25622 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

District 6—The State of Texas. 

District 7—The States of Alaska, 

Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

Under this realignment: (1) The 

Florida counties of Citrus, Flagler, 

Hernando, Marion, Putnam, St. Johns 

and Sumter are moved from District 1 to 

District 2; (2) Alabama, Tennessee, and 

Virginia are moved from District 2 to 

District 4; (3) Arkansas, Louisiana, 

Mississippi, and Oklahoma are moved 

from District 2 to District 7; (4) Georgia 

counties Early, Baker, Miller, Mitchell, 

Colquitt, Thomas, Grady, Decatur, and 

Seminole are moved from District 2 to 

District 3, (5) South Carolina moved 

from District 3 to District 2; (6) Iowa, 

Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, 

North Dakota, and South Dakota are 

moved from District 4 to District 7; (7) 

Alaska, Hawaii, Nevada, Oregon, and 

Washington are moved from District 5 to 

District 7; (8) The following counties in 

the State of Texas: Armstrong, Bailey, 

Briscoe, Carson, Castro, Childress, 

Cochran, Collingsworth, Cottle, Crosby, 

Dallam, Deaf Smith, Dickens, Donley, 

Floyd, Garza, Gray, Hale, Hall, 

Hanaford, Hartely, Hemphill, Hockely, 

Hutchinson, Kent, King, Lamb, 

Lipscomb, Lubbock, Lynn, Moore, 

Motley, Ochiltree, Oldham, Parmer, 

Potter, Randall, Roberts, Sherman, 

Stonewall, Swisher, Terry, Wheeler, and 

Yoakum are moved from District 7 to 

District 6; (9) the following counties in 

California: San Bernardino, Riverside, 

San Diego, and Imperial are moved from 

District 7 to District 5. 

Due to the re-alignment of districts, 

the following vacancies are created: one 

producer vacancy in District 2; one 

handler vacancy in District 3, one 

producer vacancy in District 7; and two 

importer vacancies. Current Board 

members would be affected because 

their States or counties would be moved 

to other districts. Nomination meetings 

will be held as soon as possible in the 

new districts to fill the vacancies. 

A 30-day comment period is provided 

to allow interested persons to respond 

to this proposal. Thirty days is deemed 

appropriate so that the proposed 

amendments, if adopted, may be 

implemented to allow for the calendar 

year 2012 nomination meetings to take 

place before the appointments for new 

Board members are due. All written 

comments received in response to this 

rule by the date specified would be 

considered prior to finalizing this 

action. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1210 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Advertising, Consumer 

information, Marketing agreements, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Watermelon promotion. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, Part 1210, Chapter XI of Title 

7 is proposed to be amended as follows: 

PART 1210—WATERMELON 

RESEARCH AND PROMOTION PLAN 

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

Part 1210 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 4901–4916 and 7 

U.S.C. 7401. 

Subpart C—Rules and Regulations 

2. Section 1210.501 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 1210.501 Realignment of districts. 

Pursuant to § 1210.320(c) of the Plan, 

the districts shall be as follows: 

District 1—The Florida counties of 

Brevard, Broward, Charlotte, Collier, 

Dade, Desoto, Glades, Hardee, Hendry, 

Highlands, Hillsborough, Indian River, 

Lake, Lee, Manatee, Martin, Monroe, 

Okeechobee, Orange, Osceola, Palm 

Beach, Pasco, Pinellas, Polk, Sarasota, 

Seminole, St. Lucie, and Volusia. 

District 2—The Florida counties of 

Alachua, Baker, Bay, Bradford, Calhoun, 

Citrus, Clay, Columbia, Dixie, Duval, 

Escambia, Flagler, Franklin, Gadsden, 

Gilchrist, Gulf, Hamilton, Hernando, 

Holmes, Jackson, Jefferson, Lafayette, 

Leon, Levy, Liberty, Madison, Marion, 

Nassau, Okaloosa, Putnam, Santa Rosa, 

St. Johns, Sumter, Suwannee, Taylor, 

Union, Wakulla, Walton, and 

Washington, and the States of North 

Carolina and South Carolina. 

District 3—The State of Georgia. 

District 4—The States of Alabama, 

Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, 

Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, 

Massachusetts, Michigan, New 

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, 

Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, 

Tennessee, Virginia, Vermont, 

Wisconsin, West Virginia, and 

Washington, DC. 

District 5—The State of California. 

District 6—The State of Texas. 

District 7—The States of Alaska, 

Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, 

Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, 

Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New 

Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, 

Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, 

Washington, and Wyoming. 

3. Section 1210.502 is added to read 

as follows: 

§ 1210.502 Importer members. 

Pursuant to § 1210.320(d) of the Plan, 

there are eight importer representatives 

on the Board based on the proportionate 

percentage of assessments paid by 

importers to the Board. 

Dated: April 28, 2011. 

David R. Shipman, 

Associate Administrator, Agricultural 

Marketing Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–11043 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029] 

RIN 1904–AC47 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, 

and Water-Heating Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, directs the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) to establish energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

products. Of particular relevance here, 

the statute also requires that each time 

the corresponding consensus standard— 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)/Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) Standard 90.1—is amended by 

the industry, DOE must assess whether 

there is a need to update the uniform 

national energy conservation standards 

for the same equipment covered under 

EPCA. ASHRAE officially released an 

amended version of this industry 

standard (ASHRAE 90.1–2010) on 

October 29, 2010, thereby triggering 

DOE’s related obligations under EPCA. 

In addition, the Energy Independence 

and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) 

amended EPCA to require DOE to 

review the most recently published 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with 

respect to single-package vertical air 

conditioners and single-package vertical 

heat pumps in accordance with the 

procedures established for reviewing the 

energy conservation standards for other 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25623 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 

110–140. 

ASHRAE products. As a first step in 

meeting these statutory requirements, 

today’s notice of data availability 

(NODA) discusses the results of DOE’s 

analysis of the energy savings potential 

of amended energy conservation 

standards for certain types of 

commercial equipment covered by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including 

single-package vertical air conditioners 

and single-package vertical heat pumps. 

The energy savings potentials are based 

upon either the efficiency levels 

specified in the amended industry 

standard (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010) or more stringent levels that 

would result in significant additional 

conservation of energy and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE is 

publishing this NODA to: Announce the 

results and preliminary conclusions of 

DOE’s analysis of potential energy 

savings associated with amended 

standards for this equipment, and 

request public comment on this 

analysis, as well as the submission of 

data and other relevant information. 

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, 

and information regarding this NODA 

submitted no later than June 6, 2011. 

See section IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of 

this notice for details. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the NODA for ASHRAE 

Products and provide the docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029 

and/or Regulatory Information Number 

(RIN) 1904–AC47. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. E-mail: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD0029@ee.doe.gov. Include the Docket 

Number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029 

and/or RIN number 1904–AC47 in the 

subject line of the message. 

3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza, SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IV of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the 

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page contains 

a link to the docket for this notice, along 

with simple instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section 

IV.A for further information on how to 

submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket, 

contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 

586–2945 or by email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892. E-mail: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. 

E-mail: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. E-mail: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Purpose of the Notice of Data 

Availability 

C. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed 

Addenda 

D. Summary of DOE’s Preliminary 

Assessment of Equipment for EnergySavings Analysis 

II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 

A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces 

B. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment 

1. Water-Cooled Equipment 

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment 

3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment 

4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps 

5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and 

Through-The-Wall Equipment 

6. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps 

C. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units 

Serving Computer Rooms 

D. Test Procedures 

1. Updates to AHRI 210/240 Test Method 

2. Updates to AHRI 340/360 Test Method 

3. Updates to UL 727 Test Method 

4. Updates to ANSI Z21.47 Test Method 

5. Updates to ANSI Z21.10.3 Test Method 

III. Analysis of Potential Energy Savings 

A. Annual Energy Use 

1. Water-Cooled Air Conditioners 

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners 

3. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

B. Shipments 

C. Other Analytical Inputs 

1. Site-to-Source Conversion 

2. Product Lifetime 

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period 

D. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

6311–6317, as codified), added by 

Public Law 95–619, Title IV, § 441(a), 

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, which includes the 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water-heating equipment that is the 

subject of this rulemaking.2 In general, 

this program addresses the energy 

efficiency of certain types of commercial 

and industrial equipment. Relevant 

provisions of the Act specifically 

include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test 

procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling 

provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), energy 

conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), 

and the authority to require information 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25624 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

3Although EPCA does not explicitly define the 

term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of 

what would constitute an ‘‘amended standard’’ in a 

final rule published in the Federal Register on 

March 7, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the ‘‘March 

2007 final rule’’). 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE 

stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to 

adopt uniform national standards based on 

ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a 

standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA 

section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by 

increasing the energy efficiency level for that 

equipment type. Id. at 10042. In other words, if the 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard 

level unchanged or lowers the standard, as 

compared to the level specified by the national 

standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not 

have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to 

consider a higher standard for that equipment 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE 

subsequently reiterated this position in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2009. 

74 FR 36312, 36313. 

4This industry standard is developed with input 

from a number of organizations—most prominently 

ASHRAE, the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), and the Illuminating Engineering 

Society of North America (IESNA). Therefore, this 

document may sometime be referred to more 

formally as ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1– 

2010. See http://www.ashrae.org for more 

information. 

5For SPVACs and SPVHPs, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 did not change the efficiency levels from 

the Federal standards, so DOE did not review 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for those equipment 

classes for that purpose, and only estimated 

potential energy savings for more stringent 

efficiency levels. 

and reports from manufacturers (42 

U.S.C. 6316). 

In relevant part here, EPCA contains 

mandatory energy conservation 

standards for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) 

Specifically, the statute sets standards 

for small, large, and very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, packaged 

terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), 

warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 

storage water heaters, instantaneous 

water heaters, and unfired hot water 

storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA 

established Federal energy conservation 

standards that generally correspond to 

the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-Rise Residential Buildings, as in 

effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989), for each 

type of covered equipment listed in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a). EISA 2007 further 

amended EPCA by adding definitions 

and setting minimum standards for 

single-package vertical air conditioners 

(SPVACs) and single-package vertical 

heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(10)(A)) The standards for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs established by 

EISA 2007 corresponded to the levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2004, which originated as addendum 

‘‘d’’ to Standard 90.1–2001. 

In acknowledgement of technological 

changes that yield energy efficiency 

benefits, Congress directed DOE through 

EPCA to consider amending the existing 

Federal energy efficiency standard for 

each type of equipment listed, each time 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended 

with respect to such equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of 

equipment, EPCA directs that if 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,3

DOE must adopt amended standards at 

the new efficiency level in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless clear and 

convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a more 

stringent level as a national standard 

would produce significant additional 

energy savings and be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides 

to adopt as a national standard the 

minimum efficiency levels specified in 

the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

DOE must establish such standard not 

later than 18 months after publication of 

the amended industry standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if 

DOE determines that a more stringent 

standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then DOE must 

establish such more stringent standard 

not later than 30 months after 

publication of the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) 

Additionally, EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to require that DOE review the 

most recently published ASHRAE/IES 

Standard 90.1 with respect to singlepackage vertical air conditioners and 

single-package vertical heat pumps in 

accordance with the procedures 

established for ASHRAE products under 

paragraph 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE 

believes that this requirement is 

separate and independent from the 

requirement described in the paragraph 

above for all ASHRAE products and that 

it requires DOE to evaluate potential 

standards higher than the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 level for singlepackage vertical air conditioners and 

heat pumps, even if the efficiency levels 

for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not 

changed since the last version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

As a preliminary step in the process 

of reviewing the changes to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to 

publish in the Federal Register for 

public comment an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards, within 180 

days after ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended with respect to any of the 

covered products specified under 42 

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

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE 

officially released for distribution and 

made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010.4 This action by ASHRAE triggered 

DOE’s obligations under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6), as outlined above. This 

NODA embodies the analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards, as required 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). This 

NODA also addresses DOE’s obligations 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) to 

consider the most recently published 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 with 

respect to single-package vertical air 

conditioners and single-package vertical 

heat pumps in accordance with the 

procedures established for ASHRAE 

products under paragraph 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6). 

B. Purpose of the Notice of Data 

Availability 

As explained above, DOE is 

publishing today’s NODA as a 

preliminary step pursuant to EPCA’s 

requirements for DOE to consider 

amended energy conservation standards 

for certain types of commercial 

equipment covered by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, whenever ASHRAE 

amends its standard to increase the 

energy efficiency level for that 

equipment type. This NODA also 

addresses the requirements to consider 

amended energy conservation standards 

for SPVACs and SPVHPs under 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Specifically, this 

NODA presents for public comment 

DOE’s analysis of the potential energy 

savings estimates for amended national 

energy conservation standards for these 

types of commercial equipment based 

on: (1) The amended efficiency levels 

contained within ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010,5 and (2) more stringent 

efficiency levels. DOE describes these 

analyses and preliminary conclusions 

and seeks input from interested parties, 

including the submission of data and 

other relevant information. 

DOE is not required by EPCA to 

review additional changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 for those equipment 

types where ASHRAE did not increase 

the efficiency level. For those types of 

equipment for which efficiency levels 

clearly did not change, DOE has 

conducted no further analysis (with the 

exception of SPVACs and SPVHPs, for 

which EPCA requires DOE to review 

standard levels regardless of whether 

there was a change to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1). However, for certain 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25625 

6EPCA contains what is commonly known as an 

‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 

U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) This provision mandates that the 

Secretary not prescribe any amended standard that 

either increases the maximum allowable energy use 

or decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of covered equipment. 

7 In deciding whether a more stringent standard 

is economically justified, DOE must review 

comments on the proposed standard, and then 

determine whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens by considering the following 

seven factors to the greatest extent practicable: 

(1) The economic impact on manufacturers and 

consumers subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the product in the type (or 

class), compared to any increase in the price, initial 

charges, or maintenance expenses of the products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy savings 

likely to result directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of product utility or 

performance likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the Attorney General, 

likely to result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy conservation; 

and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)). 

8The Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

standard if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of evidence that the amended 

standard would likely result in unavailability in the 

U.S. of any covered product type or class of 

performance characteristics, such as reliability, 

features, capacities, sizes, and volumes that are 

substantially similar to those generally available in 

the U.S. at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4)). 

equipment classes of ASHRAE covered 

equipment, DOE found that while 

ASHRAE had made changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, it was not 

immediately clear that the revisions to 

Standard 90.1 would increase the 

efficiency requirement in that Standard 

as compared to the existing Federal 

energy conservation standards. For 

example, for commercial warm-air 

furnaces, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

changes the efficiency metric to thermal 

efficiency from combustion efficiency, 

which was the metric used in the 

previous version of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2007). However, as discussed in section 

II.A of this NODA, the change does not 

result in an increase to the required 

efficiency, so DOE did not perform 

additional analysis for that equipment. 

Therefore, DOE carefully examined the 

changes for such products in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 in order to thoroughly 

evaluate the amendments in ASHRAE 

90.1–2010, thereby permitting DOE to 

determine what action, if any, is 

required under its statutory mandate. 

Section II of this notice contains a 

discussion of DOE’s evaluation of each 

ASHRAE equipment type for which 

energy conservation standards have 

been set pursuant to EPCA (‘‘covered 

equipment’’), in order for DOE to 

determine whether the amendments in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 have 

resulted in increased efficiency levels. 

For covered equipment types 

determined to have increased efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, 

DOE subjected that equipment to further 

analysis as discussed in section III of 

this NODA. 

In summary, the energy savings 

analysis presented in this NODA is a 

preliminary step required under 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) and 

6313(a)(10)(B). After review of the 

public comments on this NODA, if DOE 

determines that the amended efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

have the potential for additional energy 

savings for types of equipment currently 

covered by uniform national standards, 

DOE will commence a rulemaking to 

consider amended standards, based 

upon either the efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 or morestringent efficiency levels which would 

be expected to result in significant 

additional conservation of energy and 

are technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In conducting 

such rulemaking, DOE will address the 

general rulemaking requirements for all 

energy conservation standards, such as 

the anti-backsliding provision 6 (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)), the 

criteria for making a determination that 

a standard is economically justified 7 (42 

U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii)), and the 

prohibition on making unavailable 

existing products with performance 

characteristics generally available in the 

U.S.8 (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)). 

C. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

As noted above, ASHRAE released a 

new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE 

standard addresses efficiency levels for 

many types of commercial heating, 

ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), 

and water-heating equipment covered 

by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

revised the efficiency levels for certain 

commercial equipment, but for the 

remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in 

place the preexisting levels (i.e. the 

efficiency levels specified in EPCA or 

the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007). 

Table I.1 below shows the equipment 

classes (and corresponding efficiency 

levels) where ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 efficiency levels differed from the 

previous version of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2007), as well as the requirements for 

SPVAC and SPVHP equipment (which 

were unchanged in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 but which nonetheless must 

be addressed in this rulemaking for the 

reasons discussed above). Table I.1 also 

displays the existing Federal energy 

conservation standards and the 

corresponding standard levels in the 

latest version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

for those equipment classes. Section II 

of this document assesses each of these 

equipment types to determine whether 

the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 constitute increased energy 

efficiency levels, as would necessitate 

further analysis of the potential energy 

savings from amended Federal energy 

conservation standards, the conclusions 

of which are presented in the final 

column of Table I.1. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25626 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD

90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT * 

ASHRAE equipment class ** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards 

Energy-savings potential 

analysis required? 

Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces 

Gas-Fired Commercial Warm-Air 

furnace.

Ec = 80% Interrupted or 

intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not 

exceeding 0.75% of 

input rating, power 

vent or flue damper ***.

Et = 80% Interrupted or 

intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not 

exceeding 0.75% of 

input rating, power 

vent or flue damper ***.

Et = 80% ......................... No. See section II.A. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Water-Cooled 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance Heating or 

No Heating.

11.5 EER ........................ 12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.5 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.1. 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

All Other Heating.

11.3 EER ........................ 11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.3 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.1. 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance Heating or 

No Heating.

11.0 EER ........................ 12.5 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.1. 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 

All Other Heating.

10.8 EER ........................ 12.3 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.1. 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 

≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER ........................ 12.4 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.1. 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, 

≥240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER ........................ 12.2 EER (as of 6/1/11) 10.8 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.1. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Evaporatively-Cooled 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h, Electric Resistance 

Heating or No Heating.

11.5 EER ........................ 12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.5 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.2. 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

11.3 EER ........................ 11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.3 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.2. 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 

Btu/h, Electric Resistance 

Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER ........................ 12.0 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.2. 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and <240,000 

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER ........................ 11.8 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.2. 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h, Electric Resistance 

Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER ........................ 11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.2. 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER ........................ 11.7 EER† (as of 6/1/11) 10.8 EER ........................ Yes. See section II.B.2. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—VRF Systems†† 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 13.0 SEER ...................... 13.0 SEER ...................... No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 11.2 EER ........................ 11.2 EER ........................ No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 11.0 EER ........................ 11.0 EER ........................ No. See section II.B.3. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25627 

TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD

90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued 

ASHRAE equipment class ** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards 

Energy-savings potential 

analysis required? 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, 

≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 10.0 EER ........................ 10.0 EER ........................ No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .... 13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .... No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

without heat recovery, Electric 

Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........ 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP ........ No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 10.8 EER, 3.2 COP ........ 11.0 EER (electric resistance heating), 10.8 

EER (no electric resistance heating)††† 3.3 

COP.

No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 

without heat recovery, Electric 

Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........ 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP ........ No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h, 

with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP ........ 10.6 EER (electric resistance heating), 10.4 (no 

electric resistance 

heating)††† 3.2 COP.

No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

≥240,000 Btu/h, without heat 

recovery, Electric Resistance 

or No Heating.

N/A .................................. 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP .......... 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP .......... No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, 

≥240,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or 

No Heating.

N/A .................................. 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP .......... 9.5 EER (electric resistance heating), 9.3 

EER (no electric resistance heating)††† 3.2 

COP.

No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, 

<65,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery.

N/A .................................. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 11.2 EER (<17,000 Btu/ 

h)††, 12.0 EER 

(≥17,000 Btu/h and 

<65,000 Btu/h) 4.2 

COP.

Yes◊◊◊ for <17,000 Btu. 

No for ≥17,000 Btu/h 

and <65,000 Btu/h. 

See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, 

<65,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery.

N/A .................................. 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 11.2 EER (< 17,000 Btu/ 

h)†† 12.0 EER (≥ 

17,000 Btu/h and 

<65,000 Btu/h), 4.2 

COP.

Yes◊◊◊ for <17,000 Btu, 

No for ≥17,000 Btu/h 

and <65,000 Btu/h, 

See section II.B.3, 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

without heat recovery.

N/A .................................. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h, 

with heat recovery.

N/A .................................. 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ........ 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ........ No. See section II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, 

≥135,000 Btu/h, without heat 

recovery.

N/A .................................. 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ........ N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section 

II.B.3. 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, 

≥135,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery.

N/A .................................. 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP .......... N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section 

II.B.3. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—PTACs and PTHPs‡‡

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, <7,000 Btu/h, Standard 

Size (New Construction)‡‡.

EER = 11.0 ..................... EER = 11.7 (as of 10/8/ 

12).

EER = 11.7 ..................... No. See section II.B.4. 

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, ≥7,000 and <15,000 

Btu/h, Standard Size (New 

Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 12.5—(0.213 × 

Cap◊).

EER = 13.8—(0.300 × 

Cap◊) (as of 10/8/12).

EER = 13.8—(0.300 × 

Cap◊).

No. See section II.B.4. 

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, >15,000 Btu/h, Standard 

Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 9.3 ....................... EER = 9.3 ....................... EER = 9.3 ....................... No. See section II.B.4. 

Package Terminal Heat Pump, 

<7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size 

(New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 10.8, COP = 3.0 EER = 11.9, COP = 3.3 

(as of 10/8/12).

EER = 11.9, COP = 3.3 No. See section II.B.4. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25628 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD

90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued 

ASHRAE equipment class ** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards 

Energy-savings potential 

analysis required? 

Package Terminal Heat Pump, 

≥7,000 and <15,000 Btu/h, 

Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 12.3—(0.213 × 

Cap◊), COP = 3.2— 

(0.026 × Cap◊).

EER = 14.0—(0.300 × 

Cap◊), COP = 3.7— 

(0.052 × Cap◊) (as of 

10/8/12).

EER = 14.0—(0.300 × 

Cap◊), COP = 3.7— 

(0.052 × Cap◊).

No. See section II.B.4. 

Package Terminal Heat Pump, 

>15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size 

(New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 9.1, COP = 2.8 ... EER = 9.5, COP = 2.9 ... EER = 9.5, COP = 2.9 ... No. See section II.B.4. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—SDHV and TTW 

Through-the-Wall, Air-cooled 

Heat Pumps, ≤30,000 Btu/h.

12.0 SEER, 7.4 HSPF .... 13.0 SEER, 7.4 HSPF .... 13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .... No. See section II.B.5. 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Aircooled Heat Pumps, <65,000 

Btu/h.

10.0 SEER, 6.8 HSPF .... N/A◊◊ .............................. 13.0 SEER, 7.7 HSPF .... No. See section II.B.5. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—SPVACs and SPVHPs 

Single-Packaged Vertical Air 

Conditioners, <65,000 Btu/h.

9.0 EER .......................... 9.0 EER .......................... 9.0 EER .......................... Yes. See section II.B.6. 

Single-Packaged Vertical Air 

Conditioners, ≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

8.9 EER .......................... 8.9 EER .......................... 8.9 EER .......................... Yes. See section II.B.6. 

Single-Packaged Vertical Air 

Conditioners, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

8.6 EER .......................... 8.6 EER .......................... 8.6 EER .......................... Yes. See section II.B.6. 

Single-Packaged Vertical Heat 

Pumps, <65,000 Btu/h.

9.0 EER, 3.0 COP .......... 9.0 EER, 3.0 COP .......... 9.0 EER, 3.0 COP .......... Yes. See section II.B.6. 

Single-Packaged Vertical Heat 

Pumps, ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h.

8.9 EER, 3.0 COP .......... 8.9 EER, 3.0 COP .......... 8.9 EER, 3.0 COP .......... Yes. See section II.B.6. 

Single-Packaged Vertical Heat 

Pumps, ≥65,000 and <240,000 

Btu/h.

8.6 EER, 2.9 COP .......... 8.6 EER, 2.9 COP .......... 8.6 EER, 2.9 COP .......... Yes. See section II.B.6. 

Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.20 SCOP (downflow), 

2.09 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 

1.99 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 1.90 SCOP (downflow), 

1.79 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.60 SCOP (downflow), 

2.49 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.50 SCOP (downflow), 

2.39 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.40 SCOP (downflow), 

2.29 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled 

with fluid economizer, <65,000 

Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.55 SCOP (downflow), 

2.44 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled 

with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 

and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.45 SCOP (downflow), 

2.34 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled 

with fluid economizer, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.35 SCOP (downflow), 

2.24 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.50 SCOP (downflow), 

2.39 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.15 SCOP (downflow), 

2.04 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 

1.99 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled 

with fluid economizer, <65,000 

Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.45 SCOP (downflow), 

2.34 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25629 

9 Ground water source (water to air: ground 

water) and ground source (brine to air: Ground 

loop) heat pumps are not covered products. 

TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY LEVELS IN ASHRAE STANDARD

90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued 

ASHRAE equipment class ** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards 

Energy-savings potential 

analysis required? 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled 

with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 

and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 

1.99 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled 

with fluid economizer, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................................. 2.05 SCOP (downflow), 

1.94 SCOP (upflow).

N/A .................................. Yes◊◊◊. See section II.C. 

*‘‘Ec’’ means combustion efficiency; ‘‘Et’’ means thermal efficiency; ‘‘EER’’ means energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘SEER’’ means seasonal energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘HSPF’’ means heating seasonal performance factor; ‘‘COP’’ means coefficient of performance; ‘‘Btu/h’’ means British thermal units 

per hour; and ‘‘SCOP’’ means sensible coefficient of performance. 

** ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 equipment classes may differ from the equipment classes defined in DOE’s regulations, but no loss of coverage will occur (i.e., all previously covered DOE equipment classes remained covered equipment). 

*** A vent damper is an acceptable alternative to a flue damper for those furnaces that draw combustion air from conditioned space. †ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section II.B of this NODA, DOE believes 

this level was a mistake and that the correct level is 11.7 EER. ††Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems are newly defined equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. As discussed in section 

II.B.3 of this NODA, DOE believes these systems are currently covered by Federal standards for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. †††For these equipment classes, ASHRAE sets lower efficiency requirements for equipment with heat recovery systems. DOE believes systems with heat recovery and electric resistance heating would be required to meet the current Federal standard for equipment with electric resistance heating (i.e., the Federal standard level shown in the table). However, for equipment with heat recovery and no electric resistance heating, 

DOE believes heat recovery would be an ‘‘other’’ heating type allowing for a 0.2 EER reduction in the Federal minimum requirement. ‡The Federal energy conservation standards for this equipment class are specified differently for equipment with cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/ 

h. However, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 does not distinguish this equipment class. ‡‡For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure, all EER values must be rated at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled 

products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at 85 °F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 

47 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products, and at 70 °F entering water temperature for water-source heat pumps. ‡‡‡ ‘‘Standard size’’ refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve dimensions ≥16 inches high, or ≥42 inches wide. 

◊ ‘‘Cap’’ means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95°F outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

◊◊ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 includes an efficiency level of 10.0 SEER for these products. However, as explained in section II.B.5 of this 

NODA, DOE believes that ASHRAE did not intend to set an efficiency level for these products. 

◊◊◊An energy-savings analysis for this class of equipment was not conducted due to either a lack of data or because there is no equipment on 

the market that would fall into this equipment class. 

2. ASHRAE Standard 90.1 Proposed 

Addenda 

Since officially releasing ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 on October 29, 

2010, ASHRAE has released three 

proposed addenda relevant to today’s 

NODA: Proposed Addendum h, 

Proposed Addendum i, and Proposed 

Addendum j. ASHRAE released all three 

addenda for first public review in March 

2011, and the 45-day public review 

period ends May 9, 2011. Proposed 

Addendum h would remove the smallduct high-velocity (SDHV) product class 

from one of the tables of standards and 

correct the minimum efficiencies for 

through-the-wall products. In addition, 

it would amend the minimum energy 

efficiency standards (and change the 

product class names) for water-to-air 

heat pumps, including some product 

classes regulated by DOE (e.g., ‘‘watersource’’ would become ‘‘water-to-air: 

Water loop’’), with a proposed effective 

date immediately upon publication of 

the addendum.9 Proposed Addendum i 

would amend the minimum energy 

efficiency standards for SPVACs and 

SPVHPs. It would also add a new 

product class designed to address 

SPVACs and SPVHPs in spaceconstrained applications. These would 

become effective January 1, 2012. 

Proposed Addendum j would remove 

SDHV from both tables of standards in 

which it was listed, and would also 

correct the EER for one product class of 

evaporatively-cooled units, as discussed 

in section II.B.5. 

Because these proposed addenda have 

not yet been approved, DOE is not 

obligated to address these changes until 

the addenda are formally adopted and 

ASHRAE issues the next version of 

Standard 90.1 (expected in 2013). 

However, DOE acknowledges that these 

proposed addenda may affect the market 

which is addressed in today’s NODA. 

As a result, DOE seeks comments on 

what impact, if any, these proposed 

addenda might have, if adopted, on the 

national energy savings analysis 

presented in today’s NODA. This is 

Issue 1 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of this 

NODA. 

D. Summary of DOE’s Preliminary 

Assessment of Equipment for EnergySavings Analysis 

DOE has reached a preliminary 

conclusion for each of the classes of 

commercial equipment in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 addressed in 

today’s NODA. For each class of 

commercial equipment addressed in 

this NODA, section II presents DOE’s 

initial determination as to whether 

ASHRAE increased the efficiency level 

for a given type of product, a change 

which would require an energy-savings 

potential analysis. Since DOE is not 

required by EPCA to review additional 

changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 for those equipment types where 

ASHRAE did not increase the efficiency 

level, DOE has conducted no further 

analysis for those types of equipment 

where efficiency levels clearly did not 

change. Additionally, for equipment 

where ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 has increased the level in 

comparison to the previous version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but does not 

exceed the current Federal standard 

level, DOE does not have the authority 

to conduct a rulemaking to consider a 

higher standard for that equipment 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) and 

did not perform an potential energy 

savings analysis. For those equipment 

classes where ASHRAE increased the 

efficiency level (in comparison to the 

Federal standard), DOE performed an 

analysis of the energy-savings potential, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25630 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

unless DOE found no products in the 

market in that equipment class (in 

which case there is no potential for 

energy savings) or there was a 

significant lack of data and information 

available that would allow DOE to 

reasonably estimate the potential for 

energy savings. 

Based upon DOE’s analysis discussed 

in section II, DOE has determined that 

ASHRAE increased the efficiency level 

for the following equipment classes: 

• Small, Large, and Very Large Watercooled Air Conditioners; 

• Small, Large, and Very Large 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioners; 

• Certain Small (only those with 

cooling capacity < 17,000 Btu/h) and 

Large Variable Refrigerant Flow WaterSource Heat Pumps; and 

• Air Conditioners and Condensing 

Units Serving Computer Rooms. 

Out of those equipment classes, when 

DOE found that equipment is available 

on the market and adequate information 

exists to reasonably estimate potential 

energy savings, DOE performed the 

analysis of the energy-savings potential 

which is described in section III. 

However, when DOE did not find 

equipment available on the market 

(such as for small variable refrigerant 

flow water-source heat pumps with 

capacities below 17,000 Btu/h), or found 

that adequate efficiency and/or 

shipments data was unavailable (such as 

for air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms), DOE did 

not perform a potential energy savings 

analysis. 

In addition, although ASHRAE did 

not increase the efficiency level for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs, DOE is required 

by EPCA to consider amending the 

energy conservation standards for these 

equipment classes using the procedures 

set forth by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for 

ASHRAE products. Accordingly, DOE 

also performed an energy-savings 

analysis for SPVACs and SPVHPs and 

presents the results in section III. 

II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 

Before beginning an analysis of the 

potential energy savings that would 

result from adopting the efficiency 

levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 or more-stringent efficiency 

levels, DOE first determined whether or 

not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

efficiency levels actually represented an 

increase in efficiency above the current 

Federal standard levels, thereby 

triggering DOE action. This section 

contains a discussion of each equipment 

class where the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 efficiency level differs from 

the current Federal standard level, along 

with DOE’s preliminary conclusion 

regarding the appropriate action to take 

with respect to that equipment. In 

addition, this section contains a 

discussion of DOE’s determination with 

regard to newly created equipment 

classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

(i.e., VRF commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment 

and air conditioners serving computer 

rooms), and DOE’s decisions with 

regard to the requirements for analyzing 

SPVACs and SPVHPs in EPCA. Finally, 

this section provides a brief discussion 

of the test procedure updates contained 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces 

Under 42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A), a ‘‘warm 

air furnace’’ is defined as ‘‘a selfcontained oil- or gas-fired furnace 

designed to supply heated air through 

ducts to spaces that require it and 

includes combination warm air furnace/ 

electric air-conditioning units but does 

not include unit heaters and duct 

furnaces.’’ In its regulations, DOE 

defines a ‘‘commercial warm air 

furnace’’ as a ‘‘warm air furnace that is 

industrial equipment, and that has a 

capacity (rated maximum input) of 

225,000 Btu per hour or more.’’ 10 CFR 

431.72. 

Gas-fired commercial warm-air 

furnaces are fueled by either natural gas 

or propane. The Federal minimum 

energy conservation standard for 

commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces 

corresponds to the efficiency level in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989, which 

specifies for equipment with a capacity 

of 225,000 Btu/h or more, the thermal 

efficiency at the maximum rated 

capacity (rated maximum input) must 

be no less than 80 percent. 10 CFR 

431.77(a). The Federal minimum energy 

conservation standard for gas-fired 

commercial warm-air furnaces applies 

to equipment manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1994. 10 CFR 431.77. 

The current Federal standard for gasfired commercial warm-air furnaces is 

in terms of ‘‘thermal efficiency,’’ which 

is defined as ‘‘100 percent minus 

percent flue loss.’’ 10 CFR 431.72. The 

previous version of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1–2007) specified 

a minimum efficiency level of 80 

percent combustion efficiency, but it 

defined ‘‘combustion efficiency’’ as ‘‘100 

percent minus flue losses’’ in the 

footnote to the efficiency table for 

commercial warm-air gas-fired furnaces, 

which references ANSI Z21.47–2001, 

‘‘Standard for Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces,’’ as the test procedure. In its 

analysis for the 2009 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) regarding standards 

for ASHRAE Products in which DOE 

considered the updates in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007, DOE noted that 

upon reviewing the efficiency levels and 

methodology specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007, it concluded that 

ASHRAE changed the efficiency metric 

for gas-fired commercial warm-air 

furnaces in name only, and not in the 

actual test or calculation method. 74 FR 

12000, 12008–09 (March 20, 2009). 

Therefore, DOE stated its understanding 

that despite using the term ‘‘combustion 

efficiency’’ rather than ‘‘thermal 

efficiency,’’ ASHRAE did not intend to 

change the substance of the metric. 

Consequently, DOE left the existing 

Federal energy conservation standards 

in place for gas-fired commercial warmair furnaces, which specify a ‘‘thermal 

efficiency’’ of 80 percent using the 

definition of ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ 

presented at 10 CFR 431.72. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

updated the tabulated requirements for 

gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces 

to specify a minimum efficiency level of 

80 percent ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ and 

references ANSI Z21.47–2006, 

‘‘Standard for Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces,’’ as the test procedure. ANSI 

Z21.47–2006 defines ‘‘thermal 

efficiency’’ as ‘‘100 percent minus flue 

losses,’’ which is the same as DOE’s 

definition of ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ for 

this equipment. Because of this, DOE 

believes that the purpose of the 

ASHRAE metric change to ‘‘thermal 

efficiency’’ was to clarify the alignment 

to the existing Federal standards and the 

ANSI Z21.47–2006 test procedure. As a 

result, DOE tentatively concluded that 

this change does not constitute a 

revision to the actual efficiency level for 

gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces 

and that no further action by the 

Department is required. 

B. Commercial Package AirConditioning and Heating Equipment 

EPCA, as amended, defines 

‘‘commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ as air-cooled, 

evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled, or 

water source (not including ground 

water source) electrically operated, 

unitary central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps for 

commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 

10 CFR 431.92) EPCA also defines 

‘‘small,’’ ‘‘large,’’ and ‘‘very large’’ 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment based on the 

equipment’s rated cooling capacity. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) 

‘‘Small commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated below 135,000 

Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 

U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Large 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25631 

10Section 136 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

(EPACT 2005; Pub, L. 109–58) amended EPCA to 

include separate minimum efficiency requirements 

for commercial package air-cooled air conditioners 

and heating equipment with ‘‘all other heating 

system types that are integrated into the equipment’’ 

and with electric resistance or no heating. 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means 

equipment rated—(i) at or above 

135,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below 

240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) 

‘‘Very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated—(i) at or above 

240,000 Btu per hour; and (ii) below 

760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92) 

1. Water-Cooled Equipment 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the six 

classes of water-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners for which 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 amended 

efficiency levels are shown in Table I.1. 

The Federal energy conservation 

standards for water-cooled equipment 

are differentiated based on the cooling 

capacity (i.e., small, large, or very large) 

and heating type (i.e., electric resistance 

heating/no heating or some other type of 

heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased the energy efficiency levels 

for all six equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standard 

levels. Therefore, the Department 

conducted an analysis of the potential 

energy savings due to amended 

standards for these products, which is 

described in section III of this NODA. 

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the six 

classes of evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners for 

which ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

amended efficiency levels are shown in 

Table I.1. Similar to water-cooled 

equipment, Federal energy conservation 

standards divide evaporatively-cooled 

equipment based on the cooling 

capacity (i.e., small, large, or very large) 

and heating type (i.e., electric resistance 

heating/no heating or some other type of 

heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased the energy efficiency levels 

for all six equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standard 

levels. 

DOE reviewed the market for 

evaporatively-cooled equipment and 

could not identify any models available 

on the market in the ‘‘small’’ unit 

product class (i.e., cooling capacity 

< 135,000 Btu/h) and the ‘‘large’’ unit 

product class (i.e., cooling capacity 

≥ 135,000 and < 240,000 Btu/h). Because 

there is currently no equipment in these 

classes being manufactured, DOE 

believes there are no energy savings 

associated with these classes at this 

time; therefore, it is not possible to 

assess the potential for additional 

energy savings at the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 or more-stringent 

levels. Thus, DOE did not perform a 

potential energy-savings analysis for the 

small and large equipment classes of 

evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners. DOE seeks 

comments from interested parties on its 

assessment of the market and energy 

savings potential for this equipment 

type. This is Issue 2 under ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section 

IV.B of this NODA. 

For very large (i.e., cooling capacity ≥ 

240,000 Btu/h) evaporatively-cooled air 

conditioners, DOE was able to identify 

a number of models on the market, and, 

therefore, DOE conducted an analysis of 

the potential energy savings for these 

products which is discussed in section 

III. For very large evaporatively-cooled 

air conditioners, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 set the efficiency level for 

equipment with electric resistance or no 

heating at 11.9 EER and for equipment 

with all other heating at 12.2 EER. 

However, ASHRAE historically has set 

the levels for equipment with other 

heating at 0.2 EER points below the 

efficiency levels for equipment with 

electric heating or no heating, which 

would make the expected efficiency 

level for very large evaporatively-cooled 

equipment with other heating 11.7 EER. 

In February 2011, the Department 

received a letter from the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) indicating that the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency 

level for very large evaporatively-cooled 

equipment with other heating is 

incorrect, and that the correct minimum 

energy efficiency standard for this 

category is 11.7 EER, as would be 

expected given the historical ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for these 

products. (AHRI, No. 0001 at p. 1) 

Further, AHRI indicated that at its 

winter 2011 meeting, the ASHRAE 90.1 

committee approved an addendum for 

public review that corrects this error. In 

March 2011, ASHRAE released 

proposed Addendum j to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, which corrects the 

value from 12.2 to 11.7 EER. Based on 

release of the public review draft of this 

addendum, the Department has 

tentatively decided to analyze the 

potential energy savings for this 

category at an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

level of 11.7 EER. 

3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment 

ASHRAE 90.1–2010 created a separate 

product class for variable refrigerant 

flow (VRF) air-conditioning and heating 

equipment. These products are 

currently covered under DOE’s 

standards for commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps, but they 

are not broken out as a separate product 

class. 

In general, a VRF system will have a 

single condensing unit serving multiple 

evaporator coils within a building. 

Specific ‘‘subclasses’’ of variable 

refrigerant flow heat pumps equipped 

with heat recovery capability have been 

specified in ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1–2010 with lower efficiency 

requirements than specified for VRF 

systems without heat recovery. (Heat 

recovery capability provides for 

shuttling of heat from one part of the 

building to another and allows for 

simultaneous cooling and heating of 

different zones within a building.) 

Specifically, the efficiency requirements 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for aircooled VRF heat pumps with heat 

recovery are equivalent to the Federal 

minimum energy conservation 

standards defined for air-cooled heat 

pumps with ‘‘all other heating system 

types that are integrated into the 

equipment,’’ and the efficiency 

requirements for air-cooled VRF heat 

pumps without heat recovery are 

equivalent to the Federal minimum 

standards for air-cooled heat pumps 

with electric or no heating.10 The VRF 

systems with heat recovery specified by 

ASHRAE may often have electric 

resistance heating systems, as a back-up. 

For air-cooled VRF heat pump systems 

that have both electric resistance 

heating and heat recovery heating 

capability, the Department has 

tentatively concluded that these systems 

must meet the efficiency requirements 

contained in EPCA for small, large, and 

very large air-cooled central airconditioning heat pumps with electric 

resistance heating, which are codified at 

10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)– 

(9)) In addition, the Department has 

tentatively concluded that air-cooled 

VRF systems without electric resistance 

heating but with heat recovery can 

qualify as having an ‘‘other’’ means of 

heating and that these systems must 

meet the efficiency requirements 

contained in EPCA for small, large, and 

very large air-cooled central airconditioning heat pumps with other 

heating, which are codified at 10 CFR 

431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)–(9)) 

Table II.1 shows the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25632 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

VRF water-source heat pumps in 

comparison to the current Federal 

minimum energy conservation 

standards for water-source heat pumps, 

which DOE has preliminarily 

determined would apply to VRF 

systems. For water-source VRF heat 

pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

generally maintains the existing energy 

efficiency requirements that apply to 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment for the VRF 

systems, with several notable 

exceptions. For VRF water-source heat 

pumps under 17,000 Btu/h and VRF 

water-source heat pumps over 135,000 

Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

raises the efficiency levels above current 

Federal energy conservation standards 

(or in the case of water-source heat 

pumps over 135,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE 

sets standards for products where DOE 

did not previously have standards). As 

a result, the Department conducted 

further analysis for these classes. DOE 

began by reviewing the current market 

for VRF water-source heat pumps with 

cooling capacities below 17,000 Btu/h 

or above 135,000 Btu/h and less than 

760,000 Btu/h. The Department did not 

identify any models under 17,000 Btu/ 

h on the market. DOE did identify 19 

models above 135,000 Btu/h on the 

market and attempted to contact the 

manufacturer producing most of these 

models, but DOE was unable to obtain 

EER information for most of the models 

and has no shipment information for 

this product class. Because DOE could 

not identify any VRF water-source heat 

pumps being manufactured with cooling 

capacities below 17,000 Btu/h, DOE 

believes that there are no energy savings 

associated with this equipment class. 

Therefore, DOE did not perform a 

potential energy-savings analysis for 

this equipment. In addition, due to the 

lack of available information and data 

on VRF water-source heat pumps with 

cooling capacities above 135,000 Btu/h 

at this time, the Department has not 

conducted a preliminary energy saving 

estimate for the additional energy 

savings beyond the levels anticipated in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for this 

VRF water source heat pump product 

class. DOE is requesting public 

comment regarding the market for this 

equipment and is seeking data and 

information that would allow it to 

accurately characterize the energy 

savings from amended energy 

conservation standards for these 

products. This is identified as Issue 3 in 

section IV.B ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

In addition to the changes for the two 

equipment classes discussed above, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 includes 

efficiency levels for VRF water-source 

heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER 

reduction in the efficiency requirement 

for systems with heat recovery. 

However, the current Federal minimum 

standards for water-source heat pumps 

do not provide for any reduction in the 

EER requirements for equipment with 

‘‘other’’ heating types. Therefore, the 0.2 

EER reduction below the current 

Federal standard levels for the VRF 

water-source heat pump equipment 

classes in which ASHRAE did not raise 

the standard from the existing Federal 

minimum for water-source heat pumps 

(i.e., water-source heat pumps with 

cooling capacities ≥ 17,000 and < 65,000 

Btu/h and ≥ 65,000 and < 135,000 Btu/ 

h) would result in a decrease in 

stringency in comparison to current 

standards. As noted in section I.A, if 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 lowers its 

efficiency level as compared to the 

Federal minimum standard level, DOE 

does not have the authority to conduct 

a rulemaking to consider a higher 

standard for that equipment pursuant to 

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

did not consider the lower EER 

requirements for systems with heat 

recovery and will not perform an 

analysis of those product classes. 

TABLE II.1—COMPARISON OF FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS TO

ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 REQUIREMENTS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS

Existing Federal equipment class Federal minimum energy conservation 

standard 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency level 

for newly established VRF equipment class 

Water-source Heat Pump < 17,000 Btu/h ......... 11.2 EER .......................................................... 12.0 EER (without heat recovery). 

11.8 EER (with heat recovery). 

4.2 COP ............................................................ 4.2 COP. 

Water-source Heat Pump ≥ 17,000 and ...........

< 65,000 Btu/h ...................................................

12.0 EER .......................................................... 12.0 EER (without heat recovery). 

11.8 EER (with heat recovery). 

4.2 COP ............................................................ 4.2 COP. 

Water-source Heat Pump ≥ 65,000 and ...........

< 135,000 Btu/h .................................................

12.0 EER .......................................................... 12.0 EER (without heat recovery). 

11.8 EER (with heat recovery). 

4.2 COP ............................................................ 4.2 COP. 

Water-source Heat Pump ≥ 135,000 and .........

< 760,000 Btu/h .................................................

N/A .................................................................... 10.0 EER (without heat recovery). 

9.8 EER (with heat recovery). 

3.9 COP. 

4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal air 

conditioner’’ as ‘‘a wall sleeve and a 

separate unencased combination of 

heating and cooling assemblies 

specified by the builder and intended 

for mounting through the wall. It 

includes a prime source of refrigeration, 

separable outdoor louvers, forced 

ventilation, and heating availability by 

builder’s choice of hot water, steam, or 

electricity.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(A)) 

EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal heat 

pump’’ as ‘‘a packaged terminal air 

conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle 

refrigeration as its prime heat source 

and should have supplementary heat 

source available to builders with the 

choice of hot water, steam, or electric 

resistant heat.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(10)(B)) 

DOE codified these definitions in 10 

CFR 431.92 in a final rule published in 

the Federal Register on October 21, 

2004. 69 FR 61962, 61970. 

DOE adopted amended energy 

conservation standards for this class of 

equipment in a final rule published in 

the Federal Register on October 7, 2008. 

73 FR 58772, 58828–30. The adopted 

Federal standards exceeded the 

standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2007. These Federal standards apply to 

standard size equipment manufactured 

on or after October 7, 2012, and nonstandard size equipment manufactured 

on or after October 8, 2010. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 increased the 

efficiency levels for standard size 

equipment in comparison to the 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2007. However, the efficiency 

levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 for these equipment classes 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25633 

meet and do not exceed the Federal 

standards established by DOE in the 

October 2008 final rule. Because 

ASHRAE seems to be harmonizing the 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

with the Federal levels rather than 

increasing the minimum efficiency, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that it is 

not required to take action on these 

products at this time. 

5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and 

Through-The-Wall Equipment 

EPCA does not separate small-duct 

high-velocity (SDHV) or through-thewall (TTW) heat pumps from other 

types of small commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment in 

its definitions. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) 

Therefore, EPCA’s definition of ‘‘small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ would include 

SDHV and TTW heat pumps. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased some of the efficiency levels 

for these classes of equipment. 

Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 increased the efficiency 

requirements for TTW heat pumps to 

13.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in comparison 

to the efficiency levels of 12.0 SEER and 

7.4 HSPF in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2007. However, in March 2011, 

ASHRAE issued Proposed Addendum h 

for public review that would correct the 

minimum SEER for these products to 

12.0 SEER. For SDHV heat pumps, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 did not 

increase the cooling efficiency 

requirement of 10.0 SEER beyond that 

in ASHRAE 90.1–2007. In addition, 

although ASHRAE 90.1–2007 specified 

a heating efficiency requirement of 6.8 

HSPF, ASHRAE 90.1–2010 did not 

specify any heating efficiency level for 

SDHV heat pumps. However, Proposed 

Addenda h and j would remove the 

SDHV product class from the standards 

tables entirely, stating: ‘‘In addition the 

small duct high velocity requirements 

have been dropped by DOE and they are 

only allowing such systems under 

waiver clause so the addendum has also 

made a change to remove the small duct 

high velocity systems from table 6.8.1a 

and table 6.8.1b.’’ Therefore, DOE 

believes that ASHRAE did not intend to 

specify any efficiency levels for these 

products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010. 

The DOE standards for both TTW and 

SDHV heat pumps, which are 13.0 SEER 

and 7.7 HSPF, were established for the 

overall equipment category of small 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment by EISA 2007, 

which amended EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(7)(D)) Because the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for 

TTW equipment meet or do not exceed 

the DOE standards and because DOE 

believes that SDHV are no longer meant 

to be covered separately by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that it is not 

required to take action on these 

products at this time. 

6. Single-Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Single-Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps 

DOE issued standards for singlepackage vertical air conditioner and 

heat pump units (SPVUs) as part of the 

March 23, 2009 final rule technical 

amendment in response to mandated 

efficiency levels for SPVUs established 

in the EISA 2007 legislation. 74 FR 

12058. However, SPVUs are subject to a 

unique ‘‘look back’’ provision 

established by EISA 2007, which 

amended the applicable provisions of 

EPCA such that not later than three 

years after the date of this statutory 

provision’s enactment (i.e., December 

19, 2007), the Secretary must review the 

most recently published ASHRAE/IES 

Standard 90.1 with respect to singlepackage vertical air conditioners and 

single-package vertical heat pumps 

using the procedures established under 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(10)(B)) 

As noted in section I.A, the 

Department interprets the provision at 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B) as constituting 

a separate trigger to evaluate standards 

higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

level. SPVUs are considered classes 

within the broader scope of small and 

large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment; 

however, because of their special status 

(i.e., that the efficiency levels for this 

equipment were statutorily prescribed 

by EISA 2007), Congress intended that 

DOE review them for potential energy 

savings and higher standards along the 

lines of the 18 month time frame review 

for other products (i.e., do everything in 

part (6) with regard to analysis, but 

ignore the triggering requirement of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changing its 

efficiency levels). EPCA, as amended, 

directs DOE to conduct a review of the 

energy savings potential sometime in 

the three-year interval, and DOE 

believes this separate trigger is a onetime mechanism, after which SPVUs 

revert to the normal ‘‘ASHRAE trigger.’’ 

Accordingly, DOE has commenced 

analytical work on these products along 

with the other equipment which is 

subject to the current ‘‘ASHRAE trigger.’’ 

Upon review of the SPVU market, 

DOE identified several models of SPVUs 

in the small equipment class. However, 

DOE did not identify any models of 

SPVUs in the very large category or any 

models of SPVHPs in the large category. 

The Department identified only five 

models of SPVACs in the large category, 

and these were all close to the upper 

size limit of the small category, at 

70,000 Btu/h or less. As a result of the 

apparent lack of a market for very large 

SPVUs and large SPVHPs, and a lack of 

shipment estimates for the large 

SPVACs, DOE conducted complete 

preliminary energy saving estimates for 

only the small equipment classes. 

Additionally, DOE used the energy 

saving results for small SPVACs to 

derive an estimate of the potential 

energy savings for large SPVACs. DOE 

requests comments regarding the market 

for SPVUs, specifically on the market 

for large and very large equipment. This 

is identified as Issue 4 in section IV.B 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

C. Air Conditioners and Condensing 

Units Serving Computer Rooms 

Air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms operate 

similarly to other types of commercial 

packaged air conditioners in that they 

provide space conditioning using a 

refrigeration cycle consisting of a 

compressor, condenser, expansion 

valve, and evaporator. However, air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms are typically 

designed to maintain the temperature in 

the conditioned space at 72 degrees 

Fahrenheit, and maintain a specific 

relative humidity. This equipment is 

commonly capable of humidifying or 

dehumidifying the air and then, if 

necessary, reheating it to maintain a 

specific humidity. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 created 

a separate product class for ‘‘air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms,’’ and set 

efficiency levels using the sensible 

coefficient of performance (SCOP) 

metric as measured using the test 

method in ASHRAE Standard 127–2007, 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Computer 

and Data Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners.’’ The product classes and 

efficiency levels established in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 are shown in Table 

I.1 above. 

Prior to this equipment having 

separate efficiency levels and test 

procedures specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE discussed such 

units using the terminology ‘‘computer 

room air conditioners’’ in an August 9, 

2000 NOPR (65 FR 48828, 48830–31) 

and an October 21, 2004 direct final rule 

(69 FR 61962, 61967). In the August 

2000 NOPR, DOE determined that 

computer room air conditioners were 

not covered as part of the commercial 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25634 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

11For more information see California Code of 

Regulations. Title 20, Public Utilities and Energy, 

Division 2, State Energy Resources Conservation 

and Development Commission (August 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ 

2008publications/CEC–140–2008–001/CEC–140– 

2008–001–REV1.PDF). 

12The CEC Appliance Efficiency Database is 

available at: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/. 

packaged air conditioning and heating 

equipment classes in EPCA and 

subsequently upheld this position in the 

October 2004 final rule. DOE made this 

determination because at the time of 

passage of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 

(EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, which 

gave DOE the authority to cover 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment), the statute 

excluded this equipment, and as a 

result, DOE concluded that it lacked the 

authority to regulate this equipment. 

The basis for DOE’s decision stemmed 

from the scope of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, which at the time specified that 

the standard did not cover ‘‘equipment 

and portions of building systems that 

use energy primarily to provide for 

industrial, manufacturing, or 

commercial processes.’’ (See section 

2.3.c. of ASHRAE 90.1 standards prior 

to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). 

Further, the House Report on EPACT 

1992 (H.R. Rep. No. 474, 102d Cong., 2d 

Sess., pt. 1 at 175 (1992)) pointed out 

that the efficiency standards contained 

in the bill were developed by ASHRAE 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE 

concluded that this indicated that the 

efficiency standards for commercial 

products in EPACT 1992 would have 

the same scope as the version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at the 

time of the legislation’s enactment, 

which did not cover computer room air 

conditioners. As a result, DOE 

concluded at the time that it did not 

have the authority to cover computer 

room air conditioners. However, DOE 

stated in both the NOPR and final rule 

that ‘‘if some of the relevant 

circumstances were to change—if, for 

example, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were 

to incorporate efficiency standards and 

test procedures for this equipment or 

the equipment was to become widely 

used for conventional air conditioning 

applications—the Department might 

revisit this issue.’’ 65 FR 48828, 48831 

(August 9, 2000); 69 FR 61962, 61967 

(Oct. 21, 2004). 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

expanded the scope from previous 

versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to 

include process loads (e.g., computer 

rooms) and created a separate product 

class for ‘‘air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms.’’ EPCA generally directs DOE to 

follow ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it 

is amended with respect to certain 

equipment types, including commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. Thus, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that because ASHRAE has 

expanded the scope of Standard 90.1 to 

include air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms, the scope 

of DOE’s requirements with regard to 

ASHRAE products in EPCA is also 

expanded to encompass these products. 

As such, DOE has tentatively concluded 

it has the authority to review the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency 

levels for air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms and to establish minimum energy 

conservation standard levels for this 

equipment. DOE seeks comment on how 

best to establish minimum energy 

conservation standards for air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms. This is 

identified as Issue 5 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

Although DOE has tentatively 

concluded that it has the authority to 

consider adopting minimum efficiency 

standards for air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms at or above the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels, 

DOE did not perform a potential energy 

savings analysis for these products as a 

part of this NODA due to the lack of 

available data. The State of California 

requires manufacturers of computer 

room air conditioners to certify the EER 

of their computer room air conditioning 

equipment (20 CCR 1605.3(c)(2)),11 and 

DOE examined the information in the 

California Energy Commission (CEC) 

appliance database 12 for computer room 

air conditioners. The CEC database 

contained over 300 models, indicating 

that there is a potentially significant 

market for computer room air 

conditioners. However, the database 

only contains efficiency information in 

the form of EER, and manufacturers 

currently do not report SCOP in the CEC 

database or in their literature. Because 

the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 are in SCOP, the 

EER efficiency information is of little 

use to DOE in analyzing the potential 

energy savings of the SCOP efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

Since these equipment classes of air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms and the SCOP 

metric specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 are newly-defined 

requirements, DOE was unable to obtain 

reliable efficiency data for the majority 

of models or shipments data that would 

allow DOE to characterize the energy 

savings potential of this equipment in a 

reasonably accurate manner. DOE is 

requesting data and information from 

interested parties regarding air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms that could be 

used in performing an energy savings 

analysis at a future stage of this 

rulemaking (e.g., SCOP efficiency 

ratings, shipments information). This is 

identified as Issue 6 under section IV.B 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

Lastly, although DOE addressed 

computer room air conditioners in the 

August 2000 NOPR and October 2004 

direct final rule, DOE never formally 

defined this equipment. In reviewing 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE 

noted that ASHRAE does not define a 

class of equipment but rather an 

application (i.e., ‘‘serving computer 

rooms’’). Because air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer have 

the same basic components as 

conventional air conditioners, there is 

some difficulty in defining air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms such that they 

can be clearly differentiated from 

conventional commercial packaged air 

conditioners and heat pumps. DOE 

reviewed the definitions in both 

ASHRAE 127–2007 (the test procedure 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 for air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms) and Title 20 in the California 

Code of Regulations (which establishes 

California’s requirements for this 

equipment), and found that the 

definitions in each do not contain 

criteria that would allow DOE to clearly 

differentiate these equipment from 

conventional equipment, without 

overlap between the types of equipment. 

DOE seeks comment on approaches for 

developing appropriate definitions for 

this equipment that would not result in 

overlap between ‘‘air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms’’ and the other types of 

commercial packaged air-conditioning 

and heating equipment covered by 

EPCA. This is identified as Issue 7 in 

section IV.B under ‘‘Issues for Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

D. Test Procedures 

EPCA requires the Secretary to amend 

the test procedures for ASHRAE 

products to the latest version generally 

accepted by industry or the rating 

procedures developed or recognized by 

AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced by 

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the 

Secretary determines by clear and 

convincing evidence that the latest 

version of the industry test procedure 

does not meet the requirements for test 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25635 

13Specifically, the relevant provisions (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)–(3)) provide that test procedures must be 

reasonably designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs of a type (or class) of industrial 

equipment during a representative average use 

cycle, and must not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. Moreover, if the test procedure is for 

determining estimated annual operating costs, it 

must provide that such costs will be calculated 

from measurements of energy use in a 

representative average-use cycle, and from 

representative average unit costs of the energy 

needed to operate the equipment during such cycle. 

The Secretary must provide information to 

manufacturers of covered equipment regarding 

representative average unit costs of energy. 

procedures described in paragraphs (2) 

and (3) of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a).13 (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(B)) ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 updated several of its test 

procedures for ASHRAE products. 

Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 updated to the most recent 

editions of test procedures for small 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment (AHRI 210/240– 

2008, Performance Rating of Unitary 

Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat 

Pump Equipment), large and very large 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment (AHRI 340/360– 

2007, Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment), commercial warm-air 

furnaces (UL 727–2006, Standard for 

Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces, 

and ANSI Z21.47–2006, Standard for 

Gas-Fired Central Furnaces), and 

commercial water heaters (ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2006, Gas Water Heaters, 

Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with 

Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per 

Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). 

Additionally, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 adopts new test procedures for 

measuring the efficiency of variable 

refrigerant flow equipment (AHRI 1230– 

2010, Performance Rating of Variable 

Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment) and air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms (ASHRAE 127–2007, Method of 

Testing for Rating Computer and Data 

Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners). Lastly, ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 specifies ARI 390– 

2003, Performance Rating of Single 

Packaged Vertical Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps, as the test procedure for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs. 

DOE has preliminarily reviewed each 

of the test procedures that were updated 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and 

discusses the changes to the test 

procedures below. For the newly 

established test procedures AHRI 1230 

and ASHRAE 127, DOE is in the process 

of assessing the appropriateness of these 

test methods with respect to the 

requirements for test procedures 

specified by EPCA pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(B), and will provide a 

preliminary determination regarding 

those test procedures in the notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NOPR) that will 

follow this NODA. EISA 2007 

established separate equipment classes 

and efficiency levels for SPVACs and 

SPVHPs, but the statute did not specify 

test procedures for this equipment. As a 

result, DOE is also considering the test 

procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 (i.e., 

AHRI 390) pursuant to the requirements 

in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), and will 

provide a preliminary determination 

regarding that test procedure in the 

NOPR as well. DOE seeks comment on 

the appropriateness of AHRI 1230, 

ASHRAE 127, and AHRI 390 as the test 

method for VRF equipment, air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms, and SPVACs 

and SPVHPs, respectively. This is 

identified as Issue 8 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

1. Updates to AHRI 210/240 Test 

Method 

In 2008, AHRI updated AHRI 210/ 

240, Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 

Equipment, which is incorporated by 

reference as the DOE test procedure for 

commercial small air conditioners and 

air-source heat pumps with a cooling 

capacity below 65,000 Btu/h at 10 CFR 

431.95. AHRI made numerous 

reorganizational and additive changes to 

this standard from the version currently 

incorporated by reference in DOE’s test 

procedures for commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps (i.e., AHRI 

210/240–2003). 

The AHRI 210/240–2008 test 

procedure references and includes as 

Appendix C the DOE test procedure for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, Appendix M. In section 3 of AHRI 

210/240–2008, Definitions, AHRI 

changed the definitions of heating 

seasonal performance factor (HSPF) and 

seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) 

to match the definitions for those terms 

that are contained in the test procedure 

for residential central air conditioners 

and heat pumps (which consequently 

are also contained in Appendix C of 

AHRI 210/240–2008). Also, AHRI added 

definitions for tested combination for 

multiple-split air conditioners and heat 

pumps, small-duct, high-velocity 

systems, space-constrained products, 

and through-the-wall air conditioners 

and heat pumps that match DOE’s 

definitions at 10 CFR 430.2. 

In section 6, Rating Requirements, 

AHRI updated the tables that specify the 

standard rating conditions specified for 

equipment covered by the standard. 

AHRI reorganized the existing tables for 

air conditioners and heat pumps, and it 

created several new tables listing the 

standard rating conditions for 

equipment with variable air volume 

fans, two-stage compressors, or variablespeed compressors. AHRI also added a 

minimum external static pressure 

requirement for small-duct, highvelocity systems. In addition to 

updating the tables and tests in section 

6, AHRI also reorganized section 6.1.3.3, 

Indoor-Coil Airflow Rate, and added a 

new section 6.1.4, Conditions for 

Standard Rating Tests (which is the 

section where tables discussed above 

are located). 

The updates made to AHRI 210/240– 

2008 from the 2003 version of the 

standard were identical to updates made 

by DOE to its test procedure for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, Appendix M. The updates discussed 

in the preceding paragraph were 

described in detail and previously were 

evaluated by DOE in two test procedure 

final rules for residential central air 

conditioners and heat pumps, published 

in the Federal Register on October 11, 

2005 and October 22, 2007. 70 FR 

59122; 72 FR 59906. In each of those 

test procedure amendments, DOE 

concluded that the changes did not have 

a significant impact on product 

efficiency as measured by the test 

procedure that would cause DOE to 

revise its existing energy conservation 

standards. 70 FR 59122, 51932 (Oct. 11, 

2005); 72 FR 59906, 59917–18 (Oct. 22, 

2007). Because the major changes to 

AHRI 210/240 have already been 

approved for the residential central air 

conditioner and heat pump test 

procedure and because DOE previously 

concluded that those changes do not 

impact the efficiency of residential 

units, DOE believes that the changes 

also do not impact the energy efficiency 

measurements for small commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h 

(the ASHRAE equipment for which 

AHRI 210/240–2008 applies). DOE seeks 

comments on this tentative conclusion. 

This is identified as Issue 9 in section 

IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

2. Updates to AHRI 340/360 Test 

Method 

In 2007, AHRI updated AHRI 

340/360, Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25636 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

14SGML is a document markup language 

developed by the International Organization for 

Standardization (ISO) to allow for the sharing of 

machine-readable documents in government or law. 

Equipment. The primary purpose of the 

update was to change the part-load 

rating metric from integrated part-load 

value (IPLV) to integrated energy 

efficiency ratio (IEER). AHRI also 

expanded the scope of the test 

procedure to include air-cooled 

packaged unitary air-conditioners with a 

cooling capacity from 250,000 Btu/h to 

less than 760,000 Btu/h in addition to 

equipment that was included in the 

scope of the previous AHRI 340/360 

standard (which covered air-cooled, 

water-cooled, and evaporatively-cooled 

unitary air-conditioning, air-source 

unitary heat pump equipment, and airconditioning condensing units rated at 

or above 65,000 Btu/h but below 

250,000 Btu/h). AHRI also added a 

tolerance criterion for the minimum 

external static pressure test (from ¥0.0 

in H2O to +0.05 in H2O). Since DOE 

does not regulate or require 

manufacturers to certify part-load 

ratings, the change from IPLV to IEER 

does not affect the Federal energy 

conservation standards. Also, DOE 

believes that the added tolerance 

criterion does not significantly impact 

the measure of energy efficiency. DOE 

seeks comments on its preliminary 

determination that the changes to AHRI 

340/360–2007 do not significantly 

impact energy efficiency ratings. This is 

identified as Issue 9 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

3. Updates to UL 727 Test Method 

In 2006, Underwriters Laboratories 

(UL) updated its standard UL 727, 

Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central 

Furnaces. DOE’s test procedure for 

measuring the energy efficiency of 

commercial warm-air furnaces at 10 

CFR 431.76 only references the 

procedures pertinent to the 

measurement of the steady-state 

efficiency for this equipment in UL 727 

(i.e., the measurements described in 

sections 1 through 3, 37 through 42 (but 

not 40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7), 

43.2, 44, 45, and 46 of UL 727). 

Therefore, when reviewing the test 

procedure, DOE only looked at the 

changes to these sections. Most of the 

changes to UL 727 were to reorganize 

the document and convert it to the 

Standard Generalized Markup Language 

(SGML) 14 as a way of keeping the data 

consistent, reusable, shareable, and 

portable. In addition, UL removed a 

section from the scope that allowed a 

manufacturer to propose appropriate 

revisions to requirements of UL 727 if 

the product’s new features, components, 

materials, or systems are unsafe to be 

tested with the UL 727 Standard, 

provided that the new revisions 

conforms to the intent of the Standard. 

DOE believes that these changes to UL 

727–2006 do not significantly impact 

the energy efficiency ratings and seeks 

comments as to its tentative conclusion. 

This is identified as Issue 9 in section 

IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

4. Updates to ANSI Z21.47 Test Method 

In 2006, the American National 

Standards Institute (ANSI) updated 

ANSI Z21.47, Standard for Gas-Fired 

Central Furnaces. DOE’s test procedure 

for measuring the energy efficiency of 

gas-fired warm air furnaces at 10 CFR 

431.76 only references the procedures 

contained in ANSI Z21.47 that are 

relevant to the steady-state efficiency 

measurement (i.e., sections 1.1, 2.1 

through 2.6, 2.38, and 4.2.1 of ANSI 

Z21.47). As a result, DOE focused its 

test procedure review on the relevant 

sections of ANSI Z21.47 that DOE’s test 

procedure references. In those sections 

referenced by DOE’s test procedures, 

ANSI made several updates. First, ANSI 

updated the scope section to include 

optional special construction provisions 

for furnaces designed to operate at 

altitudes over 2000 feet. ANSI also 

added an entirely new section for a 

Proved Igniter and renumbered the 

other sections to accommodate this 

addition. The newly added section does 

not fall under the procedures relevant 

for steady-state efficiency measurement; 

however, it does cause the Thermal 

Efficiency section (which is relevant for 

the steady-state efficiency measurement) 

to move from section 2.38 to section 

2.39 of the test procedure. DOE 

preliminarily determined that these 

changes to ANSI Z21.47–2006 do not 

impact the energy efficiency ratings for 

gas-fired furnaces and seeks comments 

regarding this tentative conclusion. This 

is identified as Issue 9 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

5. Updates to ANSI Z21.10.3 Test 

Method 

In 2004, ANSI updated ANSI 

Z21.10.3, Gas Water Heaters, Volume 

III, Storage Water Heaters with Input 

Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, 

Circulating and Instantaneous. DOE’s 

test procedure for gas-fired water 

heaters at 10 CFR 431.106 only 

references sections 2.9 (Thermal 

Efficiency) and 2.10 (Standby Loss) of 

the ANSI Z.21.10 test procedure. 

Accordingly, DOE’s review focused on 

those sections, as well as any other 

sections to which sections 2.9 and 2.10 

refer. In the updated version, ANSI 

moved both of these sections to Exhibit 

G. In addition, ANSI added a provision 

to limit the duration of the standby loss 

test to a maximum of 48 hours if there 

is no cutout (i.e., the thermostat acts to 

shut off the burner) after the 24-hour 

mark. Currently, there is already an 

additional stipulation in DOE’s test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 that the 

standby test should last from the first 

fuel and/or electric consumption 

measurement until either the first cutout 

after the 24-hour mark or a maximum of 

48 hours, if the water heater is not in the 

heating mode at that time. This 

stipulation was added by a direct final 

rule amending the test procedure for 

commercial water heaters (which was 

published on October 21, 2004) to limit 

the duration of the standby test and 

reduce the testing burden for 

manufacturers. 69 FR 61974, 61979. 

DOE notes that its provision limiting 

the duration of the standby loss test is 

slightly different than the provision 

included in ANSI Z 21.10.3–2004. Using 

DOE’s test procedure, if the water heater 

is in heating mode at the 48-hour mark, 

the tester is instructed to let the heating 

mode complete before ending the test. 

However, the updated ANSI Z21.10.3 

test method directs the tester to end the 

test at 48 hours regardless of whether 

the water heater is in heating mode. 

DOE believes that this slight difference 

between the ANSI test procedure and 

the current DOE test procedure may 

have a very small impact on the 

measured energy efficiency if the water 

heater has not yet cut off after 24 hours 

and is in heating mode at the 48-hour 

mark. In such a situation, the DOE test 

procedure would allow the water heater 

to continue operating in heating mode 

to continue until a cutout before ending 

the test, whereas the ANSI test method 

would end the test immediately and 

possibly not capture the energy used 

during that final heating cycle. 

However, as noted above, DOE’s test 

procedure already includes a provision 

to address the standby mode energy loss 

that is independent of the ANSI 

Z21.10.3 test method. Therefore, the 

update to the provision for the duration 

of the standby mode test in ANSI 

Z21.10.3 would be superseded by DOE’s 

test requirements at 10 CFR 431.106 and 

would not change the standby test 

method. As a result, DOE believes that 

the new changes to ANSI Z21.10.3 

would not significantly affect the 

measure of energy efficiency. DOE seeks 

comment regarding its preliminary 

conclusion that the updated ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2004 does not significantly 

impact energy efficiency ratings of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25637 

15As discussed in section II, when no products 

are available on the market or no reliable data exist 

for calculating potential energy savings, DOE did 

not perform an analysis. The products for which 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 increased the 

efficiency level, but for which DOE did not perform 

an analysis due to lack of a market or lack of data 

include: (1) VRF water-source heat pumps under 

17,000 Btu/h (see section II.B.3); (2) VRF watersource heat pumps over 135,000 Btu/h (see section 

II.B.3); and (3) air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms (see section II.C). 

16The ASHRAE NODA TSD is available on the 

webpage for ASHRAE Products at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html. 

17Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute, Historical Shipment Data Commercial Air 

Conditioners Water Cooled, 2011. This information 

was provided by AHRI to the U.S. Department of 

Energy on March 4, 2011. 

18The commercial reference building models are 

available on DOE’s website as Energy Plus input 

files at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

commercial_initiative/new_construction.html. 

Documentation of the model development is 

provided in: Deru, M., et al. U.S. Department of 

Energy Commercial Reference Building Models of 

the National Building Stock. (NREL/TP–5500– 

46861) (2011). 

commercial gas-fired water heaters. This 

is identified as Issue 9 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

III. Analysis of Potential Energy 

Savings 

As required under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A), DOE performed an 

analysis to determine the energy-savings 

potential of amending Federal minimum 

energy conservation standard levels to 

the efficiency levels specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, as well as 

more-stringent efficiency levels than 

those specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010. As explained above, DOE’s 

energy-savings analysis is limited to 

types of equipment covered by Federal 

energy conservation standards for which 

the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 increased the efficiency levels and 

for which a market exists and sufficient 

data are available.15 Based upon the 

conclusions reached in section II, DOE 

is conducting the energy-savings 

analysis for eight equipment classes of 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

products: (1) Small water-cooled air 

conditioners with electric resistance or 

no heating (65,000 to less than 135,000 

Btu/h); (2) small water-cooled air 

conditioners with other heating (65,000 

to less than 135,000 Btu/h); (3) large 

water-cooled air conditioners with 

electric resistance or no heating 

(135,000 to less than 240,000 Btu/h); (4) 

large water-cooled air conditioners with 

other heating (135,000 to less than 

240,000); (5) very large water-cooled air 

conditioners with electric resistance or 

no heating (240,000 Btu/h to less than 

760,000 Btu/h); (6) very large watercooled air conditioners with other 

heating (240,000 Btu/h to less than 

760,000 Btu/h); (7) very large 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners 

with electric resistance or no heating 

(240,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 Btu/ 

h); and (8) very large evaporativelycooled air conditioners with other 

heating (240,000 Btu/h to less than 

760,000 Btu/h). 

In addition, although ASHRAE did 

not increase the efficiency level for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs, DOE is required 

by EPCA to consider amending the 

energy conservation standards for these 

equipment classes using the procedures 

set forth by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for 

ASHRAE products. Accordingly, DOE 

also performed an energy-savings 

analysis for four equipment classes of 

SPVACs and SPVHPs where there is a 

market and sufficient data are available: 

(1) Single-phase SPVACs under 65,000 

Btu/h; (2) three-phase SPVACs under 

65,000 Btu/h; (3) single-phase SPVHPs 

under 65,000 Btu/h; and (4) three-phase 

SPVHPs under 65,000 Btu/h. 

The following discussion provides an 

overview of the energy-savings analysis 

conducted for these twelve classes of 

products, followed by summary results 

of that analysis. For each efficiency 

level analyzed, DOE calculated the 

potential energy savings to the Nation as 

the difference between a base-case 

forecast (without amended standards) 

and the standards-case forecast (with 

amended standards). The national 

energy savings (NES) refers to 

cumulative energy savings for a 30-year 

period that differs by product. The 

analysis is based on a stock accounting 

method. In the standards case, 

equipment that is more efficient 

gradually replaces less-efficient 

equipment over time. This affects the 

calculation of the potential energy 

savings, which are a function of the total 

number of units in use and their 

efficiencies. Savings depend on annual 

shipments and equipment lifetime. 

Inputs to the energy-savings analysis are 

presented below, and details are 

available in the ASHRAE NODA TSD on 

DOE’s website.16

While DOE did not have sufficient 

data to follow this analytical method for 

large SPVACs, DOE approximated the 

energy savings potential for this product 

class based on the energy savings results 

from the small SPVAC product classes. 

The calculation method and results for 

estimating the energy savings potential 

for large SPVACs are summarized in 

section III.D. 

A. Annual Energy Use 

DOE’s analysis of the annual unit 

energy consumption (UEC) for each 

class of equipment analyzed was based 

on the use of building simulation 

models or previously available building 

simulation data for equipment at or near 

the current Federal standard baseline for 

each equipment class analyzed. DOE 

then used a scaling process to assess the 

UEC corresponding to higher efficiency 

levels, including the efficiency levels 

provided in ASHRAE 90.1–2010. These 

UEC estimates form the basis of the 

national energy savings estimates 

discussed in section III.D. 

This section describes the energy use 

analysis performed for water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled products, as well 

as for SPVUs. For each of these 

equipment types, the Federal standard 

and higher efficiency levels are 

expressed in terms of an efficiency 

metric or metrics (EER for cooling 

efficiency, Coefficient of Performance 

(COP) for heating efficiency). For each 

equipment class, this section describes 

how DOE developed estimates of annual 

energy consumption at the baseline 

efficiency level and higher levels for 

each equipment type. More detailed 

discussion is found in the ASHRAE 

NODA TSD. 

1. Water-Cooled Air Conditioners 

The analysis to assess the per-unit 

energy saving of water-cooled air 

conditioners began with review of the 

existing market, as well as the review of 

historical shipments data provided by 

AHRI for the period from 1989–2009.17

The review of the market for equipment 

from 65,000 Btu/h to 760,000 Btu/h 

suggested that most of the water-cooled 

air conditioner units currently on the 

market are designed for installation 

inside of commercial buildings (as 

opposed to on building rooftops), and 

the shipments data suggested that in 

recent years, shipments were dominated 

by larger equipment (≥ 240,000 Btu/h 

capacity), with relatively few shipments 

of smaller-capacity units. Given these 

findings, DOE’s analysis of energy 

savings focused on typical applications 

for this larger equipment. Review of 

manufacturer’s literature suggested that 

a common application is floor-by-floor 

cooling in a multi-story building. 

To provide an estimate of the energy 

use of water-cooled air conditioners in 

this application, DOE used annual 

hourly simulation data developed from 

computer simulations of a prototypical 

commercial office building. The 

prototype building model was a 3-story, 

53,600 square foot (sf) commercial office 

building developed as part of DOE’s 

commercial reference building 

models.18 This building has each floor 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25638 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

19For more information on EnergyPlus, refer to 

DOE’s EnergyPlus documentation, available at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/ 

energyplus_documentation.cfm. EnergyPlus 

software is freely available for public download at: 

http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/ 

energyplus_about.cfm. 

served by a separate packaged airconditioning unit. The hourly data used 

in this analysis were previously 

developed from simulations using the 

DOE EnergyPlus 19 building simulation 

software and reflected building 

simulations in 15 climate locations in 

the U.S., with each climate representing 

one of 15 climate regions that have been 

developed in DOE’s Building Energy 

Codes Program and subsequently used 

in the development of the commercial 

reference building models. 

The office building model selected 

utilized packaged variable air volume 

rooftop cooling units in the original 

reference building simulations, with 

each packaged unit serving one floor of 

the office model. DOE determined that 

the cooling thermal loads from 

modeling of this type of equipment 

would be representative of similar 

cooling distribution systems served by 

larger water-cooled equipment that also 

provides floor-by-floor cooling and 

serves multiple building thermal zones. 

EnergyPlus does not have an equipment 

simulation model developed around a 

water-cooled air conditioner for this 

application. For this reason, DOE relied 

on using the previously developed 

hourly cooling thermal load, air flow, 

and system air temperature data for the 

air-cooled packaged rooftop equipment 

used in the medium office reference 

building model. Since the thermal loads 

for the specific application would be 

essentially the same whether served by 

air-cooled or water-cooled packaged 

cooling equipment, and since the watercooled packaged air conditioner 

equipment performance would be 

modeled explicitly in the spreadsheet, 

DOE believes this is approach provides 

an accurate method of estimating energy 

consumption for the water-cooled 

equipment classes. 

To process the hourly data into 

annual equipment energy consumption 

for water-cooled air conditioners, DOE 

developed a spreadsheet model of the 

typical equipment performance using 

actual manufacturer performance data 

for a 25-ton water-cooled air 

conditioner. Cooling capacity and 

condenser power consumption curve 

fits to this data were developed using 

polynomial relationships and the 

independent variables recommended for 

modeling of cooling efficiency for watersource heat pumps in Energy Plus. In 

addition, DOE used part-load 

performance degradation curves 

previously developed for air-source air 

conditioners that already existed in the 

medium office reference building 

model. As these part-load curves reflect 

the effects of compressor cycling at part 

load, it was determined that these 

curves should be representative of the 

compressor cycling impacts for watercooled air conditioners as well. 

For each climate, DOE’s spreadsheet 

model sized the equipment to reflect the 

sizing in the original simulation’s 

hourly load data. To accurately account 

for fan power, DOE used the normalized 

fan power-versus-supply air flow curves 

in the original office reference building 

model. 

The performance equations developed 

in this spreadsheet model separately 

accounted for the water-cooled gross 

cooling capacity and power 

consumption as a function of entering 

air conditions and supply water 

temperature and flow rate. In addition, 

the spreadsheet model requires an 

hourly entering water temperature and 

entering water flow rate. For this 

analysis, a simple cooling tower supply 

water temperature model was developed 

based on a defined control profile with 

minimum 70 °F return water 

temperature and using a 7 °F approach 

temperature (the temperature between 

the return water temperature from the 

cooling tower and the outdoor air wet 

bulb temperature). Condenser water 

flow rates were assumed to be 

equivalent to the nominal rating 

condition water flow rates for all 

cooling hours. 

For analysis of energy use at each 

specific efficiency (EER) level, DOE first 

developed estimates for the condenser 

efficiency (condenser-only cooling COP) 

based on the nominal rating conditions. 

This was done by backing out the 

estimated fan power at nominal rating 

conditions from the input power and 

separately accounting for the impact of 

fan heat to arrive at the gross cooling 

capacity of the equipment. DOE 

developed estimates of peak fan power 

at design air flow conditions and used 

the fan power versus flow relationships 

to adjust the fan power appropriately for 

periods when air flow was not at design 

air flow rates. 

Using the spreadsheet model, for each 

of the 15 climates, DOE first developed 

the annual equipment condenser energy 

consumption and blower energy 

consumption for nominal 11 EER watercooled equipment, with 11 EER being 

the current Federal standard for watercooled air conditioners with electric 

resistance or no heating, 240,000 Btu/h 

to less than 760,000 Btu/h . These were 

then normalized by dividing by the 

equipment capacity in cooling tons. The 

sum of the resulting condenser energy 

per cooling ton and blower energy per 

cooling ton represents the annual energy 

consumption per cooling ton for 

equipment at the 11 EER efficiency 

level. The resulting per-ton energy 

consumption figures were then 

multiplied by the typical equipment 

capacities developed for each watercooled equipment class analyzed to 

establish the Unit Energy Consumption 

(UEC) values for each equipment class 

at that 11 EER level. 

To assess the annual energy 

consumption at the specific efficiency 

levels analyzed, DOE developed 

estimates of the condenser-only cooling 

COP for each efficiency level. It then 

multiplied the annual condenser energy 

consumption for the 11 EER equipment 

for each climate by the ratio of the 

baseline condenser-only cooling COP to 

the condenser-only cooling COP at the 

higher efficiency levels. 

The annual fan energy consumption 

estimates were held constant at the 

baseline level for all higher standards. A 

detailed engineering analysis of higher 

efficiency options might suggest a 

number of different ways to improve the 

EER including reducing supply fan 

energy consumption. However, several 

downsides to this approach were 

identified. First, the supply fan accounts 

for a relatively small portion of the 

energy use as compared to the 

condenser at the rating condition. In 

addition, because it appears that much 

of this equipment is installed inside the 

building space, changes which reduce 

fan power, such as increased case size 

and lower face velocity over the 

evaporator coil, would decrease the 

amount of rentable space available 

within the building. Accordingly, for 

the assessment of energy savings in this 

NODA, supply fan energy use was held 

constant. The UEC for each efficiency 

level analyzed is the sum of the annual 

condenser energy consumption and the 

fan power. From these climate-regionspecific results, DOE developed national 

average UEC values at each efficiency 

level using weighting factors developed 

for medium and large commercial office 

building floor space as part of the 

development of the DOE reference 

building models. A comparison of these 

office weighting factors with cumulative 

weighting factors developed for the 

larger stock of commercial floor space is 

provided in the ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

Table III.1 shows the UEC estimates 

for the current Federal baseline levels, 

the proposed ASHRAE levels, and for 

the higher efficiency levels for the six 

water-cooled air conditioner classes 

analyzed. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25639 

TABLE III.1—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR WATER-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS

Small watercooled air 

conditioners electric or no heat 

65,000–135,000 

Btu/h 

Small watercooled air 

conditioners other 

heat 

65,000–135,000 

Btu/h 

Large watercooled air 

conditioners electric or no heat 

135,000–240,000 

Btu/h 

Large watercooled air 

conditioners other 

heat 

135,000–240,000 

Btu/h 

Very large watercooled air 

conditioners electric or no heat 

240,000–760,000 

Btu/h 

Very large watercooled air 

conditioners other 

heat 

240,000–760,000 

Btu/h 

Average Cooling 

Capacity (tons) 8 8 15 15 35 35 

Efficiency Level (EER) 

Base Case—Federal Standard .... 11.5 11.3 11.0 11.0 11.0 10.8 

Efficiency Level 1 12.1 11.9 12.5 12.3 12.4 12.2 

Efficiency Level 2 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 13.0 

Efficiency Level 3 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 14.0 

Efficiency Level 4 15.0 15.0 15.0 15.0 * NA * NA 

Efficiency Level 

5—‘‘MaxTech’’— ............ 16.4 16.4 16.1 16.1 14.8 14.8 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) 

Base Case—Federal Standard .... 9,199 9,322 17,838 17,838 41,621 42,205 

Efficiency Level 1 8,855 8,966 16,206 16,402 38,041 38,504 

Efficiency Level 2 8,396 8,396 15,743 15,743 36,733 36,733 

Efficiency Level 3 7,953 7,953 14,911 14,911 34,793 34,793 

Efficiency Level 4 7,566 7,566 14,186 14,186 *NA *NA 

Efficiency Level 

5—‘‘MaxTech’’— ............ 7,101 7,101 13,490 13,490 33,422 33,422 

*An efficiency level 4 was not identified for very large water-cooled air conditioners. 

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Air 

Conditioners 

The analysis to assess the per-unit 

energy use of evaporatively-cooled air 

conditioners began with review of the 

existing market. DOE did not identify 

any current models of evaporativelycooled air conditioners with less than 

240,000 Btu/h cooling capacity. The 

review of the market suggested that all 

of the currently shipping units appeared 

to be packaged rooftop evaporativelycooled air conditioner units. Based on 

the available models, DOE estimated the 

average capacity at 40 tons. Because of 

this, DOE’s analysis of energy savings 

focused on typical applications for the 

very large equipment class. Because of 

the large capacity, DOE believes that a 

common system design would also be a 

packaged variable air volume (VAV) 

system. DOE modified the 3-story office 

reference building model discussed 

previously to serve as the simulation 

model for the very large evaporativelycooled air conditioner equipment class. 

The Energy Plus simulation tool has 

the capability to model evaporativelycooled unitary air conditioners with 

only minor modifications from the aircooled unitary air conditioner 

equipment models that were used in the 

original DOE medium office reference 

building model. DOE was not able to 

derive separate performance curves for 

evaporatively-cooled equipment, as 

these data were not available in the 

manufacturer literature reviewed. 

Therefore, DOE modified the air-cooled 

model using simulation defaults 

provided in the Energy Plus 

documentation for modeling 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners. 

These modifications are discussed in 

the ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

DOE performed simulations of the 

medium office reference building model 

in the 15 climates identified previously 

at an 11 EER efficiency level, because 11 

EER is the current Federal standard for 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners 

with electric resistance or no heating. 

To do this, DOE first developed 

estimates for the condenser-only cooling 

COP based on the nominal rating 

conditions as input for the simulation 

models. DOE used the fan power 

performance curves and peak fan power 

assumptions in the reference building 

model directly. Using the spreadsheet model, for each 

of the 15 climates, DOE developed the 

annual equipment condenser energy 

consumption and blower energy 

consumption for the 11 EER 

evaporatively-cooled equipment 

simulated. These values were then 

normalized by dividing by the 

equipment capacity in cooling tons. The 

sum of the resulting condenser energy 

per cooling ton and blower energy per 

cooling ton represents the annual energy 

consumption per cooling ton for 

equipment at that 11 EER efficiency 

level. These per-ton energy 

consumption figures were then 

multiplied by the selected equipment 

capacities for the evaporatively-cooled 

equipment class analyzed to establish 

the UEC values for each equipment class 

at an 11 EER level. 

To assess the annual energy 

consumption at the specific efficiency 

levels analyzed, DOE developed 

estimates of the condenser-only cooling 

COP for each efficiency level. It then 

multiplied the baseline annual 

condenser energy consumption 

developed for each climate by the ratio 

of the baseline condenser-only cooling 

COP at 11 EER to the condenser-only 

cooling COP at the efficiency levels 

analyzed. 

The annual fan energy consumption 

estimates were held constant at the 

baseline level for all higher standards. 

As with water-cooled air conditioners, a 

detailed engineering analysis might 

suggest that reduction in supply fan 

power might be a path to improved EER; 

however, DOE did not conduct such a 

detailed analysis. Because supply fan 

power is a relatively small fraction of 

total system power at rating conditions, 

DOE concluded that improvement in 

condenser efficiency is likely a 

necessary path to achieve the most 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25640 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

20U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency 

Standards for Commercial Heating, AirConditioning, and Water Heating Equipment 

Including Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial 

Packaged Boiler, Three-Phase Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and Single-Package 

Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h (March 2006) 

(Available at: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ 

ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html). 

significant system efficiency 

improvements. The UEC for each 

efficiency level analyzed is the sum of 

the annual condenser energy 

consumption and the fan power. As 

with water-cooled air conditioners 

discussed previously, DOE developed 

national average UEC values at each 

efficiency level using weighting factors 

developed for medium and large 

commercial office building floor space 

as part of the development of the DOE 

reference building models. 

Table III.2 shows the unit energy 

consumption estimates for the current 

Federal baseline levels, the proposed 

ASHRAE levels, and for the higher 

efficiency levels for the very large 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioner 

classes. 

TABLE III.2—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS

Large evaporativelycooled air conditioner 

electric or no heat 

240,000–760,000 Btu/h 

Large evaporativelycooled air conditioner 

other heat 240,000– 

760,000 Btu/h 

Average Cooling Capacity (tons) 40 40 

Efficiency Level (EER) 

Base case ................................................................................................................................ 11.0 10.8 

Level 1—ASHRAE ................................................................................................................... 11.9 11.7 

Level 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 12.5 12.5 

Max Tech ................................................................................................................................. 13.1 13.1 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) 

Base case ................................................................................................................................ 47,171 47,766 

Level 1—ASHRAE ................................................................................................................... 44,732 45,243 

Level 2 ..................................................................................................................................... 43,294 43,294 

Max Tech ................................................................................................................................. 41,983 41,983 

3. Single-Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Based on data developed during 

previous analysis of SPVU equipment 

by DOE,20 the Department believes that 

approximately 60 percent of the SPVU 

shipments go to educational facilities, 

the majority of which are for space 

conditioning of modular classroom 

buildings. Another approximately 20 

percent of the shipments go to providing 

cooling for non-comfort cooling 

applications such as 

telecommunications and electronics 

enclosures. The remainder is used in a 

wide variety of commercial buildings 

including offices, temporary buildings, 

and some lodging facilities. In many of 

these commercial building applications, 

the buildings served are expected to be 

of modular construction. 

For its initial estimate of energy 

savings for SPVAC and SPVHP, DOE 

focused its analysis on the education 

market, in particular, modular 

classrooms, which DOE believes to 

represent the majority of the usage for 

this equipment. To estimate the energy 

use of single-package vertical air 

conditioners and heat pumps in these 

educational facilities, DOE developed a 

modular classroom building simulation 

model using the Energy Plus software. 

Schedules and load profiles were taken 

from classroom-space data found in the 

DOE Primary School reference building 

models. Internal loads were based on 

equipment power and occupancy 

figures for the primary school reference 

building model. Lighting power 

requirements were based on levels 

found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2004. 

DOE believes that this is largely 

representative of classroom lighting 

power in the building stock. 

DOE simulated this building in each 

of the 15 climates as was done for watercooled air conditioners and 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners. 

Simulations were done for the buildings 

with SPVAC equipment and electric 

resistance heating, and then a separate 

set of simulations was done for 

buildings with SPVHP equipment. DOE 

used the current Federal standard 

efficiencies of 9.0 EER for SPVAC 

equipment and 9.0 EER and 3.0 COP for 

SPVHP equipment in the ≤65,000 Btu/ 

h cooling capacity range. Fan power at 

these efficiency levels was based on 

manufacturers’ literature and reported 

fan power consumption data. In 

addition, based on DOE’s review of the 

existing market, the supply air blower 

motors for this baseline equipment used 

permanent split-capacitor motors. 

Using the fan power data, DOE 

converted the baseline EER to condenser 

cooling COP at rating conditions. DOE 

converted the baseline heating COP to 

condenser heating COP at the heating 

rating conditions. These values were 

used as inputs for the equipment 

simulations. Further details of the 

building model and the simulation 

inputs used for modeling the energy 

consumption of the SPVAC and SPVHP 

equipment can be found in the ASHRAE 

NODA TSD. 

From the annual simulation results 

for SPVAC equipment, DOE extracted 

the condenser energy use for cooling, 

the blower energy use, and the 

equipment capacity. From these, DOE 

developed the annual cooling energy 

per ton and annual blower energy per 

ton for the baseline efficiency 

simulated. These per-ton values were 

then added together and multiplied by 

the average cooling capacity estimated 

for SPVUs in the ≤65,000 Btu/h capacity 

range to arrive at the baseline UEC for 

SPVAC. This average unit capacity was 

estimated at 3 tons (i.e., 36,000 Btu/h). 

To estimate the UEC for higher 

efficiency levels for SPVAC, DOE 

multiplied the baseline condenser 

cooling energy by the ratio of the 

baseline condenser cooling COP to the 

condenser cooling COP calculated for 

higher efficiency levels. As a review of 

the market indicated that ECM motors 

were the norm at high efficiency levels 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25641 

21Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute, Historical Shipment Data Commercial Air 

Conditioners Water Cooled, 2011. This information 

was provided by AHRI to the U.S. Department of 

Energy on March 4, 2011. (AHRI, No. 0002 at p. 2) 

(with a corresponding lower fan power), 

DOE used the available market data to 

establish estimates of the fraction of the 

market using ECM motors at each higher 

efficiency level analyzed. It then 

calculated the blower energy 

consumption per ton for both the 

baseline fan power (PSC motor) and the 

fan power assuming ECM motors. The 

latter was achieved by multiplying the 

baseline fan energy consumption by the 

ratio of the rated fan power reported for 

products using ECM motors to the rated 

fan power for products using PSC 

blower motors. Using the relative 

market fractions of the SPVACs and 

SPVHPs using each motor at 

approximately the efficiency levels 

analyzed, DOE developed weightedaverage annual fan energy consumption 

for each higher efficiency level. The 

condenser energy per ton and blower 

energy per ton at each efficiency level 

were then added together and the result 

multiplied by the 3-ton average capacity 

to develop SPVAC UEC estimates for 

each higher efficiency level analyzed. 

The analytical method for SPVHP was 

carried out in a similar fashion; 

however, for heat pumps, DOE included 

the heating energy from the simulation 

results. From the SPVHP simulation 

results at the baseline 9.0 EER and 3.0 

COP levels, DOE extracted the 

compressor cooling energy, blower 

energy, compressor heating energy, 

backup electric resistance heating 

energy, and the cooling capacity. From 

these, DOE developed per-ton energy 

consumption values for each of these 

four electrical loads. These per-ton 

energy figures were summed and 

multiplied by the nominal capacity to 

arrive at the baseline UEC for SPVHP. 

To establish UEC estimates for higher 

efficiency levels, the baseline condenser 

cooling energy was scaled by 

multiplying it by the ratio of the 

baseline condenser-only cooling COP to 

that of the condenser-only cooling COP 

for each higher efficiency level. 

Similarly, for the analysis of higher COP 

efficiencies, the condenser heating 

energy was multiplied by the ratio the 

baseline condenser-only heating COP to 

that of the condenser-only heating COP 

calculated for the higher efficiency 

levels. The annual blower energy 

consumption was calculated based on 

the estimated relative fractions for ECM 

and PSC motors for each analyzed 

efficiency levels. The backup electric 

resistance heat from the baseline 

simulations was not adjusted for higher 

efficiency levels, because it was 

assumed to be unaffected by higher 

efficiency levels. These scaled electrical 

consumption values for these four 

energy uses were then summed to 

provide the UEC estimate for each 

higher efficiency level. For details of 

this analysis, see the ASHRAE NODA 

TSD. 

DOE developed national average UEC 

values at each efficiency level using 

weighting factors developed for primary 

and secondary school education 

building floor space as part of the 

development of the DOE reference 

building models. 

Table III.3 shows the annual UEC 

estimates for SPVAC and SPVHP 

corresponding to the EER and COP 

levels analyzed. Note that Level 2, with 

an EER of 10.0, matches the minimum 

standard for SPVUs in Proposed 

Addendum i to ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010. Therefore, although DOE 

analyzed SPVUs under a separate 

requirement from an amendment to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (as discussed in 

section I.A), potential energy savings for 

this level provide an estimate of the 

savings that would occur should this 

addendum be approved. 

TABLE III.3—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR SPVAC AND SPVHP EQUIPMENT

SPVAC 

1-phase 

<65,000 Btu/h 

SPVAC 

3-phase 

<65,000 Btu/h 

SPVHP 1-phase <65,000 Btu/h SPVHP 3-phase <65,000 Btu/h 

Average Capacity (tons) .......................... 3 3 3 3 3 3 

Efficiency Level (EER) 

EER EER EER COP EER COP 

Baseline ................................................... 9.0 9.0 9.0 3.0 9.0 3.0 

Level 1 ..................................................... 9.5 9.5 9.5 3.1 9.5 3.0 

Level 2 ..................................................... 10.0 10.0 10.0 3.1 10.0 3.1 

Level 3 ..................................................... 11.0 11.0 11.0 3.2 11.0 3.2 

Level 4 ..................................................... 12.0 12.0 12.0 3.3 12.0 3.3 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’ ............................... 12.6 12.6 12.5 3.4 12.5 3.3 

Unit Energy Consumption (kWh/yr) 

Baseline ................................................... 6,660 6,660 6,648 6,280 6,648 6,281 

Level 1 ..................................................... 6,301 6,301 6,290 6,234 6,290 6,240 

Level 2 ..................................................... 5,962 5,962 5,952 6,189 5,952 6,201 

Level 3 ..................................................... 5,537 5,537 5,325 6,105 5,325 6,126 

Level 4 ..................................................... 5,057 5,057 5,048 6,026 5,048 6,055 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’ ............................... 4,911 4,911 4,925 5,988 4,925 6,021 

DOE seeks input on its analysis of 

UEC for the above equipment classes 

and its use in establishing the energy 

savings potential for higher standards. 

Of particular interest, DOE is seeking 

input on the other building applications 

for SPVU equipment and the value of 

incorporating them into its analysis. 

DOE identified this as Issue 10 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section IV.B of this NODA. 

B. Shipments 

DOE obtained historical (1989–2009) 

water-cooled commercial air 

conditioner shipment data from AHRI.21

Table III.4 exhibits the shipment data 

provided for a selection of years, while 

the full data set can be found in the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25642 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22U.S. Department of Energy, Technical Support 

Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency 

Standards for Commercial Heating, AirConditioning, and Water Heating Equipment 

Including Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial 

Packaged Boiler, Three-Phase Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h, and Single-Package 

Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h (March 2006). 

ASHRAE NODA TSD. DOE used these 

shipment data to create two shipment 

scenarios: (1) Based on historical trends, 

and (2) shipments held constant at 2009 

levels. For small and large AC, the 

historical trends are exponential 

(decreasing), while for very large AC, 

the closest trend is linear (decreasing). 

As these trends result in few shipments 

by the end of the analysis period, DOE 

used the second shipment scenario to 

represent more of an upper bound on 

shipments. 

TABLE III.4—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF WATER-COOLED AC BY EQUIPMENT CLASS

Equipment class * 1989 1999 2009 

Small AC (65,000–134,900 Btu/h) ............................................................................................... 1,437 874 152 

Large AC (135,000–249,000 Btu/h) ............................................................................................ 793 477 182 

Very Large AC (250,000 & Over Btu/h) ...................................................................................... 1,622 898 585 

* Although the Btu/h ranges AHRI uses to categorize equipment into small, large, and very large do not exactly match the definitions for those 

categories provided in EPCA, in this analysis, DOE did not attempt to adjust the shipments to take into account these small differences. 

DOE broke out the shipment data into 

the discrete classes required for this 

analysis. DOE could not identify data 

that would allow the shipments 

provided by AHRI to be separated into 

products with electrical resistance or no 

heating, and those with other types of 

heating. However, DOE believes that 

most small and large water-cooled 

equipment does not provide heating, 

and as a result, DOE assigned 90 percent 

of shipments in those categories to the 

no heating class, and 10 percent to the 

other heating class. For very large 

equipment, DOE believes that most 

equipment are roof-top units that are 

combined with gas furnaces, and as a 

result assigned 10 percent of very large 

shipments to the ‘‘no heating class’’ and 

90 percent to the ‘‘other heating class.’’ 

DOE identified nine models of very 

large evaporatively-cooled equipment, 

but no shipment data were available. 

For this product class, DOE used the 

ratio of very large evaporatively-cooled 

to water-cooled models on the market 

(9:35) and applied this ratio to the 

water-cooled shipments to estimate 

evaporatively-cooled shipments. The 

same fraction as for very large watercooled equipment was used to separate 

units into the relevant heating 

categories. 

The complete historical data set and 

the projected shipments for each 

equipment class can be found in the 

ASHRAE NODA TSD. DOE seeks input 

on its allocation of shipments to the 

eight classes of water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled equipment for 

which analysis was performed, as well 

as the future market and shipment 

scenarios for these products. DOE 

identified this as Issue 11 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section IV.B of this NODA. 

For SPVUs, DOE did not create two 

shipment scenarios, but rather relied 

upon SPVU shipment data from the 

Technical Support Document for the 

March 13, 2006 Notice of Document 

Availability on Efficiency Standards for 

Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, 

and Water Heating Equipment.22 In this 

document, DOE provided 2005 

shipments data based on AirConditioning and Refrigeration Institute 

(ARI, now AHRI) estimates, as shown in 

Table III.5. 

TABLE III.5—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF

SPVUS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS

Equipment class 2005 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase .......................... 31,976 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase .......................... 13,125 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, 

three-phase ....................... 14,301 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, 

three-phase ....................... 6,129 

As the market for SPVUs is larger and 

better understood than the market for 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

products and the estimated growth rate 

over time is increasing, DOE did not 

include a shipment scenario with 

shipments fixed to 2009. DOE only used 

that scenario for water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled products to 

provide an upper bound on shipments 

and energy savings, as it is unclear if the 

historical trend toward extremely few 

units in those product classes will 

continue. 

DOE projected shipments of SPVUs 

according to the average growth rate of 

2.18 percent noted in the 2006 TSD. 

This was based on analysis of AHRI data 

for commercial unitary AC products 

65,000 Btu/h to 240,000 Btu/h for DOE’s 

commercial unitary AC and HP 

rulemaking. 

DOE then reviewed the AHRI certified 

products directory, as well as 

manufacturer Web sites, to determine 

the distribution of efficiency levels for 

commercially-available models within 

each equipment class of water-cooled 

and evaporatively-cooled products and 

SPVUs. DOE bundled the efficiency 

levels into ‘‘efficiency ranges’’ and 

determined the percentage of models 

within each range. The distribution of 

efficiencies in the base case for each 

equipment class can be found in the 

ASHRAE NODA TSD on DOE’s Web 

site. 

For the standards case, DOE assumed 

shipments at lower efficiencies were 

most likely to roll up into higher 

efficiency levels in response to morestringent energy conservation standards. 

For each efficiency level analyzed 

within a given equipment class, DOE 

used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

market shares by efficiency level for the 

year that standards become effective 

(i.e., 2012). DOE estimated that the 

efficiencies of equipment in the base 

case that did not meet the standard level 

under consideration would roll up to 

meet the standard level. Available 

information also suggests that all 

equipment efficiencies in the base case 

that were above the standard level 

under consideration would not be 

affected. Table III.6 shows an example 

of the distribution of efficiencies within 

the base-case and the roll-up scenarios 

to establish the distribution of 

efficiencies in the standards cases for 

very large water-cooled equipment. For 

all the tables of the distribution of 

efficiencies in the base case and 

standards cases by equipment class, see 

the ASHRAE NODA TSD. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25643 

23AEO2010 can be accessed at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/archive/aeo10/index.html. 

24California Public Utility Commission 2008, 

Database for Energy Efficient Resources (Available 

at: http://www.deeresources.com/). 

TABLE III.6—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES IN THE BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASES FOR VERY LARGE WATERCOOLED COMMERCIAL AC WITH OTHER HEAT

Efficiency 

level 

Efficiency ranges (EER) * 

10.8–11.59 11.6–12.69 12.7–13.49 13.5–14.39 14.4–14.89 

Base Case—Federal Standard (10.8 EER) ............................................. 14% 23% 29% 14% 20% 

Efficiency Level 1—ASHRAE (12.2 EER) ............................................... .................... 37% 29% 14% 20% 

Efficiency Level 2—(13.0 EER) ............................................................... .................... .................... 66% 14% 20% 

Efficiency Level 3—(14.0 EER) ............................................................... .................... .................... .................... 80% 20% 

Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—(14.8 EER) ......................................... .................... .................... .................... .................... 100% 

* DOE binned models into efficiency ranges surrounding the EER of each efficiency level; the specific bins were chosen to maintain the same 

market average efficiency (when the number of models in each range is multiplied by the efficiency level EER) as calculated using the full distribution of models. 

DOE seeks input on its determination 

of the base-case distribution of 

efficiencies and its prediction on how 

amended energy conservation standards 

affect the distribution of efficiencies in 

the standards case. DOE identified this 

as Issue 12 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of this 

NODA. 

Using the distribution of efficiencies 

in the base case and in the standards 

cases for each equipment class analyzed 

in today’s NODA, as well as the UECs 

for each specified EER (discussed 

previously), DOE calculated marketweighted average efficiency values. The 

market-weighted average efficiency 

value represents the average efficiency 

of the total units shipped at a specified 

amended standard level. The marketweighted average efficiency values for 

the base case and the standards cases for 

each efficiency analyzed within the 

equipment classes is provided in the 

ASHRAE NODA TSD found on DOE’s 

Web site. 

C. Other Analytical Inputs 

1. Site-to-Source Conversion 

DOE converted the annual site energy 

savings into the annual amount of 

energy saved at the source of electric 

generation (i.e., primary energy), using 

site-to-source conversion factors over 

the analysis period (calculated from the 

Energy Information Agency’s (EIA’s) 

Annual Energy Outlook 2010 (AEO2010) 

projections).23 DOE derived the annual 

conversion factors by dividing the 

delivered electricity to the commercial 

sector plus loss for each forecast year in 

the United States, as indicated in 

AEO2010, by the delivered electricity to 

the commercial sector for each 

forecasted year. 

2. Product Lifetime 

For both water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled products and 

SPVUs, DOE estimated the product 

lifetime from the advanced notice of 

proposed rulemaking on Energy 

Conservation Standards for Commercial 

Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps published in the Federal 

Register on July 29, 2004. 69 FR 45460, 

45480. The product lifetime from the 

prior TSD was estimated to be a mean 

of 15.4 years. More recent sources 

confirm this estimate including the 2008 

California Database for Energy Efficient 

Resources (15 years).24 For this 

preliminary analysis, DOE used a singlevalue lifetime of 15 years. 

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period 

For purposes of calculating the 

national energy savings (NES) for watercooled and evaporatively-cooled 

equipment, DOE used an analysis 

period of 2013 (the assumed compliance 

date if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE 

levels as Federal standards for small 

products) or 2014 (the assumed 

compliance date if DOE were to adopt 

the ASHRAE levels as Federal standards 

for large and very large products) 

through 2042 and 2043, respectively. 

This is the standard analysis period of 

30 years that DOE typically uses in its 

NES analysis. While the analysis period 

remains the same for assessing the 

energy savings of Federal standard 

levels higher than the ASHRAE levels, 

those energy savings would not begin 

accumulating until 2017 (the assumed 

compliance date if DOE were to 

determine that standard levels more 

stringent than the ASHRAE levels are 

justified). 

If DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards at the efficiency levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010, EPCA states that any such 

standards shall become effective on or 

after a date which is two or three years 

(depending on equipment size) after the 

effective date of the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency requirement 

in the amended ASHRAE standard (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For all watercooled and evaporatively-cooled 

equipment in this rulemaking, the 

effective date in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 is June 1, 2011. Thus, if DOE 

decides to adopt the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, the rule would 

apply to small equipment (two product 

classes) manufactured on or after June 1, 

2013, which is two years from the 

effective date specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, and to large and 

very large equipment (six product 

classes) manufactured on or after June 1, 

2014, which is three years from the 

effective date specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. 

If DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards higher than the efficiency 

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, under EPCA, any such 

standard will become effective for 

products manufactured four years after 

the date of publication in the Federal 

Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) Thus, 

for products for which DOE might adopt 

a level more stringent than the ASHRAE 

efficiency level, the rule would apply to 

products manufactured on or after a 

date which is four years from the date 

of publication of the final rule adopting 

standards higher than the ASHRAE 

efficiency levels (30 months after 

publication of the revised ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, which was October 29, 

2010). Under this timeline, compliance 

with such more-stringent standards 

would be required no later than April 

29, 2017. 

For purposes of calculating the NES 

for SPVUs, DOE used a 30-year analysis 

period of 2017–2046. As all efficiency 

levels being considered for SPVUs are 

higher than the ASHRAE efficiency 

levels, any rule adopted would apply to 

products manufactured on or after a 

date which is four years from the date 

of publication of the final rule adopting 

standards higher than the ASHRAE 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25644 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

efficiency levels (30 months after 

publication of the revised ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, which was October 29, 

2010). Under this timeline, compliance 

with such more-stringent standards 

would be required no later than April 

29, 2017. 

For each equipment class for which 

DOE developed a potential energy 

savings analysis, Table III.7 exhibits the 

approximate compliance dates of an 

amended energy conservation standard. 

TABLE III.7—APPROXIMATE COMPLIANCE DATE OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR EACH

EQUIPMENT CLASS

Equipment class 

Approximate compliance date 

for adopting the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Approximate compliance date 

for adopting more stringent 

efficiency levels than those in 

ASHRAE standard 90.1–2010 

Small Water-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ............................ 06/2013 04/2017 

Small Water-Cooled AC with Other Heat ............................................................ 06/2013 04/2017 

Large Water-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ............................ 06/2014 04/2017 

Large Water-Cooled AC with Other Heat ............................................................ 06/2014 04/2017 

Very Large Water-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ................... 06/2014 04/2017 

Very Large Water-Cooled AC with Other Heat ................................................... 06/2014 04/2017 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled AC with Electric Resistance or No Heat ....... 06/2014 04/2017 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled AC with Other Heat ....................................... 06/2014 04/2017 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase .................................................................. * N/A 04/2017 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, three-phase ................................................................... * N/A 04/2017 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, single-phase .................................................................. * N/A 04/2017 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, three-phase ................................................................... * N/A 04/2017 

* The efficiency levels specified for SPVACs and SPVHPs in ASHRAE 90.1–2010 are already in effect as Federal minimum energy conservation standards. 

D. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings 

DOE estimated the potential primary 

energy savings in quads (i.e., 10 15 Btu) 

for each efficiency level considered 

within each equipment class analyzed. 

Table III.8—Table III.19 show the 

potential energy savings resulting from 

the analyses conducted as part of this 

NODA. 

TABLE III.8—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO

HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—12.1 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.000005 0.000011 

Level 2—13 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000018 0.000060 

Level 3—14 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000044 0.000144 

Level 4—15 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.000074 0.000238 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.4 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.000121 0.000388 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.9—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—11.9 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.0000005 0.0000013 

Level 2—13 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000024 0.0000082 

Level 3—14 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000053 0.0000174 

Level 4—15 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0000085 0.0000276 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.4 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.0000137 0.0000441 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25645 

TABLE III.10—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC

RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical 

shipment 

trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—12.5 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.00014 0.00027 

Level 2—13 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00002 0.00008 

Level 3—14 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00013 0.00032 

Level 4—15 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00024 0.00056 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.1 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.00039 0.00089 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.11—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical 

shipment 

trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—12.3 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.00001 0.00003 

Level 2—13 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00001 0.00001 

Level 3—14 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00002 0.00004 

Level 4—15 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.00003 0.00007 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—16.1 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.00005 0.00010 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.12—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC

RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical 

shipment 

trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—12.4 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.0002 0.0001 

Level 2—13 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0001 0.0001 

Level 3—14 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.0005 0.0003 

Level 4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.8 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.0008 0.0005 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.13—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER

HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical 

shipment 

trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—12.2 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.002 0.001 

Level 2—13 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 

Level 3—14 EER ..................................................................................................................................................... 0.005 0.003 

Level 4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.8 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.008 0.005 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.14—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH

ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—11.9 EER ................................................................................................................................ 0.00013 0.00009 

Level 2—12.5 EER .................................................................................................................................................. 0.00008 0.00005 

Level 3—‘‘Max-Tech’’—13.1 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.00017 0.00011 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.15—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH

ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

Level 1—ASHRAE—11.7 EER ** ............................................................................................................................ 0.0011 0.0007 

Level 2—12.5 EER .................................................................................................................................................. 0.0010 0.0007 

Level 3—‘‘Max-Tech’’—13.1 EER ........................................................................................................................... 0.0019 0.0012 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.16—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL SINGLE-PHASE SPVAC 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy 

savings estimate 

(quads) 

Level 1—9.5 EER .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.035 

Level 2—10 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.076 

Level 3—11 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.139 

Level 4—12 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.226 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.6 EER ................................................................................................................................................. 0.253 

TABLE III.17—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE SPVAC 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy 

savings estimate 

(quads) 

Level 1—9.5 EER .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.010 

Level 2—10 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.023 

Level 3—11 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.046 

Level 4—12 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.083 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.6 EER ................................................................................................................................................. 0.095 

TABLE III.18—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL SINGLE-PHASE SPVHP 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy 

savings estimate * 

(quads) 

Level 1—9.5 EER .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.012 

Level 2—10 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.026 

Level 3—11 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.064 

Level 4—12 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.089 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.5 EER ................................................................................................................................................. 0.101 

* For SPVHPs, the primary energy savings estimates are based on both cooling savings (EER) and heating savings (COP). 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 25647 

25Estimated as [60 percent of the large SPVAC 

market being affected at the 10.0 EER standard level 

times twice the UEC savings of the small SPVAC 

products in going from 9.5 to 10.0 EER times 1.4 

percent of the total shipments, or equal to 0.60 × 

2 × 0.014 × [(0.076+0.023)¥(.035+.01)]] quads. DOE 

did not separate this product class into single-phase 

and three-phase units because the savings would be 

even more speculative at this level, and the 

breakdown is not required. 

TABLE III.19—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE SPVHP 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy 

savings estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—9.5 EER .......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.004 

Level 2—10 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.009 

Level 3—11 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.025 

Level 4—12 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................... 0.037 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.5 EER ................................................................................................................................................. 0.042 

* For SPVHPs, the primary energy savings estimates are based on both cooling savings (EER) and heating savings (COP). 

As mentioned previously, due to the 

small size of the market for large 

SPVACs (five models) and a lack of 

shipment estimates, DOE could not 

perform a full analysis of energy savings 

for this product class. However, DOE 

used the results from small SPVACs to 

approximate the energy savings for large 

SPVACs. 

DOE notes that analysis of the market 

shows only a narrow range of 

efficiencies for large SPVACs, with two 

out of the five existing models (40 

percent) at 10.0 EER and three out of the 

five models (60 percent) at 9.5 EER. 

DOE also estimates that the UEC for a 

typical large SPVAC at a 9.5 or 10.0 EER 

will be approximately twice that 

calculated for a small SPVAC at the 

same efficiency levels, as the equipment 

capacity of the available large SPVAC 

products is approximately twice that of 

the average size for the small SPVAC 

equipment. While DOE has no data on 

shipments for large SPVACs, it notes 

that the number of available models of 

large SPVACs is approximately 1.4 

percent of small SPVACs based on its 

market analysis. 

Assuming relative shipments of large 

SPVACs to small SPVACs could be 

characterized by the ratio of models 

available, and that the per-unit energy 

savings in going from 9.5 to 10.0 EER 

(the highest available efficiency) is 

twice that of the small SPVACs going 

between these levels, DOE estimates 

that the potential energy savings for 

standards set at the market maximum 

10.0 EER level is roughly 1.68 percent 

of the difference in the energy savings 

calculated for the small SPVAC 

standards at 10.0 EER and at 9.5 EER 

(shown in table III.16 and III.17). This 

would suggest an energy savings 

potential of approximately 0.0009 

quads, shown in Table III.20.25

TABLE III.20—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE SPVAC 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy 

savings estimate 

(quads) 

Level 1—10.0 EER ........................................................................................................................................................................ 0.0009 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NODA no 

later than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
25648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 87 / Thursday, May 5, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Email 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery/courier, 

please provide all items on a CD, if 

feasible, in which case, it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential business information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: one copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ that includes all 

the information believed to be 

confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

with the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. Submit these 

documents via email or on a CD, if 

feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this notice, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) The impact of proposed addenda 

h, i, and j to ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 on the energy savings presented in 

today’s NODA; 

(2) The energy savings potential of 

small and large evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners; 

(3) The market for VRF water-source 

heat pumps with cooling capacities 

below 17,000 Btu/h and above 135,000 

Btu/h. DOE is seeking data and 

information that would allow it to 

accurately characterize the energy 

savings from amended energy 

conservation standards for these 

products; 

(4) The market for large and very large 

SPVACs and SPVHPs; 

(5) Approaches for establishing energy 

conservation standards for covering air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms; 

(6) Data and information for air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms that could be 

used in performing an energy savings 

analysis at a future stage of this 

rulemaking; 

(7) Approaches for developing 

appropriate definitions for ‘‘air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms’’ that would not 

result in overlap between this 

equipment and the other types of 

commercial packaged air conditioning 

and heating equipment covered by 

EPCA; 

(8) The use of AHRI 1230, ASHRAE 

127, and AHRI 390 as the test method 

for VRF equipment, air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms, and SPVACs and SPVHPs, 

respectively; and 

(9) DOE’s preliminary conclusion that 

the updates to the most recent versions 

of AHRI 210/240, AHRI 340/360, UL 

727, ANSI Z21.47, and ANSI Z21.10.3 

do not have a substantive impact on the 

measurement of energy efficiency for 

the associated equipment types for each 

test procedure; 

(10) DOE’s analysis of UEC for the 

water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, 

SVPU equipment classes and its use in 

establishing the energy savings potential 

for higher standards. Of particular 

interest are other building applications 

for SPVU equipment and the value of 

incorporating these into the analysis of 

UEC. 

(11) DOE’s allocation of shipments to 

the eight classes of water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled equipment for 

which analysis was performed, as well 

as the future market and shipment 

scenarios for these products; and 

(12) DOE’s determination of the basecase distribution efficiencies and its 

prediction on how amended energy 

conservation standards affect the 

distribution of efficiencies in the 

standards case for the twelve classes of 

equipment for which analysis was 

performed. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of data 

availability. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 

2011. 

Kathleen Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Office of Technology 

Development, Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2011–10877 Filed 5–4–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. NM454 Special Conditions No. 

25–11–11–SC] 

Special Conditions: Gulfstream Model 

GVI Airplane; Limit Engine Torque 

Loads for Sudden Engine Stoppage 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed special 

conditions. 

SUMMARY: This action proposes special 

conditions for the Gulfstream GVI 

airplane. This airplane will have novel 

or unusual design features when 

compared to the state of technology 

envisioned in the airworthiness 

standards for transport category 

airplanes. These design features include 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS