wpd 

December 26, 2000 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

I 

I 

I 

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

Table 3. Standard Levels for Furnaces, Boilers, Water Heaters, and Unfired Hot Water 

Storage Tanks 

Product I Efficiency Level 

Product Category Subcategory EPCA I ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

Wann Air Furnaces I ~ 225,000 BtuIh Thermal Efficiency": Thermal Efficiency": 

80% Gas, 81 % Oil 80% Gas, 81 % Oil 

Packaged Boilers I ~ 300,000 BtuIh Combustion Efficiency": Thermal Efficiency": 

80% Gas, 83% Oil 75% Gas, 78% Oil 

Storage Water I Standby Lossb: Standby Lossc

: 

Heaters 0.3 + 27N. (%/h) 20 + 35/V (BtuIh) 

(V.=Measured Storage (V=Rated Storage Volume in 

Volume in Gals.) Gals.) 

I 

Gas Thermal Efficiency: 78%, Thermal Efficiency: 80%, 

Standby Lossb: Varies by Standby Lossc

: Varies by 

Volume Volume 

I 

Oil Thermal Efficiency: 78%, Thermal Efficiency: 78%, 

Standby Lossb: Varies by Standby Loss c

: Varies by 

Volume Volume 

Instantaneous Water I V<lO gal I Thernlal Efficiency: 80% I Thermal Efficiency: 80% 

Heaters V ~ 10 gal, Gas- Thermal Efficiency: 77%, Thermal Efficiency: 80%, 

fired Standby Lossb: Varies by Standby Lossc

: Varies by 

Volume Volume 

V ~ 10 gal, Oil- Thermal Efficiency: 77%, Thermal Efficiency: 78%, 

fired Standby Lossb: Varies by Standby LossC

: Varies by 

Volume Volume 

Unfired Hot Water I All I Heat Lossb

: I R-12.5 Insulation 

Storage Tanks s 6.5 Bt:ulhr/ff 

• At the Ulaximum rated capacity. 

b Storage water heaters and hot water storage tanks having more than 140 gallons of storage capacity need not 

meet the standby loss or heat loss requirement if the tank surface area is thermally insulated to R-12.5 and if a 

standing pilot light is not used. 

C Water heaters having more than 140 gallons of storage capacity are not required to meet the standby loss 

requirement if the tank surface is thermally insulated to R-12.5, if a standing pilot light is not installed, and 

gas- or oil-fired storage water heaters have a flue damper or fan-assisted combustion. 

I 

I 

I 

Q:\EE-41 \priority rules\Cmrc1 HV AC and Wtr htrlStandards Final Rule.18.wpd 

December 26, 2000 

BILLING CODe 6450-01-C 

3341 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3342 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

In conducting the Screening Analysis, 

the Department used existing data from 

industry and other sources, including 

the analysis used by ASHRAE in 

support of its deliberations over the new 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

efficiency levels. For each product 

category, we estimated the likely cost of 

achieving several higher technologically 

feasible efficiency levels and then 

calculated for each such level the 

corresponding rate of energy 

consumption required to fulfill the 

product's function. Applying 

appropriate climate data, typical 

building design characteristics, 

inventories of buildings in different 

regions ofthe country, equipment sales 

volumes, economic discount rates, and 

energy prices, we computed cost/benefit 

measures corresponding to the higher 

efficiency levels and also estimated the 

nationwide energy and net cost savings, 

if any, that would result from setting 

more stringent standards than the levels 

in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. 

While the conclusions of the Screening 

Analysis by themselves do not 

constitute clear and convincing 

evidence to justify more stringent 

standards, they do serve to differentiate 

those products for which such evidence 

is unlikely to emerge from further 

analysis from those for which a 

reasonable likelihood exists. 

The Department examined a range of 

efficiency levels for each product 

analyzed. The range included the levels 

specified in EPCA and ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999, as well as more 

efficient levels characteristic of the most 

efficient products now available in the 

market and those associated with the 

lowest life-cycle cost. For each level 

above the EPCA standard, DOE 

estimated: (1) The incremental national 

energy and carbon emission savings, 

and (2) the net nationwide direct 

economic benefit, represente'd by the 

national net present value (NPV), that 

would result from setting a standard at 

that level, compared to the 

corresponding levels now in ASHRAE/ 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and EPCA. 

Table 4 lists the 24 product categories 

studied in the Screening Analysis. It 

shows for each one the efficiency level 

that the Screening Analysis indicates 

would correspond to the lowest average 

life-cycle cost, taking into account both 

the costs of efficiency improvements 

and the savings from reduced energy 

consumption. In addition, where that 

efficiency level lies above the level 

specified in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999, Table 4 shows the following 

potential benefits that the Screening 

Analysis suggests would result over the 

period from 2004 to 2030 from setting 

a standard at the higher level: 

1. The estimated nationwide energy 

savings, expressed in trillions of Btu 

(TBtu); 

2. The estimated net nationwide 

direct economic benefit, represented by 

the net present value (NPV); and 

3. The estimated reductions in 

atmospheric carbon emissions, in 

millions of tons. 

When Table 4 shows a zero for a 

product in all three of these categories, 

the Screening Analysis indicates that 

the efficiency level that corresponds 

with the product's lowest average life 

cycle cost is the same as the level 

specified in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999. 

BllUNG CODe 645(}-()l-P 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 3343 

Table 4. Energy Savings, Net Present Value and Carbon Emission Reductions from 2004 

to 2030 at Energy Efficiency Levels corresponding to Lowest Life-Cycle Cost 

Relative to ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

National 

Efficiency Carbon 

Product Category Level at National National Emission 

Minimum Energy TotalNPV Reductions 

Life-Cycle Savings (Millions of (Million 

Cost (TBtu) 1998 $'s) Tons) 

13-Phase Smgle Package AIr Source AC <65 kBtulh 12.0 1,412.7 I 897.7 21 

I Central Air SourceAC 135-240kBtu/h lOA 428.8 I 417.9 6 

I Packaged Tenninal Air Conditioners 10.5 311.7 I 274.7 5 

13-Phase Split Air Source AC <65 kBtu/h 11.0 278.6 I 109.1 4 

I Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps 9.9 249.0 I 241.9 4 

ISmail Gas-Fired Boilers :s; 2.5 MMBtu/h 78.7% 200.0 r- 146.0 3 

13-Phase Single Package Air Source HP <65 kBtu.1b 12.0 183.6 I 91.3 3 

I Tankless Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters 81.5% 102.0 I 45.3 2 

ILarge Gas-Fired Boilers >2.5 MMBtu/h 85.3%* 79.0 I 86.6 

/3-Phase Split Air Source HP <65 kBtulh 12.0 66.4 I 47.0 

ICentral, Water Source HP 17 - 65 kBtu/h 12.5 65.0 I 23.0 

ICentral Air Source HP 135 - 240 kBtu/h 10.4 31.4 I 3.2 

IElectric Water Heater (120 gal) 1.0 6.6 I l.l 0 

ICentral Water Cooled AC 65 - 135 kBtu/h 12.4 2.7 I 0.8 0 

I Central Water Cooled AC 135 - 240 kBtu/h 11.5 2.5 I 3.0 0 

ICentral Air Source AC 65 - 135 kBtu/h 10.3 0.0 I 0.0 0 

ICentral Air Source HP 65 - 135 kBtu/h 10.1 0.0 I 0.0 0 

ICentral Water Cooled AC <65 kBtulh 12.1 0.0 I 0.0 0 

ICentral Water Source HP <17 kBtu/h 11.2 0.0 I 0.0 0 

ICentral Water Source HP 65 - 135 kBtulh 12.0 0.0 I 0.0 0 

I Gas-Fired Warm Air Furnaces ~ 225 kBtu/h 77.5% 0.0 I 0.0 0 

IGas Storage Water Heaters :s; 155 kBtu/h 80.0% 0.0 I 0.0 0 

IGas Storage Water Heaters >155 kBtulh 80.4% 0.0 0.0 0 

IInstantaneous Gas Water Heaters with Tanks 80.0% 0.0 I 0.0 0 

* Efficiency shown is shipment-averaged value of Large Stearn Boilers (76% - 81 %), and Large Hot Water 

Boilers (78% - 88%) 

Q:\EE-41 \priority rules\Cmrc1 HVAC and Wtr htr\Standards Final Rule. I 8.wpd 

December 26, 2000 

BILLING CODe 645CHl1-C 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3344 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

On May 15, 2000, the Department 

published a Notice of Document 

Availability and Public Workshop 

(Workshop Notice), in which we 

described the Screening Analysis, 

announced the public availability of the 

Screening Analysis report, and 

published our preliminary inclinations 

with respect to the commercial heating, 

air conditioning, and water heating 

products covered by EPCA, including 

several product categories not included 

in the Screening Analysis. 65 FR 30929. 

We also invited comments and 

conducted a public workshop on July 

11,2000. 

2. Discussion ofIssues Raised 

Concerning the Screening Analysis 

Several comments took issue with 

different aspects of the Screening 

Analysis. These views are listed below, 

along with DOE's responses. In general, 

many of the comments will be useful in more detailed evaluations of ASHRAEI 

IESNA 90.1-1999 efficiency levels 

which are not adopted as national 

standards in today's rule. On the other 

hand, none of the comments on the 

analysis itself indicates that clear and 

convincing evidence exists to justify more stringent standards than those 

adopted today. 

Comment: DOE relied too heavily on equipment cost and efficiency 

relationships initially developed in 

1994 for ASHRAE's deliberations in 

amending ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1. These relationships are out of date 

and contain errors. (No.8, Rheem 

Manufacturing Company, p. 1; No. 11, 

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, p. 6; No. 16, California Energy 

Commission, p. 2; No. 19, American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, p. 3; No. 22, Lennox 

Industries, Inc., p. 3). 

Response: DOE updated baseline cost 

data in the Screening Analysis through 

interviews with manufacturers, 

distributors and contractors and by 

application of appropriate price indices. 

However, the relative costs of 

alternative efficiency levels are assumed 

not to have changed since 1994. DOE 

did not expect that these costs had 

changed sufficiently to warrant 

collecting new independent data as part 

of an analysis to provide a framework 

for deciding which efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 to 

adopt, and which required further 

study. Notwithstanding, we did invite 

and receive public comments related to 

cost and efficiency relationships, and 

these are reflected in today's rule. The 

analysis in support of a future 

rulemaking for any product will entail 

collection of current cost and efficiency 

data, which will be subjected to public 

comment. 

Comment: The Screening Analysis 

should have included copies of all 

referenced material from non-published sources. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/Gas 

Research Institute, p. 2). 

Response: Although DOE attempts to 

make all referenced material available to 

interested parties, including copies of 

this material in reports is not always 

practical due to its volume. 

Comment: The seven percent discount 

rate, taken from OMB Circular A-94 to 

reflect the time value of money in DOE's 

economic analysis, is too low. (No.2, 

Air Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, p. 10; No. 11, Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute, p. 7), or too 

high. (No. 12, American Gas 

Association, p. 3). 

Response: DOE believes that the OMB 

guidance is appropriate, reflecting the 

approximate marginal pretax rate of 

return on average investments, 

expressed in real terms (net of inflation), 

for evaluating the economic impact of 

Federal actions on the economy. In 

pursuing further evaluation of products 

for which amended efficiency levels are 

not adopted in today's rule, DOE will 

account for differing opinions 

concerning discount rates through 

sensitivity analyses in evaluating the 

economic impact of standards on consumers and manufacturers. For 

example, in past rulemakings, DOE has 

evaluated the impact on consumer lifecycle-cost by considering alternative 

discount rates varying from two percent 

to fifteen percent. 

Comment: DOE's level gas price 

projections underestimate the effect of 

gas industry restructuring and 

technological innovation. The Gas 

Research Institute projects a 1.5% 

annual decline in gas prices between 

2000 and 2015. (No. 12, American Gas 

Association, p. 3). 

Response: DOE considers the 

projections, taken from the Energy 

Information Administration's Annual 

Energy Outlook 2000, to be authoritative 

and reasonable for the purposes of the 

Screening Analysis. In addition, 

concerning products for which DOE is 

adopting ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 levels, any decline in gas 

prices that does occur would likely 

make higher efficiencies less costeffective for gas-fueled equipment and 

thus diminish the likelihood of 

uncovering clear and convincing 

evidence that more stringent standards 

are technically feasible and 

economically justified. For all covered 

gas-fueled products, except gas-fired 

boilers, DOE has decided to adopt the 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

levels as they are, so any diminished 

likelihood of finding evidence to 

support more stringent standards for 

these products would serve to reinforce 

DOE's decision with respect to them. In 

evaluating the potential impacts of more stringent standards for gas-fired boilers, 

DOE will assess the impact of 

alternative fuel price scenarios on the 

life-cycle costs of achieving higher 

efficiency levels as well as the impacts 

of standards on the Net Present Value 

(NPV). 

Comment: It is unclear whether the 

energy conversion factor in the 

Screening Analysis for electricity 

includes losses of fuel delivered to the 

powerplant. (No. 15, GARD Analyticsl 

Gas Research Institute, p. 2). 

Response: Losses of fuel delivered to 

the powerplant prior to combustion are not included in the conversion factors, 

but DOE considers these losses to be 

small in relation to the fuel actually 

consumed and thus to have little impact 

on national aggregate energy savings 

and greenhouse gas emissions reduction 

estimates. 

Comment: The 15-zone prototype 

building model does not represent 

individual building types adequately, use of historical CBECS building data 

does not account for newer buildings 

built to 1989 and 1999 ASHRAE 

standards, not treating health care buildings as a separate category creates 

inaccuracy, and window-to-wall ratios 

seem too low. (No. 15, GARD Analyticsl 

Gas Research Institute, p. 2). 

Response: The 15-zone model 

provides estimates of building energy 

consumption which, DOE believes, are 

representative of most building types, 

and from which we can infer the effects 

of standards on products used in most 

building types with sufficient precision. 

We recognize that individual buildings 

may have different energy uses, 

depending on building location, 

operation, age and other buildingspecific factors. However, we believe 

this modeling approach is valid for the 

purpose of reaching a decision on whether the potential exists for 

additional energy savings, beyond those 

resulting from the adoption of the 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

levels, that warrant consideration of 

higher standards. 

Comment: Air conditioners and heat 

pumps often exceed the minimum 

energy efficiency level specified in 

EPCA, leading DOE to overestimate the 

energy savings impacts of more 

stringent standards. (No.2, Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p.6; No.4, Carrier Corporation, p. 4-5; 

No. 11, Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute, p. 6; No. 13, 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 3345 

Carrier Corporation, p. 2; No. 22, 

Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 3). ARI 

believes the current shipment-weighted 

efficiencies for PTAC's and PTHP's 

exceed current minimum efficiency 

levels by about 10 percent. (No. 11, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p.4). 

Response: To the extent DOE, in 

computing the base case, i.e., no 

adoption of a further standard, used an 

average efficiency lower than what 

actually occurs, ARI may have a valid 

point because a more stringent standard 

would result in lower energy savings 

than what was estimated. But ARI has 

provided no data to indicate the amount 

of the possible overstatement of energy 

savings. Morever, to some extent, any 

such overstatement would be offset 

because, for the purpose of this analysis, 

we also assumed that under new 

standards the average efficiency would 

be equal to the new standard. We expect 

the shipment-weighted efficiency to be 

higher than the standard, however, and 

this would have the effect of modestly 

underestimating the energy savings due 

to standards. Aside from these 

considerations, given the amount of 

energy that could potentially be saved 

by more stringent standards on these 

products, even if it is less than 

estimated, we believe they warrant 

further consideration as candidates for 

more stringent standards. In evaluating 

the impacts of more stringent standards, 

DOE will attempt to capture the effect 

of the market demand for more efficient 

products than required by a minimum 

efficiency standard. 

Comment: Use of Full Load 

Equivalent Operating Hours (FLEOH's) 

overstates energy consumption by air 

conditioning equipment, since part-load 

operation is more efficient than at full 

load for this equipment. (No.2, Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 8; No.4, Carrier Corporation, p. 4; No. 

11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, p. 4; No. 13, Carrier 

Corporation, p. 2-3; No. 15, GARD 

Analytics/Gas Research Institute, p. 1; 

No. 22, Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 3). 

Response: DOE agrees that FLEOH's 

do not capture the part load 

performance of products. The 

Department used FLEOH's for the 

Screening Analysis because of a limited 

amount of part load efficiency data and 

because the standard under 

investigation is expressed in terms of 

full load operation. DOE believes that 

any discrepancies introduced by use of 

FLEOH's would not materially alter the 

likelihood that clear and convincing 

evidence supporting stricter standards 

will ultimately be found, because 

efficiencies at full and part load are 

correlated. Nonetheless, the Department 

welcomes suggestions concerning better 

ways to account for performance under 

part-load conditions as it conducts 

further analysis of air-conditioning 

products. 

Comment: DOE understated energy 

costs for air conditioners by failing to 

account adequately for seasonal electric 

rate variation and demand charges. (No. 

15, GARD Analytics/Gas Research 

Institute, p. 1,2; No. 19, American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, p. 5-6). 

Response: The Screening Analysis 

includes calculations of energy savings 

and life-cycle costs for specific products 

at regional and national levels, and DOE 

believes that it handled electric costs 

appropriately, based on surveys of 

actual rate data, and that its conclusions 

reflect existing market conditions today. 

DOE recognizes, however, that rate 

levels and structures could change in 

the future in unpredictable ways with 

utility industry restructuring, but we 

believe that this uncertainty does not 

remove the reasonable likelihood that 

more stringent standards may be 

justified in the case of products DOE 

plans to analyze further, nor does 

uncertainty by itself make finding such 

a justification appreciably more likely in 

the case of products for which DOE is 

adopting standards in today's rule. Any 

seasonal rates and demand charges that 

increase the cost of energy consumed by 

air conditioners will serve to make more 

stringent efficiency requirements costeffective, thus reinforcing DOE's 

decision to study air-cooled air 

conditioners further before adopting the 

levels contained in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999. For water-cooled 

air-conditioners, DOE is adopting 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 901.-1999 

efficiency requirements today, because 

these products are less common and for 

this reason do not appear to afford 

opportunities for significant energy 

savings. This determination does not 

depend on the cost of electric power. In 

conducting further investigation of 

electric product efficiencies, we may 

also apply appropriate sensitivity 

analysis to capture prevailing ranges of 

opinion concerning the various rate 

scenarios. We welcome suggestions 

from stakeholders regarding better 

methodologies to account for seasonal 

rates and demand charges within any 

detailed rulemaking, including 

suggestions on how to address their 

wide variety in the commercial sector 

(e.g., specific utility service territory, 

type of building, end-use application, 

hours of usage, prior usage patterns, and 

correlations with kWh consumption). 

Comment: Heating operation should 

be included along with cooling in 

analyzing heat-pumps, since cooling 

efficiency improvements can reduce 

energy costs for heating as well. (No. 15, 

GARD Analytics/Gas Research Institute, 

p.l). 

Response: DOE agrees with this point 

and will include heating and cooling 

operations together in the detailed 

analysis of efficiency levels for airsource heat pumps. Higher efficiencies 

in cooling mode are likely to result in 

improved heating performance as well, 

increasing the likelihood that higher 

standards for these products are 

economically justified and will lead to 

significant additional conservation of 

energy. This consideration therefore 

reinforces DOE's decision to conduct 

further analysis of air-source heat 

pumps along with corresponding airsource air-conditioners. For watersource heat pumps, DOE is adopting 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

efficiency requirements, because these 

products are less common and for this 

reason do not appear to afford 

opportunities for significant energy 

savings. This determination does not 

depend on the combined cost or 

efficiency of heating and cooling. 

Comment: Cost and efficiency 

relationships used by ASHRAE and 

subsequently in the Screening Analysis 

reflect use of R-22 refrigerant, which 

must be replaced by 2010. (No.2, Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 9-10; No.8, Rheem Manufacturing 

Company, p. 1; No. 11, Air-Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute, p. 6). 

Response: DOE recognizes the 

possibility that alternatives to R-22 may 

alter the cost effectiveness of achieving 

higher efficiency levels for equipment 

sold after 2010 and will take this factor 

into account in conducting further 

analysis of air-source heat pumps and 

air-cooled air-conditioners. Since the 

effect of as yet undetermined alternative 

refrigerants on the cost of achieving 

higher efficiency levels is unknown at 

this point and the subject of debate, 

DOE does not believe that the refrigerant 

requirement eradicates the reasonable 

likelihood of uncovering evidence 

supporting higher standards for aircooled products. As indicated above, 

the decision to adopt ASHRAE 90.1-

1999 efficiency requirements for watersource, water-cooled, and evaporatively 

cooled equipment stems from low 

aggregate energy consumption and not 

cost-effective efficiency considerations. 

Comment: DOE's analysis of packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps does not accurately reflect the 

life and usage characteristics of these 

products, thereby incorrectly estimating 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3346 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9/ Friday, January 12, 2001/ Rules and Regulations 

the energy savings and life-cycle-cost 

effects of more stringent standards. 

Packaged terminal air conditioners and 

heat pumps have a useful life of 10 

years or less, not 15 as assumed in the 

Screening Analysis. The shorter lifetime 

is due to application in hotels and 

motels, which undergo more frequent 

renovations, and to corrosion from salt 

near the seacoast. (No.2, Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 6; No.4, Carrier Corporation, p. 3; No. 

11, Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, p. 4; No. 13, Carrier 

Corporation, p. 2; No. 14, EnviroMaster 

International Corporation, p. 2). The 

"generic building" approach to 

estimating heating and cooling loads 

fails to reflect the unique design 

characteristics of hotels and motels, 

where PTAC's and PTHP's are most 

commonly used. (No. 11, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 4). These products are used less 

during hours of peak electric demand 

than other air-conditioning equipment, 

since the rooms are frequently vacant 

during the day. (No. 14, EnviroMaster 

International Corporation, p. 1). 

Response: DOE accepts the possibility 

that the lifetime assumed for these 

products in the Screening Analysis may 

not reflect the likelihood of the units 

being replaced earlier during routine 

renovations. A more frequent 

replacement would increase the cost 

associated with these products. It is also 

possible that these products are used 

less during hours of peak electric 

demand than other air-conditioning 

products and thus do not conform to a 

"generic building" operating schedule, 

and that a different operating schedule 

may be warranted for them during 

analyses. Although shorter working life 

and fewer hours of operation under 

peak conditions would reduce the 

estimated energy and cost savings 

associated with more stringent 

standards, the potential saving 

identified by the Screening Analysis for 

these products is so large, in DOE's 

view, as to compensate for the 

simplifying assumptions involved in 

calculating them. Potential national 

energy savings of over 500 trillion Btu 

for packaged terminal heat pumps 

leaves considerable room for error in 

determining that a reasonable likelihood 

exists that evidence would support 

more stringent standards. However, we 

welcome additional independent data 

on equipment life and operating 

schedules for these products, so we can 

improve the precision of the detailed 

analysis we will be undertaking for 

these products. 

Comment: DOE overestimated the 

feasibility and underestimated the cost 

of improving efficiencies of PTAC's and 

PTHP's by failing to take into account 

the small wall openings (16" by 42") 

into which they must fit, especially for 

retrofit applications. (No.2, Air 

Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 7-8; No.4, Carrier Corporation, p. 3; 

No.9, First Company, p. 2; No. 11, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 5; No. 13, Carrier Corporation, p. 2; 

No. 14, EnviroMaster International 

Corporation, p. 1). Also, DOE failed to 

account for recently introduced 

"vertical" PTAC's, which have different 

design constraints from traditional units 

covered by the analysis. (No. 14, 

EnviroMaster International Corporation, 

p.l). 

Response: DOE will model PTAC's 

and PTHP's performance in simulated 

environments that match their actual 

applications as closely as possible. 

However, the comments contain no 

conclusions bearing on the impact of 

these two sets of considerations on 

DOE's decision to continue its 

evaluation of these products before 

adopting uniform national efficiency 

standards for them, and DOE does not 

believe that the considerations eliminate 

the reasonable likelihood of uncovering 

evidence supporting more stringent 

standards under the terms of EPCA. 

Comment: The Screening Analysis 

may not have correctly reflected the 

preponderance of commercial boiler 

shipments to the Northeast and North 

Central regions of the country, greatly 

overstated shipments of copper tube or 

coil-type commercial gas water heaters, 

and overestimated potential energy 

savings for these products. (No. 20, Gas 

Appliance Manufacturers Association, 

p. 1-3). Fluctuations in the GAMA 

shipment data for gas water heaters 

need further explanation, and the 

projected one percent annual growth 

rate for water heaters until 2030 is 

overly optimistic. (No. 12, American 

Gas Association, p. 3, 4). The shipment 

figures for oil-fired boilers appear too 

high, possibly because they include 

dual-fuel boilers, and the analysis does 

not adequately account for differences 

in boiler installation costs at higher 

efficiencies. (No. 15, GARD Analytics/ 

Gas Research Institute, p. 2). 

Response: DOE will verify shipment 

data during its further analysis of boilers 

and tankless water heaters, and we will 

account for differences in installation 

costs at higher efficiencies. However, 

DOE does not believe that these 

considerations remove the reasonable 

likelihood of discovering adequate 

evidence to support more stringent 

standards for these products according 

to EPCA criteria. Installation is only a 

small component of the total cost of 

acquisition, and alternative shipping 

patterns and growth rates could effect 

energy savings and economic 

justification either way. Greater 

predominance of shipments to states 

with colder climates, for example, 

increases the likelihood that more 

stringent standards would be cost 

effective, while slower growth in 

shipments diminishes the energy 

savings likely to result from higher 

efficiencies in the future. 

Comment: The Screening Analysis 

did not handle jacket and standby losses 

properly. (No. 20, Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association, p. 1-3). 

Response: With regard to jacket and 

standby loss, we believe that the 

Standby Loss Correction for boilers is in 

fact needed to estimate the energy use 

of these devices correctly. The 

difference between thermal and 

combustion efficiency is primarily 

reflected in the shell loss ofthe boiler, 

and during operating hours, the thermal 

efficiency of the boiler accounts for 

these losses. However for much of the 

year, the boiler is maintained on a hot 

standby status. The amount of time on 

hot standby is assumed in the Screening 

Analysis to be the total number of hours 

the boiler is available for use minus the 

full load operating hours for the year. 

Values for the hot standby periods were 

taken from the 1997 ASHRAE Handbook 

of Fundamentals, as shown in Appendix 

A (A.9) of the Screening Analysis. 

During these hot standby periods, we 

have assumed the boiler standby loss to 

be 5% for the base boiler (the assumed 

difference between combustion and 

thermal efficiency). To capture the 

energy used during the hot standby 

period, the Screening Analysis applied 

an adjustment factor for the FLEOH, 

calculated as: 

Ad' t tF _F_L_E_O_H_+_(c:-A_v_a_ila_b_le_H_o_u_rs_-_F_L_E_O __H-L) x_% __ S_h_el_IL_o_ss ~us men actor = FLEOH 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 9/ Friday, January 12, 2001/ Rules and Regulations 3347 

Variation in boiler design or setback 

of system temperature through the year 

will have some effect on this adjustment 

factor, however for purposes of the 

Screening Analysis, we believe the 

methodology outlined above to be a fair 

assessment of the contribution of hot 

standby to energy consumption. 

Comment: In the amended ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, ASHRAE 

changed the definition of "storage 

volume" for electric storage water 

heaters from "measured volume" to 

"rated volume." (No. 16, California 

Energy Commission, p. 3; No. 17, 

Oregon Office of Energy, p. 3). 

Response: DOE recognized this 

change and accounted for it in the 

Screening Analysis. 

B. Treatment of Specific Products 

1. DOE Views Expressed in the 

Workshop Notice 

In the Workshop Notice, DOE stated 

its inclination to adopt as national 

standards, without further study, the 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 for 12 ofthe 24 

products included in the Screening 

Analysis. 65 FR at 30933, 30935. The 12 

products comprise several categories of 

air conditioners and heat pumps, warm 

air furnaces, and certain water heating 

products. DOE stated that the Analysis 

estimated that most of these efficiency 

levels have the lowest life-cycle cost 

(LCC) for the product, and for the 

remainder a slightly higher efficiency 

would have the lowest LCC but would 

save relatively little additional energy. 

For four categories of 3-phase air 

conditioners and heat pumps with 

capacities under 65,000 Btu per hour, 

DOE stated its inclination to take no 

action to adopt standards at this time 

but to encourage ASHRAE to consider an addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999. 65 FR at 30933-34, 

30935. DOE noted that ASHRAE did not 

address these products in revising 

Standard 90.1, although the Screening 

Analysis indicates that higher efficiency 

standards for them may well have 

benefits. 

For seven of the eight remaining 

categories analyzed in the Screening 

Analysis, DOE stated its inclination to 

propose consideration of an addendum 

to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, 

and to further study whether more 

stringent efficiency levels than those 

adopted by ASHRAE are warranted. 65 

FR at 30934, 30935. DOE stated that it 

appears such levels would result in 

significant, cost-effective energy 

savings. The products involved are 

certain types of air conditioners and 

heat pumps, as well as boilers and 

tankless instantaneous gas water 

heaters. Electric water heaters was the 

other product included in the Analysis, 

and DOE tentatively decided to leave 

the EPCA standard in force based on its 

view that the efficiency level in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

would increase energy use relative to 

that standard. 65 FR at 30934, 30935. 

DOE excluded certain commercial air 

conditioning, heating and water heating 

products from the Screening Analysis 

for reasons such as insufficient data, 

small sales volumes, and difficulty in 

assessing efficiency performance. 65 FR 

at 30934. For several of these products, 

DOE stated its intent to adopt ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 standards 

because the products have small 

markets and higher standards are 

unlikely to result in significant energy 

savings. For the heating COP of several 

heat pump categories, and the efficiency 

level for oil-fired boilers, DOE indicated 

it did not plan to adopt the levels in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

because they should be considered 

either as part of other evaluations that 

would be undertaken or subsequent to 

such other evaluations. 65 FR at 30934-

35. For all other heat pumps covered by 

EPCA, DOE stated its intention to adopt 

the amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 COP levels as uniform 

national standards. 

2. Discussion of Comments on General 

Issues Surrounding Adoption of 

Efficiency Standards in ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

Comment: Stakeholders were divided 

on DOE's discretion to impose more 

stringent standards than those in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

and on the Department's duty to 

scrutinize each efficiency level strictly. 

Some emphasized the limitations on 

DOE's authority to set more stringent 

standards than those contained in 

ASHRAE 90.1-1999 in the absence of 

certain clear and convincing evidence, 

and they encouraged adoption of 

ASHRAE's amended standards in their 

entirety. (No.2, Air Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute, pp. 4-5; No.3, 

Gas Appliance Manufacturers 

Association, pp. 1-2; No. 10, Edison 

Electric Institute, pp. 1-2; No. 11, AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute, 

p. 3). Others emphasized what they felt 

was DOE's duty to seek such evidence 

more exhaustively before adopting any 

of the ASHRAE standards. (No. 16, 

California Energy Commission, pp. 1-2; 

No. 17, Oregon Office of Energy, pp. 1-

2; No. 19, American Council for an 

Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 1, 10-11) 

Response: DOE believes it has struck 

an appropriate balance, consistent with 

EPCA, between the requirement to 

adopt the efficiency standards contained 

in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

and the discretion to adopt more 

stringent standards if they are warranted 

by clear and convincing evidence. 

Specifically, DOE performed a 

Screening Analysis of the amended 

standards in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999, and invited public 

comments on the Analysis, in order to 

assess the likelihood of uncovering such 

clear and convincing evidence. Based 

on those steps, DOE is adopting in 

today's rule over half of the amended 

standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-

1999, and is undertaking further 

analysis of virtually all of the remaining 

ASHRAE standards. The Department 

believes it is exercising due care in 

performing the role defined in the 

statute for the Secretary. 

Comment: Numerous comments 

addressed ASHRAE's process in arriving 

at ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. 

Several comments commended 

ASHRAE for its analytical and 

procedural integrity and recommended 

adopting the resulting standards on the 

strength of ASHRAE's process. (No.1, 

ASHRAE, p. 1; No.2, Air Conditioning 

and Refrigeration Institute, pp. 2-3; No. 

4, Carrier Corporation, p. 1; No. 10, 

Edison Electric Institute, p. 1; No. 11, 

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, pp. 2-3; No. 13, Carrier 

Corporation, p. 1; No. 18, National Rural 

Electric Cooperative Association, p. 1; 

No. 22, Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 2). 

Others criticized ASHRAE's process for 

analytical and procedural shortcomings 

and recommended strict scrutiny of the 

standards. (No.5, California Energy 

Commission, pp. 1-2; No. 16, California 

Energy Commission, pp. 2-3; No. 17, 

Oregon Office of Energy, pp. 1-4; No. 

19, American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, pp. 1-3). 

Response: DOE recognizes that 

opinions differ on the strengths and 

weaknesses of ASHRAE's process in 

arriving at the requirements in Standard 

90.1-1999. Nevertheless, EPCA 

stipulates that DOE must adopt the 

amended ASHRAE standards unless 

certain conditions are met, and, for the 

reasons stated in our response to the 

previous comment, we believe our 

actions here properly reflect the status 

that EPCA affords to Standard 90.1-

1999. 

Comment: Subjecting standards to 

further DOE analysis would delay the 

realization of energy savings that might 

occur sooner if amended ASHRAE 

standards were adopted immediately. 

(No.8, Rheem Manufacturing Company, 

p. 1). On the other hand, voluntary 

adherence to the amended standards 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3348 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

and state adoption of the updated 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 in 

building codes will serve to offset the 

effect of any delay at the Federal leveL 

(No. 16, California Energy Commission, 

pp. 4-5; No. 17, Oregon Office of 

Energy, p. 4). In addition, DOE's further 

analysis could create a situation in 

which manufacturers would have to 

redesign their products twice in rapid 

succession: Once to comply with 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

and shortly afterward, to comply with 

standards resulting from a possible DOE 

rulemaking. (No.4, Carrier Corporation, 

p. 2; No. 11, Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute, p. 7; No. 13, 

Carrier Corporation, p. 3; No. 14, 

EnviroMaster International Corporation, 

p. 2; No. 22, Lennox Industries, Inc., p. 

3-4). 

Response: Any future rulemaking by 

DOE will take into account the impacts 

of more stringent standards on affected 

manufacturers, including the effect of 

timing on product development cycles, 

and it will analyze the influence of 

effective dates on energy savings 

resulting from the standards. DOE notes 

also that the process it envisions can be 

terminated for any product whenever 

DOE concludes that the EPCA criteria 

for a more stringent standard are not 

likely to be satisfied. This could occur 

either as a result of further analysis by 

DOE during a rulemaking process or by 

ASHRAE adopting a new Addendum to 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

for which a more stringent alternative is 

not justified. 

Comment: DOE has no authority to 

propose that ASHRAE consider addenda 

to Standard 90.1 in cases where it feels 

that the requirements in ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 are not 

sufficiently stringent. In these cases, the 

Department must proceed with a 

rulemaking if higher efficiencies meet 

the requirements of EPCA. (No. 12, 

American Gas Association, pp. 1-2). 

Response: While EPCA does not 

specifically authorize the Department to 

propose addenda to ASHRAE standards, 

DOE can find no statutory prohibition 

against doing so and indeed has 

traditionally provided technical support 

to ASHRAE's standard-setting processes 

in the interest of encouraging and taking 

advantage of open, consensus-based 

approaches. In addition, section 307(b) 

of the Energy Conservation and 

Production Act, 42. U.S.C. 6836, seems 

to contemplate that DOE would provide 

such support to ASHRAE, and even that 

it would propose addenda to ASHRAE. 

3. Discussion of DOE Views Regarding 

Specific Products 

Comment: Industry data used in 

ASHRAE's standard setting process and 

DOE's Screening Analysis overstated the 

cost of efficiency improvements for 

central air-source air-conditioners 

between 65,000 Btu per hour and 

135,000 Btu per hour. (No. 19, American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy, pp. 3-5). Some industry 

comments opposed this view. (No. 11, 

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, p. 5; No. 13, Carrier 

Corporation, p. 3). 

Response: Since the American 

Council for an Energy-Efficient 

Economy (ACEEE) supported its 

contention regarding air-source airconditioners with price survey data, and 

the potential savings from efficiency 

improvements for this product category 

are potentially large on account of its 

widespread use, DOE has decided that 

clear and convincing evidence may exist 

to justify more stringent standards for 

air-source air-conditioners in the 65,000 

Btu/h to 135,000 Btu/h range. The 

Department has therefore added this 

product category to those that will be 

subjected to further study and will 

review the cost-efficiency data. 

Comment: Industry data used in 

ASHRAE's standard setting process and 

DOE's Screening Analysis also 

overstated the cost of efficiency 

improvements for 3-ton water-source 

heat pumps. (No. 19, American Council 

for an Energy-Efficient Economy, pp. 3-

5). 

Response: For water-source heat 

pumps, the data to support the ACEEE 

comment is considered proprietary and 

has not been submitted to DOE, so the 

Department is unable to verify the 

comment. In any case, the nation-wide 

energy use for this product appears to be 

so small that the Department considers 

it unlikely that more stringent standards 

for this product would satisfy EPCA 

criteria. Accordingly, the Department is 

adopting the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 efficiency level for this 

product category in today's rule. 

Comment: Industry data used in 

ASHRAE's standard setting process and 

DOE's Screening Analysis also 

overstated the cost of efficiency 

improvements for gas-fired boilers. (No. 

19, American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy, pp. 3-5). 

Response: Since the gas-fired boilers 

are proposed to be analyzed further, 

based on the Screening Analysis, 

ACEEE's comment would not affect the 

decision embodied in today's rule. 

Comment: DOE should include 

Integrated Part-Load Values in standards 

governing air conditioning equipment. 

(No. 16, California Energy Commission, 

p. 5; No. 17, Oregon Office of Energy, p. 

3). 

Response: DOE recognizes that 

Integrated Part-Load Value is 

increasingly common as a rating metric 

and believes that it has the authority to 

establish minimum requirements using 

this metric if ASHRAE has amended the 

standard corresponding to the airconditioning equipment in question, 

and EPCA's requirements for a more 

stringent standard are met. DOE is also 

aware that Integrated Part Load Value 

only applies to the performance of 

equipment with modulated capacity and 

thus will not capture part-load 

efficiencies for most single-stage airconditioners. DOE will therefore 

consider including Integrated Part-Load 

Values in any prospective rulemaking 

for air conditioning equipment. 

However the Department has reached no 

conclusions on their appropriateness as 

part of a future standard and will seek 

public comment before proceeding. 

Comment: Standards for 3-phase airconditioners and heat pumps under 

65,000 Btu per hour should be the same 

as those for single phase models, which 

are used in residential applications and 

are more numerous. (No.8, Rheem 

Manufacturing Company, p. 2; No. 11, 

Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 

Institute, pp. 3-4; No. 13, Carrier 

Corporation, p. 3; No. 22, Lennox 

Industries, Inc., p. 2-3). 

Response: DOE agrees that the 

products are closely related, and that 

standard-setting for them should be 

coordinated. There may be valid 

reasons, however, for the standards 

themselves to differ. Once ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 is amended 

with respect to these products, DOE will 

evaluate the new standards to determine 

if they should be adopted or if a more 

stringent standard is likely to save a 

significant amount of energy, and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

Comment: More stringent standards 

for gas space heating and water heating 

equipment will serve to shift customers 

to electric equipment, with a 

detrimental effect on gas equipment 

sales and energy consumption. (No. 12, 

American Gas Association, p. 2). 

Further changes in efficiency levels for 

PTAC's and PTHP's will particularly 

hurt small manufacturers. (No.9, First 

Company, p. 3). 

Response: Under EPCA, if DOE adopts 

a more stringent standard, it must 

consider, to the greatest extent 

practicable, the economic impact on the 

manufacturers and consumers of the 

affected products, savings in operating 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 3349 

cost throughout the life of the product 

compared to any increases in initial cost 

or maintenance expense, and the total 

projected amount of energy savings 

likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard. EPCA 

section 342(a)(6)(B)(i), 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(i). DOE will therefore 

carefully consider possible effects due 

to fuel switching as well as impacts on 

small businesses as it proceeds with any 

further analysis of these products that 

might lead to more stringent standards. 

Comment: More stringent standards 

could affect the availability of types of 

boilers that have no cost-effective 

substitute for certain building 

applications. (No.3, Gas Appliance 

Manufacturers Association, pp. 2-5). 

They could also affect the availability of 

PTAC's and PTHP's that will fit in 

existing limited spaces. (No.9, First 

Company, pp. 1-2). 

Response: DOE recognizes that EPCA 

prohibits an amended standard that is 

likely to result in unavailability in the 

United States of products with 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities 

and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available 

beforehand. EPCA section 

342(a)(6)(B)(ii), 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii). This prohibition would 

govern any future rulemaking with 

respect to these products. 

Comment: Since ASHRAE amended 

the standard for electric water heaters, 

DOE has the authority to evaluate and 

consider more stringent standards than 

those in EPCA for these products and 

should do so. (No. 15, GARD Analyticsl 

Gas Research Institute, p. 2; No. 16, 

California Energy Commission, p. 3). 

Heat pump water heaters should be 

considered among the technological 

alternatives. (No. 15, GARD Analyticsl 

Gas Research Institute, p. 2) 

Response: DOE agrees with the 

comment regarding DOE's authority. 

However, in rejecting the ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 provision, 

which allows for increased energy 

consumption, the Department does not 

intend to subject electric water heaters 

to further evaluation or consideration of 

more stringent standards. The standard 

for electric water heaters will remain as 

originally stipulated in EPCA. This 

decision is based on the low likelihood 

of finding sufficient evidence to support a more stringent standard for them. The 

heat pump water heater is the most 

promising (but significantly more 

complex) technology to significantly 

improve the heating efficiency of 

electric water heaters above current 

levels. However, when DOE considered 

this technology for our residential water 

heater rulemaking, we concluded that it was not economically justified due to 

the cost of manufacturing, installing, 

servicing, and sometimes a potential 

loss of product utility. These concerns might also apply to commercial heat 

pump water heaters. Furthermore, 

currently there is no suitable test 

procedure for these products to measure the efficiency in commercial 

applications, so a standard predicated on heat pump technology would be 

difficult to enforce. 

C. Final Rule and Other DOE Actions 

EPCA requires DOE to adopt 

ASHRAE's amended efficiency 

standards for certain commercial 

heating, air conditioning and water 

heating products unless the Secretary 

determines, supported by clear and 

convincing evidence, that adoption of a 

more stringent uniform national 

standard is technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant additional energy 

conservation. DOE believes that this 

language places a burden on DOE not to 

initiate a standards development 

process unless there is at least a reasonable possibility that strong 

evidence exists to show that significant 

additional energy savings could be 

achieved through more stringent 

efficiency standards that would be both 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

To decide whether to adopt efficiency 

standards contained in ASHRAE/IES 

Standard 90.1-1999, or to initiate the 

process of developing and analyzing 

more stringent standards for particular 

product categories, DOE performed a 

simplified Screening Analysis and 

evaluated other information. This 

process was designed to identify 

products covered by EPCA for which it 

was reasonable to expect that more 

detailed and sophisticated analysis was unlikely to reveal evidence sufficient to 

justify more stringent requirements, and 

also to identify other products for which 

such evidence was reasonably likely to 

be revealed by further analysis. 

Screening products in this way allows 

DOE to adopt several ASHRAE 90.1-

1999 standards expeditiously and 

thereby to: • Minimize any possible adverse 

effects on energy savings of delaying the 

imposition of more stringent national 

efficiency standards; • Minimize uncertainty faced by 

manufacturers as they design products 

to meet future standards; and • Manage the resources within DOE 

efficiently, concentrating 

comprehensive analyses of the costeffectiveness and energy savings of 

alternatives to ASHRAE standards 

where the clear and convincing 

evidence required by EPCA for more stringent standards is most likely to be 

found. 

As further discussed below, based on evaluation of the results of the 

Screening Analysis, other information 

for products not included in the 

analysis, and the comments received in 

response to the Workshop Notice, the 

Department has decided to pursue, for 

each product category, one of four 

courses of action: • Adopt immediately the ASHRAEI 

IES Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level as a uniform national standard; • Propose consideration of an addendum to ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1-1999 where ASHRAE did not 

consider a more efficient level, and a more efficient level appears warranted; • Propose consideration of an addendum to ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1-1999 and undertake a more thorough evaluation to determine 

whether a higher standard is justified, 

where ASHRAE considered amending 

or amended the standard, and a more 

efficient level appears warranted than is 

contained in ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1-1999; or • Reject the' ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1-1999 efficiency level if it increases 

maximum allowable energy use or 

decreases minimum required efficiency. 

As to the ASHRAE 90.1-1999 

efficiency levels that DOE is 

immediately adopting, these standards 

are being adopted because (a) significant 

improvements in energy efficiency 

beyond the level recommended by 

ASHRAE appear unlikely to be 

technically feasible or economically 

justified, (b) the national energy savings 

that would result from any cost-effective 

efficiency improvements appear 

unlikely to be significant, or (c) the 

additional energy savings resulting from a more stringent standard are not likely 

to offset the loss in energy savings likely 

to result from the delay that would be 

caused by the DOE analytical and 

rulemaking process. 

As to efficiency levels in the third 

category above-where DOE is 

proposing further consideration by 

ASHRAE and undertaking further 

analysis-DOE selected these products 

for further analysis, because the findings 

of the Screening Analysis suggested at 

least a reasonable possibility, and in 

several instances a high likelihood, of 

uncovering clear and convincing 

evidence that more stringent standards 

would be technologically feasible and 

economically justified and would result 

in significant additional energy 

conservation. Implicit in DOE's 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3350 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

selection is the judgment that additional 

energy savings resulting from more 

stringent standards are likely to offset 

the loss in energy savings likely to result 

from the delay in the imposition of a 

new standard due to DOE's analytical 

and rulemaking process. 

Based on our consideration of the 

Screening Analysis, DOE has identified 

the ten products listed below as not 

warranting further consideration of 

standards that are more stringent than 

those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 and is consequently adopting 

the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-

1999 efficiency levels for these products 

today as uniform national standards. • Central Water Source Heat Pumps, 

17 kBtu/h-65 kBtu/h 

• Central Water Cooled Air 

Conditioners, 65 kBtu/h-135 kBtu/h 

• Central Water Cooled Air 

Conditioners, 135 kBtu/h-240 kBtu/h • Central Water Cooled Air 

Conditioners, <65 kBtu/h 

• Central Water Source Heat Pumps, 

<17 kBtu/h 

• Central Water Source Heat Pumps, 

65 kBtu/h-135 kBtu/h 

• Gas-Fired Warm Air Furnaces, :::::225 

kBtu/h 

• Gas Storage Water Heaters, $155 

kBtu/h 

• Gas Storage Water Heaters, >155 

kBtu/h 

• Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters 

with Tanks 

In all except the first three of the ten 

product categories listed above, the 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

efficiency levels are the same as those 

identified in the Screening Analysis as 

achieving the lowest life-cycle costs. 

Therefore, the Department considers it 

unlikely that further analysis would 

reveal clear and convincing evidence 

that more stringent standards would be 

economically justified for these 

products. For the central water-source 

heat pumps between 17 and 65 

thousand Btu/hour, and the two sizes of 

central water-cooled air conditioners 

between 65 and 240 thousand Btu/hour, 

the Screening Analysis estimates that 

the efficiency levels corresponding to 

minimum life-cycle cost are slightly 

higher than ASHRAE's, but the total 

cumulative energy savings that could be 

achieved cost-effectively by adopting 

the three higher levels would amount to 

only 70 trillion Btu between 2004 and 

2030. In the case of these products, for 

which potential energy savings appear 

to be relatively small, the Department 

considers it unlikely that further 

analysis would reveal clear and 

convincing evidence that a more 

stringent standard would result in 

significant energy conservation. 

Of the remaining products studied in 

the Screening Analysis, the Analysis 

suggests that efficiency standards higher 

than those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 for four categories of 3-phase 

air conditioners and heat pumps with 

capacities under 65,000 Btu per hour 

may well have significant energy 

savings potential and economic benefits. 

According to the Screening Analysis, 

adopting the efficiency levels 

corresponding to the lowest average lifecycle cost for all four of these product 

categories would result in estimated 

cost-effective nationwide cumulative 

energy savings of as much as 1.9 

quadrillion Btu between 2004 and 2030, 

leading the Department to believe that 

further evaluation could reasonably be 

expected to uncover clear and 

convincing evidence supporting a more 

stringent standard. However, these 

products were not addressed by 

ASHRAE in revising ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1, so DOE has decided not 

to take any action at this time to adopt 

a standard with respect to them. Based 

on the results of the Screening Analysis, 

DOE encourages ASHRAE to consider 

adopting an addendum to ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and will 

support ASHRAE in its future 

deliberations concerning these products 

in conjunction with ongoing 

development of NAECA standards for 

similar, but single phase, residential 

equipment. Should ASHRAE amend the 

efficiency standards for these air 

conditioners or heat pumps in the 

future, DOE will then act on such 

amendments as required by EPCA. The 

four categories of 3-phase air 

conditioners and heat pumps with 

capacities under 65,000 Btu per hour 

are: 

• 3-phase Single Package Air Source 

Air Conditioners, <65 kBtu/h; 

• 3-phase Split Air Source Air 

Conditioners, <65 kBtu/h; 

• 3-phase Single Package Air Source 

Heat Pumps, <65 kBtu/h; and • 3-phase Split Air Source Heat 

Pumps, <65 kBtu/h. 

For seven of the eight remaining 

product categories analyzed, ASHRAE 

amended the efficiency standards 

contained in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1, but the Screening Analysis 

indicates that it is at least reasonably 

likely that significant, cost-effective 

energy savings would result from even 

more stringent standards. Therefore, 

DOE believes that the clear and 

convincing evidence required by EPCA 

may well be revealed by further 

analysis. These products are the 

following: 

• Central air-source air conditioners, 

135 kBtu/h-240 kBtu/h; 

• Central air-source heat pumps, 135 

kBtu/h-240 kBtu/h; 

• Packaged terminal air conditioners; 

• Packaged terminal heat pumps; 

• Small gas-fired steam and hot water 

boilers, 0.3 MMBtu/h-2.5 MMBtu/h; 

• Large gas-fired stearn and hot water 

boilers, >2.5 MMBtu/h; and 

• Tankless Gas Instantaneous Water 

Heaters. 

Although the Screening Analysis did 

not identify a potential for cost-effective 

energy savings for central air-cooled air 

conditioners and air-source heat pumps 

between 65 kBtu/h and 135 kBtu/h, the 

Department received public comments 

that included data, derived from sale 

price surveys, supporting the contention 

that higher efficiencies could be 

achieved at lower cost than indicated in 

the Screening Analysis for these 

products. Based on the data we 

received, the Department believes that 

evidence to support more stringent 

standards is sufficiently likely to be 

uncovered by further study to warrant a 

more thorough evaluation, with 

resources allocated within the 

Department's priority-setting 

framework, to determine whether higher 

standards are justified under the terms 

of EPCA for these products. DOE also 

intends to propose consideration of an 

addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999. 

For one product category, electric 

water heaters, the new efficiency level 

in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

would increase energy consumption 

relative to the standard in EPCA. Under 

these circumstances, DOE cannot adopt 

the new level, since EPCA stipulates 

that the standards it contains cannot be 

relaxed. Therefore, DOE is not adopting 

the requirement in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 for this product, 

and the original standard remains in 

force. 

Eighteen commercial products 

covered by Section 342(a) of EPCA were 

not analyzed in the Screening Analysis. 

These products, for which performance 

characteristics were not analyzed in 

detail, fall into groups as follows: 

• Heating coefficients of performance 

(COP) and heating seasonal performance 

factors (HSPF) for all heat pump 

product categories; 

• Efficiencies of water-cooled air 

conditioners and water-source heat 

pumps with capacities between 135 

kBtu/h and 240 kBtu/h; 

• Evaporatively cooled airconditioning products; 

• Oil-fired warm air furnaces, storage 

and instantaneous water heaters, and 

packaged boilers; and 

• Unfired hot water storage tanks 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register IVaI. 66, No.9 I Friday, January 12, 2001 I Rules and Regulations 3351 

DOE believes that the water-cooled 

and evaporatively cooled airconditioning products, oil-fired warm 

air furnaces and water heaters, and 

unfired hot water storage tanks have 

small markets and are therefore unlikely 

to represent significant energy savings 

as required to justify more stringent 

standards under EPCA, so we are 

adopting ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999 standards for these products 

in today's rule. Since the heating COP 

is closely related to the cooling 

efficiency for heat pumps, DOE is not 

adopting at this point the heating COP 

levels contained in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 for: (1) Three-phase 

heat pumps with capacities under 65 

thousand Btu per hour, which ASHRAE 

did not address in formulating Standard 

90.1-1999; (2) central air-source heat 

pumps with capacities between 65 

thousand and 240 thousand Btu per 

hour, which would be the subject of 

further analysis with respect to cooling 

as a result of the Screening Analysis and 

public comments; and (3) packaged 

terminal heat pumps, which also would 

be the subject of further analysis of their 

cooling performance. 

DOE recognizes that ASHRAE did not 

evaluate the efficiency levels for oilfired packaged boilers explicitly, and 

the published values in ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 were tied to 

the corresponding efficiencies for gasfired packaged boilers. Since DOE 

intends to evaluate gas-fired packaged 

boilers as a result of the Screening 

Analysis, we plan to wait for that 

evaluation to be complete before 

adopting efficiency standards for the 

equivalent oil-fired products. Finally, 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

provides, in effect, that its boiler 

efficiency standards apply only to low 

pressure boilers. In another rulemaking, 

DOE is addressing the question of 

whether EPCA efficiency requirements 

apply also to high pressure boilers. (See 

65 FR 48838, 48843, Aug. 9, 2000). We 

intend to address in that proceeding the 

impact, if any, of ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1-1999 on efficiency 

standards under EPCA for high pressure 

boilers. 

In sum, today's rule adopts ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 standard 

levels as uniform national standards for 

18 product categories. These product 

categories appear in Table 5, along with 

the Department's intentions with 

respect to an additional 16 products, for 

which DOE is not adopting new 

efficiency levels at the present time. For 

the latter products, the levels prescribed 

in EPCA remain unaltered at present. 

BILLING CODe 6450-01-P 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3352 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

Table 5. DOE Actions 

Product Category Action 

Central Air Source AC 135 - 240 kBtuIh Evaluate Further/Encourage ASHRAEIIESNA 

Central Air Source HP 135 - 240 kBtulh Addendum 

Central Air Source AC 65 - 135 kBtuIh 

Central Air Source HP 65 - 135 kBtulh 

Central Water Cooled AC 135 - 240 kBtulh Adopt ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

Central Water Source HP 135 - 240 kBtulh 

Central Water Cooled AC 65 - 135 kBtuIh 

Central Water Source HP 65 - 135 kBtuIh 

Central Water Cooled AC <65 kBtuIh 

Central, Water Source HP 17 - 65 kBtuIh 

Central Water Source HP <17 kBtulh 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners Evaluate FurtherlEncourage ASHRAE/IESNA 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps Addendum 

3-Phase Single Package Air Source AC <65 kBtuIh Encourage ASHRAE/IESNA Addendum 

3-Phase Split Air Source AC <65 kBtuIh 

3-Phase Single Package Air Source HP <65 kBtulh 

3-Phase Split Air Source HP <65 kBtuIh 

Evaporatively Cooled AC Products Adopt ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

Gas-Fired Warm Air Furnaces ~ 225 kBtulh 

Oil-Fired Warm Air Furnaces ~ 225 kBtuIh 

Large Gas-Fired Boilers >2.5 MMBtuIh Evaluate FurtherlEncourage ASHRAE/IESNA 

Addendum 

Large Oil-Fired Boilers >2.5 MMBtulh Evaluate Further (with Gas-Fired Boilers) 

Small Gas-Fired Boilers 0.3 - 2.5 MMBtulh Evaluate FurtherlEncourage ASHRAE/IESNA 

Addendum 

Small Oil-Fired Boilers, 0.3 - 2.5 MMBtuIh Evaluate Further (with Gas-Fired Boilers) 

Gas Storage Water Heaters> 15 5 kBtuIh Adopt ASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters >155 kBtuIh 

Gas Storage Water Heaters 5. 155 kBtuIh 

Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters 5. 155 kBtulh 

Tankless Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters Evaluate Further/Encourage ASHRAEIIESNA 

Addendum 

Tankless Oil-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters Adopt ASHRAEIIESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters with Tanks 

Oil-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters with Tanks 

Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks 

Electric Water Heaters Reiect ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 

Q:\EE-41 \Priority rules\Cmrcl HVAC and Wtr htr\Standards Final Rule.18,"'''pd 

December 26, 2000 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 3353 

III. Procedural Requirements 

A. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

EPCA prescribes energy efficiency 

standards for certain commercial 

products and stipulates that if ASHRAEI 

IESNA Standard 90.1 is amended, the 

Secretary must adopt new efficiency 

requirements in ASHRAE/IESNA 

Standard 90.1 for covered products, 

unless (s)he determines that certain 

conditions for requiring more stringent 

standards are met. Where these 

conditions are not met, the Secretary 

has no discretion to adopt a higher 

standard. In today's rule, we are 

adopting standards for a variety of 

commercial products included in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, as 

published in October of 1999, as 

uniform national standards. Under the 

terms of EPCA, these standards are at 

the lowest levels permitted by law. 

We have reviewed today's rule under 

the National Environmental Policy Act 

of 1969 (NEPA), 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq., 

the regulations of the Council on 

Environmental Quality, 40 CFR parts 

1500-1508, the Department's 

regulations for compliance with NEP A, 

10 CFR Part 1021, and the Secretarial 

Policy on the National Environmental 

Policy Act (June 1994). Implementation 

of today's rule would not result in 

negative environmental impacts. We 

have therefore determined that today's 

rule is covered under the Categorical 

Exclusion found at paragraph A6 of 

appendix A to subpart D of the 

Department's NEPA Regulations, which 

applies to rulemakings that are strictly 

procedural. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an 

environmental impact statement is 

required. 

B. Review Under Executive Order 12866, 

"Regulatory Planning and Review" 

Today's rule has been determined not 

to be a "significant regulatory action," 

as defined in section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866, "Regulatory Planning and 

Review" 58 FR 51735 (October 4,1993). 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under the Executive Order by 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs. 

C. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 

1980,5 U.S.C. 603, requires the 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis for every rule which 

the agency must propose for public 

comment, by law, unless the agency 

certifies that the rule, if promulgated, 

will not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. A regulatory flexibility analysis 

examines the impact of the rule on small entities and considers alternative 

ways of reducing negative impacts. The Regulatory Flexibility Act does 

not apply in this case. First, today's rule 

need not have been proposed for 

comment. Second, even if the rule were 

required to be proposed for comment, 

no less stringent standard is permitted 

under the statute, so any impact on 

small business is due to EPCA and not 

to today's rule. 

D. Review Under Executive Order 

13132, "Federalism" 

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, 

August 4,1999) imposes certain 

requirements on agencies formulating 

and implementing policies or 

regulations that preempt State law or 

that have Federalism implications. 

Agencies are required to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and carefully assess the necessity 

for such actions. The rule published 

today will primarily codify energy 

efficiency standards at the minimum 

levels allowed by EPCA and will not 

regulate the states. We have determined 

that today's rule does not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. No further action 

is required by Executive Order 13132. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 12630, 

"Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights" 

We have determined under Executive 

Order 12630, "Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights," 52 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings which 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the United States 

Constitution. 

F. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Today's rule will codify energy 

efficiency standards for certain 

commercial products and will not 

require any additional reports or recordkeeping. Accordingly, this action was 

not subject to review under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. 

G. Review Under Executive Order 

12988, "Civil Justice Reform" 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, Section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, "Civil Justice 

Reform," 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996), 

imposes on executive agencies the 

general duty to adh~re .to the foll?wing 

requirements: (1) Ehmmate draftmg 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; and 

(3) provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. With regard to 

the review required by Section 3(a), 

Section 3(b) of the Executive Order 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) 

adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of the Executive Order requires 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards Section 3(a) and 

Section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more ofthem. 

We reviewed today's rule under the 

standards of Section 3 of the Executive 

Order and determined that, to the extent 

permitted by law, it meets the 

requirements of those standards. 

H. Review Under Section 32 of the 

Federal Energy Administration Act of 

1974 

Under Section 301 of the Department 

of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95-

91), the Department of Energy must 

comply with Section 32 of the Federal 

Energy Administration Act of 1974, as 

amended by the Federal Energy 

Administration Authorization Act of 

1977 (FEAA). 15 U.S.c. 788. Section 

32(c) provides that the Secretary may 

not incorporate commercial standards 

within any rule nor prescribe any rule 

specifically authorizing or requiring 

commercial standards, unless (s)he has 

consulted with the Attorney General 

and the Chairman of the Federal Trade 

Commission concerning the impact of 

the standards on competition, and 

neither official recommends against 

incorporating or using them. 

This rule incorporates efficiency 

levels specified by a commercial 

standard, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 

90.1-1999, for certain commercial 

products. However, since EP~A 

specifically directs the adoptIOn of these 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25

3354 Federal Register/Vol. 66, No. 9/Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 

levels at a minimum, Section 32 of the 

FEAA does not apply to the 

incorporation of these commercial 

standards in today's rule. 

/. Review Under Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

Section 202 of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires 

each Federal agency, unless otherwise 

prohibited by law, to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on state, 

local and tribal governments and the 

private sector (other than to the extent 

that such regulations incorporate 

requirements specifically set forth in 

law). 2 U.S.C. 1531. The statute also 

requires a written statement, before 

promulgating any general notice of 

proposed rulemaking or any final rule 

for which a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking was published, if the rule in 

question contains a mandate that may 

result in aggregate expenditures of over 

$100,000,000 by state, local and tribal 

governments and the private sector. 2 

U.S.C. 1532 (a). 

In adopting the efficiency standards 

in today's rule, DOE is incorporating 

requirements specifically set forth in 

EPCA. Furthermore, no notice of 

proposed rulemaking was required, nor 

has one been published. Therefore, the 

requirements of Title II of the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act do not apply to 

this action. 

J. Review Under the Plain Language 

Directives 

The President's Memorandum, "Plain 

Language in Government Writing," 63 

FR 31885 Oune 10,1998) directs each 

Federal agency to write all published 

rulemaking documents in plain 

language. The Memorandum includes 

general guidance on what constitutes 

"plain language." Plain language 

requirements will vary from one 

document to another, depending on the 

intended audience, but all plain 

language documents should be logically 

organized and clearly written. 

We have written this final rule to be 

easy to understand by organizing it to 

suit the needs of stakeholders better, by 

avoiding unnecessary technical jargon, 

and by following Departmental 

instructions and guidelines related to 

plain language. We conclude that, to the 

extent practicable, the language of this 

final rule is consistent with the 

President's Memorandum on "Plain 

Language in Government Writing." 

K. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act. 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any 

proposed rule or policy that may affect 

family well-being. Today's rule is not a 

proposed rule, nor will the rule have 

any impact on the autonomy or the 

integrity of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly. DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

L. Review Under the Small Business and 

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act 

Consistent with Subtitle E of the 

Small Business and Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 801-808, DOE will submit to 

Congress a report regarding the issuance 

of today's final rule before the effective 

date set forth at the outset of this notice. 

The report will state that it has been 

determined that this rule is not a "major 

rule" as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804 (2). 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Commercial and Industrial 

Equipment, Energy conservation, 

Issued in Washington. DC, on January 4, 

2001. 

Dan J. Leiter, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Title 10, Part 431 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as set 

forth below: 

PART 431-ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for Part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6311-6316. 

2. Subpart Q is added to read as 

follows: 

Subpart Q-Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards for Certain Commercial 

Equipment, and Effective Dates 

Sec. 

431.701 Purpose and scope. 

431.702 Commercial warm air furnaces. 

431.703 Small and large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. 

431.704 Commercial water heaters and 

unfired hot water storage tanks. 

Subpart Q-Amended Energy 

Conservation Standards for Certain 

Commercial Equipment, and Effective 

Dates 

§431.701 Purpose and scope. 

This subpart sets forth the minimum 

efficiency levels for commercial 

equipment, contained in ASHRAE/IES 

Standard 90.1-1999, that the 

Department of Energy has adopted as 

national standards, effective in 2003 or 

2004 as specified in §§ 431.701 through 

431.704. On their effective dates, these 

levels will amend and replace some of 

the efficiency levels required for certain 

commercial equipment by Section 

342(a) of EPCA. The Department has not 

adopted the efficiency levels specified 

in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1999 for 

products not identified in this subpart, 

and the levels specified in Section 

342(a) of EPCA for those products will 

remain in force unless and until they are 

amended. The Department adopted the 

efficiency levels in this subpart 

pursuant to Section 342(a)(6) of EPCA, 

which addresses the establishment of 

national standards at minimum levels 

specified in amendments to ASHRAEI 

IES Standard 90.1, in place of the 

efficiency levels required in Section 

342(a) of EPCA. 

§ 431.702 Commercial warm air furnaces. 

Each commercial warm air furnace 

manufactured after October 29, 2003 

must meet the following energy 

efficiency standard levels: 

(a) For a gas-fired commercial warm 

air furnace with capacity of 225,000 Btu 

per hour or more, the thermal efficiency 

at the maximum rated capacity must be 

not less than 80 percent. 

(b) For an oil-fired commercial warm 

air furnace with capacity of 225,000 Btu 

per hour or more, the thermal efficiency 

at the maximum rated capacity must be 

not less than 81 percent. 

§431.703 Small and large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. 

Each commercial water- or 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioner 

and water-source heat pump 

manufactured after October 29, 2003 

(except for large commercial package 

air-conditioning and heating equipment, 

for which the effective date is October 

29, 2004) must meet the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency standard 

level(s) for heating and cooling set forth 

in Tables 1 and 2 of this section. 

BILLING CODE 645!Hll-P 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25 

Federal Register I Vol. 66, No.9 I Friday, January 12, 2001/Rules and Regulations 3355 

'fable I-Miltimu-mt-{)(}lingEffK:ien(:y Levels 

Required Effective' Product Category Cooling capacity Subcategory Minimum Date Efficiency Level I 

Small Commercial Water-Cooled, <17,000 Btulh Air Conditioners EER: 12.1 10/29/2003 

Packaged Air Evaporatively Cooled, Heat Pumps EER: 11.2 10/2912003 

Conditioning and and Water-Source ? 1 7,000 Btu/h and Air Conditioners EER: 12.1 10/29/2003 

Heating Equipment <65,000 Btu/h Heat Pumps EER: 12.0 10/29/2003 

? 65,000 Btu/h and Air Conditioners EER: 11.52 10/29/2003 

<135,000 Btulh Heat Pumps EER: 12.0 10/29/2003 

Large Commercial Water-Cooled, and ~ 135,000 Btulh and All EER: 11.0 10/29/2004 

Packaged Air Evaporatively Cooled <240,000 Btulh 

Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment 

Table 2 - Minimum Heating Efficiency Levels 

Product Category Cooling Subcategory Required Minimum Effective 

Capacity - Efficiency Levell Date 

Small Commercial Packaged Air Water- <135,000 Btulh All COP: 4.2 10/29/2003 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment Source 

I All EER values must be rated at 95°F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively-cooled 

products and at 85 of entering water temperature for water-source and water-cooled products. 

2 Deduct 0.2 from the required EER for units with heating sections other than electric resistance heat. 

3 All COP values must be rated at 70°F entering water temperature for water-source products. 

Q:\EE-41IPriority ruleslCmrc1 BV AC and Wtr htrl$tandards Final Rule.18.wpd 

December 26. 2000 
EE-RM-STD-00-100 COMMENT 25 

3356 Federal Register 1 Vol. 66, No. 91 Friday, January 12, 20011 Rules and Regulations 

§431.704 Commercial water heaters and unfired hot water storage tanks. 

Each commercial storage water heater, instantaneous water heater, and hot water supply boiler manufactured after October 29, 2003 must meet 

the applicable energy conservation standard level(s) as follows: 

Equipment Type Category Size or Rating Energy Efficiency Required Energy Efficiency Effective 

Descriptor Levelt Date 

Gas Storage Water <4,000 :;; 155,000 Btulhr M in. Thermal Efficiency 80% 10/29/2003 

Heaters Btulhr/gal Max. Standby Loss2 . __ ~OO + i 1 o,f"Y. (Btulhr) 10/29/2003 

> 155,000 Btulhr Min. Thermal Efficiency t-. 80% 10/2912003 

Max. Standby Loss! Q/800 + 11 O,f"y, (Btulhr) 10/2912003 

Gas Instantaneous ~ 4,000 ~ 10 gal Min. Thermal Efficiency 80% 10/29/2003 

Water Heaters Btulhr/gal Max. Standby Loss2 Q/800 + 11 M"Y, (Btulhr) 10/2912003 

Oil Storage Water <4,000 s: 155,000 Btulhr Min. Thermal Efficiency 78% 10/29/2003 

Heaters Btulhr/ga\ Max. Standby Loss! Q/800 + 1 J(}/V (Btulhr) 10/29/2003 

> 155,000 Btulhr Min. Thermal Efficiency 78% 10129/2003 

Max. Standby LOSSl Q/800 + 11 rNV, (Btulhr) 10/29/2003 

Oil Instantaneous ~ 4,000 < 10 gal Min. Thermal Efficiency 80% 10/2912003 

Water Heaters Btulhr/gal ~ 10 gal Min. Thermal Efficiency 78% 10129/2003 

Max. Standby Loss2 Q/800 + IIO..fV (Btulhr) 10/29/2003 

Gas Hot Water Supply ~ 4,000 ~ 10 gal Min. Thermal Efficiency 80% 10/2912003 

Boilers Btulhr/gaJ Max. Standby Loss2 Q/800 + 11 rNV, (Btulhr) 10/29/2003 

Oil Hot Water Supply ~ 4,000 ~ 10 gal Min. Thermal Efficiency 78% 10/2912003 

Boilers Btulhr/gal Max. Standby Loss2 Q/800 + 11 rNV. (Btulhr) 10/2912003 

Unfired Hot Water All All Minimum Insulation R-12.5 10/2912003 

Storage Tanks Requirement 

1 Standby loss is based on a 70· temperature difference between stored water and ambient requirements. In the Standby Loss equations, V, is the rated volume in gallons, and Q is the 

nameplate input rate in Btulh. 

2 Water heaters and hot water supply boilers having more than 140 galions of storage capacity are not required meet the standby loss requirement if the tank surface is thermally insulated to 

R-12.5. if a standing pilot light is not installed. and gas- or oil-fired storage water heaters have a nue damper or fan-assisted comhustion. 

Q:IEE-4IIPriority ruleslCmrel HV AC and Wlr htr\Standards Final Rule. 18.wpd