```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 16, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 28928-29000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10650]

[[Page 28927]]

Vol. 77

Wednesday,

No. 95

May 16, 2012

Part II

Department of Energy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

10 CFR Part 431

Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy 
Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Commercial Heating, Air-
Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 77 , No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules 
and Regulations

[[Page 28928]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 and Test Procedures for Commercial 
Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 
Energy.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is amending its energy 
conservation standards for small, large, and very large water-cooled 
and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, and 
variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 
17,000 Btu/h. DOE is adopting new energy conservation standards for 
computer room air conditioners and VRF water-source heat pumps with a 
cooling capacity at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 
Btu/h. Pursuant to the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 
(EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess whether the uniform national 
standards for these covered equipment need to be updated each time the 
corresponding industry standard--the American National Standards 
Institute (ANSI)/American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of 
North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1)--is amended, 
which most recently occurred on October 29, 2010. The levels DOE is 
adopting are the same as the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. DOE has determined that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 efficiency levels for the equipment types listed above are more 
stringent than existing Federal energy conservation standards and will 
result in economic and energy savings compared existing energy 
conservation standards. Furthermore, DOE has concluded that clear and 
convincing evidence does not exist, as would justify more-stringent 
standard levels than the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
for any of the equipment classes. DOE is also updating the current 
Federal test procedures or, for certain equipment, adopting new test 
procedures to incorporate by reference the most current versions of the 
relevant industry test procedures specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. Furthermore, DOE is adopting additional test procedure provisions 
to include with modification certain instructions from Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) operations 
manuals in that organization's test procedures that would clarify the 
application of the DOE test procedures and harmonize DOE testing with 
the testing performed by industry.

DATES: This rule is effective July 16, 2012.
    Compliance Dates:
    See Table 1 of section II.C of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 
section of this final rule for the compliance dates associated with the 
new/amended test procedures, the new/amended energy conservation 
standards, and the representation requirements by equipment type.
    The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in 
this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 
16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking is available for review at 
www.regulations.gov, including Federal Register notices, public meeting 
attendee lists and transcripts, 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: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EER
E-2011-BT-STD-0029. The www.regulations.gov Web page contains simple 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review 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. Email: 
Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.
    Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule incorporates by reference 
into part 431 the following standards:
     American National Standards Institute Z21.47-2006 (ANSI 
Z21.47-2006), ``Gas-Fired Central Furnaces,'' approved on July 27, 
2006.
     American National Standards Institute Z21.10.3-2011, (ANSI 
Z21.10.3-2011), ``Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters 
With Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and 
Instantaneous,'' approved on March 7, 2011.
    Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2006 and ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 can be obtained 
from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th 
Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to http://www.ansi.org.
     Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 
Standard 210/240-2008 (AHRI 210/240-2008), ``Performance Rating of 
Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved 
by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in June 2011 and 
addendum 2 in March 2012.
     Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 
Standard 340/360-2007 (AHRI 340/360-2007), ``Performance Rating of 
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by 
addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 2011.
     Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 
Standard 390-2003 (AHRI 390-2003), dated 2003, ``Performance Rating of 
Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps.''
     Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 
Standard 1230-2010 (AHRI 1230-2010), ``Performance Rating of Variable 
Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on August 2, 2010 and updated by addendum 
1 in March 2011.
    Copies of AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, and 
AHRI 1230-2010 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 
Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 
22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to http://www.ahrinet.org.
     American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 127-2007, (ASHRAE 127-2007), 
``Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room 
Unitary Air

[[Page 28929]]

Conditioners,'' approved on June 28, 2007
    Copies of ASHRAE 127-2007 can be obtained from American Society of 
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie 
Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to http://www.ashrae.org.
     Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Standard 727-2006 (UL 727-
2006), ``Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,'' approved 
April 7, 2006.
    Copies of UL 727-2006 can be obtained from Underwriters 
Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 
272-8800, or go to http://www.ul.com.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
    2. Previous Rulemaking Documents
    C. Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures, 
Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation Standards, and 
Representations for Certain ASHRAE Equipment
III. General Discussion of Comments Received
    A. The Definition of ``Amendment'' With Respect to the 
Efficiency Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1
    B. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE 
Standards Process
    C. General Discussion of the Changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and Determination of Scope
    D. The Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
    E. Coverage of Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment Used Exclusively as Part of Industrial or Manufacturing 
Processes
    F. Definitions for Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems
IV. Test Procedure Amendments and Discussion of Related Comments
    A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    B. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters
    C. Computer Room Air Conditioners
    D. Variable Refrigerant Flow Air-Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment
    E. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments for Computer Room Air 
Conditioners
    A. Market Assessment
    1. Definition of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner''
    2. Equipment Classes
    3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners
    a. Trade Association Information
    b. Manufacturer Information
    c. Market Data
    B. Engineering Analysis
    1. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis
    2. Baseline Equipment
    3. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency 
Levels for Analysis
    4. Pricing Data
    5. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to 
Unanalyzed Equipment Classes
    6. Engineering Analysis Results
    C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price
    D. Energy Use Characterization
    E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses
    1. Approach
    2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
    a. Equipment Prices
    b. Installation Costs
    c. Annual Energy Use
    d. Electricity Prices
    e. Maintenance Costs
    f. Repair Costs
    g. Equipment Lifetime
    h. Discount Rate
    3. Payback Period
    F. National Impact Analysis
    1. Approach
    2. Shipments Analysis
    3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of 
Efficiencies
    G. Emissions Analysis
    H. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts
    1. Social Cost of Carbon
    a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    I. Other Issues
    1. Compliance Dates of the Amended and New Energy Conservation 
Standards
VI. Analytical Results
    A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed
    1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
    3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
    B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification
    1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
    3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
    a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
    b. National Impact Analysis
    C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    D. Amended and New Energy Conservation Standards
    1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
    3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
    N. Congressional Notification
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et 
seq.), as amended, requires DOE to consider amending the existing 
Federal energy conservation standard for certain types of listed 
commercial and industrial equipment (generally, commercial water 
heaters, commercial packaged boilers, commercial air-conditioning and 
heating equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat 
pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings 
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 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,\1\ DOE must adopt 
amended energy conservation 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 efficiency 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 
efficiency levels specified in the

[[Page 28930]]

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)) If DOE determines that a 
more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory criteria, 
DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30 
months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 on October 29, 2010, thereby triggering DOE's above-referenced 
obligations pursuant to EPCA to determine for those equipment with 
efficiency level changes beyond the current Federal standard, whether: 
(1) The amended industry standard should be adopted; or (2) clear and 
convincing evidence exists to justify more-stringent standard levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Although 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 17, 2012 
(January 2012 NOPR), in the Federal Register describing DOE's 
determination of scope for considering new and amended energy 
conservation standards with respect to certain heating, ventilating, 
air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment addressed in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. 77 FR 2356, 2366-79. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
amended its efficiency levels for small, large, and very large water-
cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners and variable 
refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less 
than 17,000 Btu/h, and adopted new efficiency levels for variable 
refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity equal 
to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h,with and 
without heat recovery. In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 expanded 
its scope to include certain process cooling equipment, namely ``air 
conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms'' (hereafter 
referred to as ``computer room air conditioners''). ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test procedures for several 
equipment types.
    In determining the scope of the rulemaking, DOE is statutorily 
required to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have 
become more stringent than the current Federal energy conservation 
standard, thereby ensuring that any new amended national standard would 
not result in ``backsliding,'' which is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(1). For those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-
stringent or new efficiency levels (i.e., small, large, and very large 
water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable 
refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either 
less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and 
less than 760,000 Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer 
room air conditioners), DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of 
amended national energy conservation standards (at both the new ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 efficiency levels and more-stringent efficiency levels) 
in the May 5, 2011 notice of data availability (NODA) (76 FR 25622) and 
the January 17, 2012 NOPR (77 FR 2356). For equipment where more-
stringent standard levels than the ASHRAE efficiency levels would 
result in significant energy savings (i.e., computer room air 
conditioners), DOE analyzed the economic justification for more-
stringent levels in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2382-98 (Jan. 
17, 2012).
    The energy conservation standards being adopted in today's final 
rule, which apply to small, large, and very large water-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-
source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h 
or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, 
with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners, 
satisfy all applicable requirements of EPCA and will achieve the 
maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has 
concluded that, based on the information presented and its analyses, 
there is not clear and convincing evidence justifying adoption of more-
stringent efficiency levels for this equipment.
    Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed in this notice, DOE 
is amending the energy conservation standards (or for certain equipment 
adopting new standards) for small, large, and very large water-cooled 
and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow 
water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 
Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 
Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer room air 
conditioners by adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. Pursuant to EPCA, the compliance date for amended 
energy conservation standards based upon the levels in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 is either two or three years after the effective date of the 
requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard, depending on the type and 
size of the equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) In the present 
case, the amended standards apply to equipment manufactured on and 
after the date either 2 or 3 years after the effective date specified 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, depending on the type of equipment. Table 
I.1 presents the energy conservation standards that DOE is adopting in 
today's final rule and their respective compliance dates.

      Table I.1--Current and Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Certain ASHRAE Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                Compliance date
                                                                       Amended or new Federal    of amended/new
           Equipment class                 Current Federal energy       energy conservation      Federal energy
                                           conservation  standard             standard            conservation
                                                                                                    standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Water-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,          11.5 EER.....................  12.1 EER...............           6/1/2013
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h,
 Electric Resistance Heating or No
 Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,          11.3 EER.....................  11.9 EER...............           6/1/2013
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h,
 All Other Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,          11.0 EER.....................  12.5 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=135,000 Btu/h and h,
 Electric Resistance Heating or No
 Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,          11.0 EER.....................  12.3 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=135,000 Btu/h and h,
 All Other Heating.

[[Page 28931]]

 
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,          11.0 EER.....................  12.4 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h,
 Electric Resistance Heating or No
 Heating.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,          10.8 EER.....................  12.2 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h,
 All Other Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Evaporatively-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner,  11.5 EER.....................  12.1 EER...............           6/1/2013
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h,
 Electric Resistance Heating or No
 Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner,  11.3 EER.....................  11.9 EER...............           6/1/2013
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h,
 All Other Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner,  11.0 EER.....................  12.0 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=135,000 Btu/h and h,
 Electric Resistance Heating or No
 Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner,  11.0 EER.....................  11.8 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=135,000 Btu/h and h,
 All Other Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner,  11.0 EER.....................  11.9 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h,
 Electric Resistance Heating or No
 Heating.
Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner,  10.8 EER.....................  11.7 EER...............           6/1/2014
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h,
 All Other Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Variable Refrigerant Flow Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-     11.2 EER.....................  12.0 EER, 4.2 COP......         10/29/2012
 source, h, without heat
 recovery.
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-     11.2 EER.....................  11.8 EER, 4.2 COP......         10/29/2012
 source, h, with heat
 recovery.
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-     N/A..........................  10.0 EER, 3.9 COP......         10/29/2013
 source, >=135,000 and 
 h, without heat recovery.
VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-     N/A..........................  9.8 EER, 3.9 COP.......         10/29/2013
 source, >=135,000 and 
 h, with heat recovery.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-    N/A..........................  2.20 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2012
 cooled, h.                                                2.09 SCOP (upflow).
Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-    N/A..........................  2.10 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-    N/A..........................  1.90 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-  N/A..........................  2.60 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2012
 cooled, h.                                                2.49 SCOP (upflow).
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-  N/A..........................  2.50 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-  N/A..........................  2.40 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-  N/A..........................  2.55 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2012
 cooled with fluid economizer,                                         2.44 SCOP (upflow).
 h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-  N/A..........................  2.45 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled with fluid economizer,                                         2.34 SCOP (upflow).
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-  N/A..........................  2.35 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled with fluid economizer,                                         2.24 SCOP (upflow).
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A..........................  2.50 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2012
 cooled, h.                                                2.39 SCOP (upflow).
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A..........................  2.15 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A..........................  2.10 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A..........................  2.45 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2012
 cooled with fluid economizer,                                         2.34 SCOP (upflow).
 h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A..........................  2.10 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled with fluid economizer,                                         1.99 SCOP (upflow).
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol- N/A..........................  2.05 SCOP (downflow),           10/29/2013
 cooled with fluid economizer,                                         1.94 SCOP (upflow).
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28932]]

    In addition, DOE is adopting amendments to its test procedures for 
a number of ASHRAE equipment types, which manufacturers will be 
required to use to certify compliance with energy conservation 
standards mandated under EPCA. See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4) and 10 CFR 
parts 429 and 431. Specifically, these amendments, which were proposed 
in the January 2012 NOPR, update the citations and incorporations by 
reference to the most recent version of the following industry 
standards: (1) AHRI 210/240-2008 (Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360-2007 
(Performance Rating of Unitary Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment); (3) UL 727-2006 (Standard for 
Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47-2006 (Standard 
for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces); and (5) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 \2\ (Gas 
Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings 
Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). DOE is also 
adopting three new test procedures for VRF equipment (AHRI 1230-2010), 
computer room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127-2007), and single package 
vertical units (AHRI 390-2003). In addition to harmonizing the test 
procedures with the latest versions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE also 
reviewed each of these test procedures in their totality as part of 
DOE's seven-year review required by EPCA. DOE is including several 
additional provisions in its test procedures based on a review of AHRI 
operations manuals. The additional provisions include an optional 
``break-in'' period for testing for commercial air-conditioning and 
heating equipment, which was proposed in the January 2012 NOPR (77 FR 
2356, 2374 and 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012)), as well as provisions for setting 
up the equipment (determining refrigerant charge and indoor air flow 
quantity), allowing for manufacturer involvement and for the use of 
correction factors for refrigerant line length in VRF testing, which 
were proposed in DOE's March 2012 supplemental notice of proposed 
rulemaking (SNOPR). 77 FR 16769, 16777-79 (March 22, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ At certain places in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE mistakenly 
referred to ``ANSI Z.21.10.3-2006,'' which does not exist, so DOE 
clarified in the March 2012 SNOPR that it meant to refer to ``ANSI 
Z.21.10.3-2004'' in all instances where ANSI Z21.10.3-2006 was 
mentioned in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 16769, 16779-80 (March 22, 
2012). However, as explained in section IV.B of this final rule, DOE 
has decided to adopt an updated version of that standard, ANSI 
Z.21.10.3-2011, based on comments from interested parties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying today's final rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of energy 
conservation standards for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air 
conditioners, variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pump systems, 
and computer room air conditioners.

A. Authority

    Title III, Part C \3\ 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, Sec.  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.\4\ 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), energy conservation 
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labelling 
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information 
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
    \4\ All 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for 
commercial heating, air-conditioning, 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, 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). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 
2007) amended EPCA by adding definitions and setting minimum energy 
conservation standards for single-package vertical air conditioners 
(SPVACs) and single-package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(10)(A)) The efficiency standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs 
established by EISA 2007 correspond to the levels contained in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2004, which originated as addendum ``d'' to ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2001.
    In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy 
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to 
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation 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, DOE must publish in the Federal Register an analysis of the 
energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards within 
180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that 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 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 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 it 
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)) (In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to the EISA 2007 
amendments to EPCA, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the agency must 
periodically review its already-established energy conservation 
standards for ASHRAE equipment. Under this requirement, the next review 
that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from 
the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a 
covered type of equipment.)
    EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require that DOE review the most 
recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010) with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance with the 
procedures established for ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). 
(42 U.S.C.

[[Page 28933]]

6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes that this one-time 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 single-package 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.\5\ DOE is conducting a 
separate rulemaking to further evaluate the efficiency levels for this 
equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Once DOE has completed its rulemaking obligations under 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B), SPVACs and SPVHPs will be treated similar to 
other ASHRAE equipment going forward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be 
consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 
unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably 
designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, 
energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE equipment during 
a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine 
that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))
    Additionally, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 
(EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) amended EPCA to require that at least once 
every 7 years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of each test procedure 
for any covered equipment and either amend the test procedure (if the 
Secretary determines that the amended test procedure would more 
accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish notice in the Federal Register of any 
determination not to amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) 
Under this requirement, DOE must review each test procedure for the 
various types of ASHRAE equipment not later than December 19, 2014 
(i.e., 7 years after the enactment of EISA 2007). Thus, the final rule 
resulting from this rulemaking will satisfy the requirement to review 
the test procedures for the certain types of ASHRAE equipment addressed 
in this rulemaking (i.e., those equipment for which DOE has been 
triggered) within seven years.
    On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released and made public 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. This action triggered DOE's obligations 
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.
    When considering the possibility of a more-stringent standard, 
DOE's more typical rulemaking requirements under EPCA apply (i.e., a 
determination of technological feasibility, economic justification, and 
significant energy savings). For example, EPCA provides that in 
deciding whether such a standard is economically justified, DOE must 
determine, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, whether 
the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the 
greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products 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 the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is 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. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
    EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an ``anti-
backsliding'' provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing 
any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy 
use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in 
the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States at the time of 
the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption 
that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that 
the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying 
with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three 
times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings 
during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the 
standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))
    Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as 
ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies 
more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different 
standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class 
of products for any group of covered products that have the same 
function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such 
group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by 
other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a 
capacity or other performance-related feature which other products 
within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or 
lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In 
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different 
standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors 
as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE 
deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes 
an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was 
established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE followed a similar 
process in the context of today's rulemaking.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). 
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt 
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least 
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, 
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, 
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 
and safety, and other

[[Page 28934]]

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these 
principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by 
law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.
    Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts 
analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard adopted 
herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.

B. 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 its efficiency levels for certain 
commercial equipment and revised its scope to include additional 
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). Specifically, DOE 
determined in the January 2012 NOPR that ASHRAE updated its efficiency 
levels for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow 
(VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; and VRF water-
source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 
760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 also revised its scope to 
include certain commercial equipment used for industrial and process 
cooling, namely ``air conditioners and condensing units serving 
computer rooms.'' 77 FR 2356, 2361-63 (Jan. 17, 2012).
    In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated the following 
referenced test procedures to the most recent version of the industry 
standards: AHRI 210/240-2008 (small commercial package air-conditioning 
and heating equipment); AHRI 340/360-2007 (large and very large 
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment); 
Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727-2006 (oil-fired commercial warm-air 
furnaces); ANSI Z21.47-2006 (gas- fired commercial warm-air furnaces); 
and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 \6\ (commercial water heaters). Lastly, ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010 specified new test procedures for certain equipment, 
including: ASHRAE 127-2007 (computer room air conditioners); and AHRI 
1230-2010 (variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ A later edition of the ANSI Z21.10.3 standard, ANSI 
Z21.10.3-2011, was approved by ANSI on March 7, 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Previous Rulemaking Documents
    Subsequent to the release of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE 
published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the Federal Register 
on May 5, 2011 (May 2011 NODA) and requested public comment as a 
preliminary step required pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers amended 
energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment 
covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. Specifically, in the May 
2011 NODA, DOE presented a discussion of the changes found in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010, which included a description of DOE's evaluation of 
each ASHRAE equipment type in order for DOE to determine whether the 
amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 have increased efficiency 
levels. Id. at 25630-37. As an initial matter, DOE sought to determine 
which requirements for covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if 
any, were revised solely to reflect the level of the current Federal 
energy conservation standard (where ASHRAE is merely ``catching up'' to 
the current national standard), were revised but lowered, were revised 
to include design requirements without changes to the efficiency level, 
or were revised to include any other revisions made that did not 
increase the standard level, in which case, DOE was not triggered to 
act under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for that particular equipment type. For 
those types of equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which ASHRAE 
actually increased efficiency levels above the current Federal standard 
(i.e., water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; two 
classes of VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery; 
and computer room air conditioners (which were not previously 
covered)), DOE subjected that equipment to the potential energy savings 
analysis for amended national energy conservation standards based on: 
(1) The modified efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010; and (2) more-stringent efficiency levels. DOE presented its 
methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy savings 
analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 
equipment classes in the May 2011 NODA for public comment. Id. at 
25637-46. For the remaining equipment classes, DOE requested data and 
information that would allow it to accurately assess the energy savings 
potential of those equipment classes. Additionally, for single package 
vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, although the levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010 were unchanged, DOE performed an analysis of their 
potential energy savings as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). 
Lastly, DOE presented an initial assessment of the test procedure 
changes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Id. at 25644-47.
    Following the NODA, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
in the Federal Register on January 17, 2012 (the January 2012 NOPR), 
and requested public comment. 77 FR 2356. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE 
proposed amended energy conservation standards for small, large, and 
very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps 
less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 
135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h; and new energy conservation 
standards for computer room air conditioners. DOE presented its 
methodology, data, and results for its analysis of two classes of 
variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps and for its analysis 
of computer room air conditioners.
    In addition, DOE's NOPR also proposed the adoption of amended test 
procedures for small commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment; large and very large commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment; commercial warm-air furnaces; and commercial water 
heaters. Furthermore, DOE proposed to adopt new test procedures

[[Page 28935]]

for variable refrigerant flow equipment, single package vertical air 
conditioners and heat pumps, and computer room air conditioners. 
Following the publication of the NOPR, DOE held a public meeting on 
February 14, 2012, to receive feedback from interested parties on its 
proposals and analyses.
    At the public meeting, a variety of issues were discussed, 
including DOE's proposed definition for ``computer room air 
conditioner,'' DOE's proposed adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners and other 
equipment, and DOE's proposed adoption of the most recent industry test 
methods. In response to concerns raised at the public meeting regarding 
DOE's proposed definition of ``computer room air conditioner'' and 
recommendations to include in DOE's test procedures certain provisions 
in AHRI operations manuals, DOE published an SNOPR on March 22, 2012, 
which proposed a refined definition of ``computer room air 
conditioner'' and proposed to adopt several clarifications to its test 
procedures based on information found in AHRI operations manuals. 77 FR 
16769.

C. Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures, Amended/
New Federal Energy Conservation Standards, and Representations for 
Certain ASHRAE Equipment

    This final rule specifies the compliance dates for new and amended 
test procedures, new and amended energy conservation standards, and 
representations as shown in Table 1 below.

   Table 1--Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures, Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation
                           Standards, and Representations for Certain ASHRAE Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               All representations of
                               Compliance with the amended/  energy use/efficiency must    Compliance with the
       Equipment class            new test procedure is      be made using the amended   amended/new standard is
                                  required on or after:        test procedures on or      required on or after:
                                                                       after:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired and Oil-fired        May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 Commercial Warm Air Furnaces.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Air-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-cooled Air Conditioner     May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 and Heat Pump, h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner     May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 and Heat Pump, >=65,000 Btu/
 h and h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner     May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 and Heat Pump, >=135,000 Btu/
 h and h.
Air-cooled Air Conditioner     May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 and Heat Pump, >=240,000 Btu/
 h and h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Water-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,  May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                 6/1/2013
 >=65,000 Btu/h and h.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,  May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                 6/1/2014
 >=135,000 Btu/h and h.
Water-cooled Air Conditioner,  May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                 6/1/2014
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment--Evaporatively-Cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-cooled Air       May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                 6/1/2013
 Conditioner, >=65,000 Btu/h
 and h.
Evaporatively-cooled Air       May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                 6/1/2014
 Conditioner, >=135,000 Btu/h
 and h.
Evaporatively-cooled Air       May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                 6/1/2014
 Conditioner, >=240,000 Btu/h
 and h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Terminal Air          May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air            May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps,
 Air-Cooled, h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,    October 29, 2012...........  May 13, 2013...............               10/29/2012
 Water-source, h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,    May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 Water-source, >=17,000 Btu/h
 and h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps,    May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............               10/29/2013
 Water-source, >=135,000 and
 h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air              October 29, 2012...........  May 13, 2013...............               10/29/2012
 Conditioner, air-cooled/
 water-cooled/water-cooled
 with fluid economizer/glycol-
 cooled, h.
Computer Room Air              May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............               10/29/2013
 Conditioner, air-cooled/
 water-cooled/water-cooled
 with fluid economizer/glycol-
 cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and
 h.

[[Page 28936]]

 
Computer Room Air              May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............               10/29/2013
 Conditioner, air-cooled/
 water-cooled/water-cooled
 with fluid economizer/glycol-
 cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and
 h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Single Package Vertical Units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single Package Vertical Air    July 16, 2012..............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                              Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Storage and          May 13, 2013...............  May 13, 2013...............                      N/A
 Instantaneous Water Heaters
 and Hot Water Supply
 Boilers, Oil-fired Storage
 and Instantaneous Water
 Heaters and Hot Water Supply
 Boilers, and Electric
 Storage and Instantaneous
 Water Heaters.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For those basic models of variable refrigerant flow equipment currently being tested using a test procedure
  waiver, the methods prescribed by the test procedure waiver may continue to be used until the mandatory
  compliance date of the amended test procedure prescribed by this final rule.

III. General Discussion of Comments Received

    In response to its request for comment on the January 2012 NOPR and 
March 2012 SNOPR, DOE received nine written comments from 
manufacturers, trade associations, utilities, and energy efficiency 
advocates. As discussed above, these comments are available in the 
docket for this rulemaking and are available for review by following 
the instructions in the ADDRESSES section. The following sections 
summarize the issues raised in these comments, along with DOE's 
responses.

A. The Definition of ``Amendment'' With Respect to the Efficiency 
Levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE reiterated its position about what 
constitutes an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, thereby triggering 
DOE review. 77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE maintained its 
position originally taken in the July 22, 2009 final rule for ASHRAE 
equipment (74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 22, 2009)) that the trigger to 
review the Federal standard levels for ASHRAE equipment is an increase 
in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, and that other changes do 
not qualify as a trigger for review. Id. Further, DOE noted that 
because 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. 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)) by increasing the energy 
efficiency level for that equipment type. Id. at 10042. DOE noted in 
the January 2012 NOPR that the section cited above refers to ``the 
minimum level * * * specified in the amended ASHRAE standard,'' which 
DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level. 77 FR 2356, 
2364 (Jan. 17, 2012). Consequently, DOE did not review the standard 
levels for commercial warm-air furnaces because the incorporation of 
design requirements did not meet DOE's interpretation of an amendment 
to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that would trigger DOE action. Id.
    Earthjustice stated that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has amended levels 
for warm-air furnaces requiring incorporation of an interrupted or 
intermittent ignition device, a maximum level of jacket losses, and 
either power venting or a flue damper, and that this amendment triggers 
DOE to review the efficiency levels for commercial warm-air furnaces. 
(Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3) Earthjustice stated that DOE's reasoning 
for why no review of commercial warm-air furnaces is needed is flawed, 
because there is nothing in the language of EPCA that suggests that 
only amendments that alter a numeric performance metric trigger DOE's 
obligation for review. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3)
    Earthjustice commented that in the NOPR, DOE's view that ``the 
minimum level'' only refers to the numeric value of an ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 performance standard ignores the fact that EPCA frequently uses 
``level'' and ``standard'' interchangeably. It stated that the language 
of section 342(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) shows that Congress meant for the total 
content of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to serve as the baseline for DOE's 
amended standards, and not for any ASHRAE Standard 90.1 numeric 
performance metric alone to be definitive. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 
4) Earthjustice also stated that EPCA uses the word ``level'' to 
characterize both performance standards and design requirements, 
arguing that section 342(a)(5) specifies ``standard levels'' for 
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired water 
storage tanks, and includes under this heading design requirements for 
tank insulation and ignition devices. Earthjustice also stated that 
section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA provides that there is a rebuttable 
presumption that a ``standard level'' is justified if its costs to the 
consumer can be recouped in three years, and that DOE has applied this 
provision when evaluating design requirements for gas cooking products. 
Earthjustice commented that these other uses of ``level'' in EPCA 
indicates that Congress did not intend to withhold DOE's obligation to 
review the standards for warm-air furnaces when ASHRAE increases the 
stringency of Standard 90.1 while leaving the existing thermal 
efficiency level unchanged. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 4-5)
    Earthjustice stated that even if DOE adopts the position that it 
cannot adopt the particular standards contained in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1, DOE still is

[[Page 28937]]

obligated to examine potential standards for warm-air furnaces. 
(Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3) Earthjustice also asserted that DOE's 
view that EPCA bars it from adopting standards that impose multiple 
metric requirements has been refuted in multiple analyses and is 
erroneous, and attached a memorandum on the central air conditioner 
rule as an example and justification of why multiple metrics are 
allowable. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 5) Earthjustice argued that 
DOE's refusal to grant any weight to the acceptance of multiple design 
requirements for warm-air furnaces into ASHRAE Standard 90.1 contrasts 
with the Department's recognition in the residential furnace rulemaking 
that consensus recommendations enabling the achievement of the 
congressional objectives underlying EPCA should be given special 
consideration when resolving ambiguities in the statutory language. The 
commenter stated that DOE has recognized in the NOPR that the 
``efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are the result of a 
consensus process'' (77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012)) and that ``EPCA 
generally directs DOE to follow ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it is 
amended'' (77 FR 2356, 2372 (Jan. 17, 2012)). (Earthjustice, No. 34 at 
p. 5)
    DOE does not agree with Earthjustice's assertion that DOE is 
required to review changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 that do not 
increase the efficiency level when compared to the current Federal 
energy conservation standards for a given type of equipment. As it did 
in the July 2009 final rule for ASHRAE products, DOE views the trigger 
as attached to an increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 
22, 2009). Further, as noted above, since 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. 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)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that 
equipment type. Id. at 10042. The section cited above refers to ``the 
minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,'' 
which DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level.
    If ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for equipment where an 
efficiency level is already specified, DOE has concluded that it does 
not have the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment 
type. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the Secretary has authority to 
amend the energy conservation standards for specified equipment, but 
under 42 U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute's definition of the term ``energy 
conservation standard'' is limited to: (A) A performance standard that 
prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity 
of energy use for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product.
    The language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance 
standard or a single design standard. As such, DOE maintains its 
position stated in the July 2009 final rule that a standard that 
establishes both a performance standard and a design requirement is 
beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority, as would be a standard that 
included more than one design requirement. 74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22, 
2009). In this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 recommends three design 
requirements, which goes beyond EPCA's limit of one design requirement 
for the specified covered equipment.
    In summary, the statutory scheme envisions DOE being triggered by 
ASHRAE action which provides DOE with a regulatory choice between 
increased ASHRAE levels and even more stringent levels. If ASHRAE has 
not changed the standard level, the regulatory choice contemplated 
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) cannot be made. Furthermore, DOE 
disagrees with the suggestion that Earthjustice's views on the issue of 
the ASHRAE trigger reflects the broad consensus of interested parties, 
thereby deserving special consideration; although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 may be the result of a consensus process, DOE believes 
Earthjustice's view does not represent a broad consensus position among 
all stakeholders, particularly among manufacturers. Moreover, in 
seeking greater deference for consensus recommendations, the commenter 
is alluding to a separate EPCA provision (codified at 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)) in which Congress authorized publication of direct final 
rules upon DOE's receipt of a consensus agreement with recommended 
standards submitted by interested parties who are fairly representative 
of relevant points of view. However, that statutory provision is not 
applicable to the ASHRAE products at issue here. In light of the above, 
DOE maintains its position that 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).

B. DOE's Review of ASHRAE Equipment Independent of the ASHRAE Standards 
Process

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE noted that it plans to implement the 
six-year look back provision in EPCA prospectively and believes that 
the clock for the six-year look back does not commence until a final 
rule is published for a given product or equipment after the enactment 
of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). 77 FR 2356, 2365-66 
(Jan. 17, 2012). For any type of ASHRAE equipment that has not been the 
subject of a final rule since the enactment of EISA 2007, review under 
the look back provision will not be required until after the next 
update of standards is completed following a trigger by updates to the 
corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels. After that point, 
if ASHRAE does not update standards within six years, DOE will be 
compelled to review the standards under the six-year look back 
provision. Id.
    ASAP and NRDC stated that DOE must consider updating standards for 
the ASHRAE products for which there was not a revision if DOE last set 
standards more than six years ago. The commenters referred to the Joint 
Comment on the NODA for the basis of the argument. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 
35 at p. 1-2) Earthjustice also alleged that the NOPR failed to fulfill 
EPCA's legal mandates with respect to multiple products. (Earthjustice, 
No. 34 at p. 1) Earthjustice stated that DOE's position that it has no 
authority to act pursuant to section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) to amend standards 
for ASHRAE equipment until ASHRAE first amends its own standards 
undermines the plain intent of Congress by insulating equipment from 
review, potentially in perpetuity. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2) 
Earthjustice stressed that ``any final rule'' in section 342(a)(6) 
includes all final rules for a covered product no matter when it was 
finalized. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2)
    Earthjustice stated that Congress granted DOE the authority to 
proceed in the face of ASHRAE inaction through a provision added to 
EPCA by section 342(a)(6) of EPACT 2005, which gave DOE the ability to 
act on ASHRAE standards without a trigger. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), 
subsequently amended by EISA 2007) In the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, 
Earthjustice stated that Congress then directed DOE to review standards 
when ASHRAE left

[[Page 28938]]

them unaltered for too long. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Earthjustice 
asserted that the NOPR's reading of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) rolls back the 
clock to 2004, leaving in limbo equipment as to which ASHRAE has been 
inattentive. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2-3) Earthjustice expressed 
its view that DOE must abandon the NOPR's flawed rationale and commence 
a review of the standards for all products for which the existing 
standards are more than six years old. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3)
    In response, DOE notes that it has determined previously that it 
plans to implement the six-year look back provision prospectively and 
believes that the clock for the six-year look back does not commence 
until a final rule is published for a given product or equipment after 
the enactment of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). DOE 
does not believe it was Congress's intention to apply these 
requirements retroactively, so that DOE would immediately be in 
violation of its legal obligations upon passage of the statute, thereby 
failing from its inception.

C. General Discussion of the Changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and 
Determination of Scope

    As discussed above, before beginning an analysis of economic 
impacts and energy savings that would result from adopting the 
efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-
stringent efficiency levels, DOE first sought to determine whether the 
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels represented an increase 
in efficiency above the current Federal standard levels. DOE discussed 
each equipment class where these levels differ from the current Federal 
standard level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion as to the 
action DOE would take with respect to that equipment in the January 
2012 NOPR. See 77 FR 2356, 2366-73 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE tentatively 
concluded from this analysis that the only efficiency levels that 
represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal 
standards were those for certain classes of water-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-
source heat pumps, and computer room air conditioners. For a more 
detailed discussion of this approach, readers should refer to the 
preamble to the January 2012 NOPR. See Id. DOE received two comments on 
this approach.
    AHRI did not agree with DOE's conclusion that it cannot adopt 
separate minimum efficiency standards for three-phase Small Duct High-
Velocity Heat Pumps. AHRI stated that these products are a unique 
subcategory of commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment and that the removal of minimum efficiency standards for 
these products from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 was an error. 
Accordingly, AHRI recommended that DOE specify distinct minimum 
efficiency standards for these models. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2)
    In response, DOE maintains its position as stated in the January 
2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2370-71 (Jan. 17, 2012). More specifically, DOE 
notes that EPCA does not separate small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) heat 
pumps from other types of small commercial package air-conditioning 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 heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(8)(B)) Furthermore, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not propose a 
higher standard for this equipment, and the minimum Federal efficiency 
standards for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7 
HSPF, are more stringent than the levels originally proposed for SDHV 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE cannot adopt lower efficiency levels 
due to the prohibition against ``backsliding.'' As such, DOE is 
prohibited from adopting the original ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 SEER 
requirement for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal standard, and DOE has 
no requirement to consider higher levels for three-phase SDHV 
equipment.
    Mitsubishi expressed its support for DOE's proposal to adopt the 
amended efficiency standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for small, 
large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial 
package air conditioners and especially for the two categories of VRF 
water-source heat pumps. However, Mitsubishi also recommended that DOE 
adopt the full range of capacities for both categories of VRF systems. 
(Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1)
    In response, DOE reiterates its position as stated in the January 
2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2368-69 (Jan. 17, 2012). The efficiency 
requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for air-cooled 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 resistance or no heating. The VRF 
systems with heat recovery specified by ASHRAE may also be provided 
with 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 concluded that 
these systems must meet the efficiency requirements contained in EPCA 
for small, large, and very large air-cooled central air-conditioning 
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 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 air-conditioning heat pumps with other heating, which 
are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9))
    For water-source VRF heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
generally maintains efficiency levels equivalent to the existing 
Federal minimum energy conservation standards for water-source heat 
pumps. DOE has decided that under the statutory scheme for commercial 
equipment standards, a water-source heat pump in which condenser heat 
is rejected to water, not air, is the corresponding existing product 
class for water-source VRF heat pumps. There are only two equipment 
classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels are not equivalent 
to the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standards: (1) For 
VRF water-source heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 raises the efficiency levels above current Federal energy 
conservation standards; (2) For VRF water-source heat pumps over 
135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE sets standards for 
products where DOE did not previously have standards.
    In addition to the changes for the 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

[[Page 28939]]

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 greater 
than or equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h and for water-
source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h) would result in a decrease in 
stringency in comparison to current standards.
    As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting an efficiency level lower 
than the current Federal standards for water-source heat pumps less 
than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity due to the ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) 
providing for adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels.
    In summary, after considering the public comments, DOE has decided 
to retain its approach, as stated in the January 2012 NOPR, that the 
only efficiency levels that represented an increase in efficiency above 
the current Federal standards were those for certain classes of water-
cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and 
heat pumps, VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h and at 
or above 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h in cooling capacity, 
and computer room air conditioners.

D. The Proposed Energy Conservation Standards

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the efficiency 
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for twelve classes of water-cooled 
and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, four classes of VRF water-
source heat pumps, and thirty classes of computer room air 
conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2415-18 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE received several 
comments in response to its proposal.
    EEI endorsed DOE's proposal to adopt the energy efficiency 
standards for the equipment that were updated and published in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) AHRI and Mitsubishi supported 
DOE's adoption of the amended efficiency standards for small, large, 
and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package 
air conditioners and the two categories of variable refrigerant flow 
water-source heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1; Mitsubishi, No. 33 at 
p. 1) The Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that the proposed 
standards are not likely to have an adverse effect on competition. 
(DOJ, No. 37 at p. 2) In reaching this conclusion, DOJ noted the 
absence of any competitive concerns raised by industry participants at 
the public meeting and that the proposed levels corresponded to the 
latest version of the relevant industry consensus standard. Id. Thus, 
for the reasons stated previously, in today's final rule, DOE is 
adopting efficiency levels at the levels published in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010 for twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 
air conditioners and four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps.
    Regarding computer room air conditioners (CRACs), ASAP expressed 
concern that the levels set by DOE should not be weaker than the 
existing California energy conservation standards or lower than the 
levels for other commercial package air conditioners. (ASAP, NOPR 
Public Meeting Transcript at p. 78, 149) ASAP argued: (1) That 
significantly higher efficiency levels are technically feasible for 
CRACs; (2) that there are many models of CRACs on the market that 
exceed the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; and (3) that 
the potential energy savings associated with CRACs are significant and 
should be fully captured to the extent possible. (ASAP, NOPR Public 
Meeting Transcript at p. 132) ASAP and NRDC stated that DOE should 
evaluate whether greater cost-effective savings could be achieved 
through more-stringent standards for CRACs. These commenters suggested 
that the efficiency levels set by the California Energy Commission 
(CEC) may be higher than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for air-
cooled CRACs. In particular, they urged DOE to further evaluate raising 
the standard for air-cooled CRACs >=65,000 Btu/h and h 
and air-cooled CRACs >=240,000 Btu/h, stating that according to DOE's 
analysis in the NOPR, efficiency level three for units at and above 
65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h would be cost-effective and 
would save 0.20 quads, and that efficiency level four for units at and 
above 240,000 Btu/h would be cost-effective and would save 0.21 quads. 
(NRDC and ASAP, No. 35 at p. 2)
    In response, DOE notes that the requirements for adopting Federal 
energy conservation standards for ASHRAE equipment are explicitly set 
forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)) Of particular relevance here, DOE 
must determine if clear and convincing evidence exists that standards 
that are more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would 
save a significant additional amount of energy and would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE determined that 
more-stringent levels would save a significant amount of energy and are 
technologically feasible. 77 FR 2356, 2416-17 (Jan. 17, 2012). 
Accordingly, as required by EPCA, DOE undertook an analysis to examine 
the economic justification of more-stringent energy conservation 
standards for computer room air conditioners. As explained in further 
detail in section VI.D.3 of this notice, due to the limited amount of 
data available regarding equipment cost and efficiency and shipments, 
and the resulting uncertainties in the economic analysis, DOE has 
concluded that it lacks clear and convincing evidence as would justify 
the adoption of more-stringent levels. In considering the comments from 
ASAP and NRDC, DOE examined the analysis leading to the adoption of the 
CEC computer room air conditioner standards. Upon reviewing the 
documentation of the CEC efficiency requirements, DOE did not discover 
any data or information that provided clear and convincing evidence 
that the levels set by the CEC were economically justified on a 
National level. Therefore, consistent with its earlier position, DOE 
has concluded that clear and convincing evidence does not exist that 
would allow the adoption of Federal energy conservation standards for 
computer room air conditioners that are more stringent than the 
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. However, DOE 
anticipates that the adoption of CRAC energy conservation standards in 
today's final rule will lead to the generation of CRAC shipments data 
and other information that will be useful in considering more-stringent 
standards in DOE's next rulemaking related to computer room air 
conditioners.

E. Coverage of Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment Used Exclusively as Part of Industrial or Manufacturing 
Processes

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE offered clarification of how it views 
equipment that is used exclusively for industrial or manufacturing 
processes. DOE explained that if equipment meets the definition of 
``commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' in 10 CFR 
431.92, is used exclusively for manufacturing and/or industrial 
processes, and is not listed as one of the equipment types specifically 
added to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, then DOE believes it is not covered 
under DOE's regulatory program. 77 FR 2356, 2372-73 (Jan. 17, 2012). 
Further, DOE stated that it will make this

[[Page 28940]]

determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts of 
the particular model in question, including how the model is 
advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in buildings, the extent to 
which the equipment provides comfort conditioning to occupants, and how 
the equipment is designed and manufactured. Id. DOE requested comment 
on ways that manufacturers differentiate between equipment that is used 
solely for manufacturing and industrial processes and that used for 
comfort cooling in buildings.
    In response, AHRI commented that manufacturers differentiate air 
conditioners used for manufacturing and industrial processing by: (1) 
Omission (by not rating the model to the Federal efficiency test 
procedure or not listing the model in the manufacturer's catalog of 
comfort cooling and heating products); (2) by incorporating special 
operation features which would not be appropriate for the purpose of 
comfort cooling or heating; or (3) by listing the equipment as 
complying with a safety standard specific for industrial uses and 
processes. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2) Carrier commented that it does not 
differentiate between commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment used in buildings versus those used solely for manufacturing 
and industrial processes. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3) Engineered Air 
stated that a unit for a single-focus, process-driven use should be 
exempt from standards, and the company provided the specific example of 
preconditioned air units that are used under jet bridges at airports to 
cool jet planes. (Engineered Air, No. 36 at p. 1)
    DOE notes that none of the responses provide DOE with a set of 
feature(s) or characteristic(s) associated with the equipment, such as 
a physical characteristic or component, that would allow manufacturers 
and DOE to objectively and consistently differentiate between comfort-
cooling equipment and equipment that is intended solely for industrial 
processes. But the comment responses, in particular Carrier's, point to 
the fact that some manufacturers use the same equipment to serve both 
markets. DOE believes the comment responses illustrate the importance 
for DOE to clearly explain the decision process for DOE and 
manufacturers to determine whether a given basic model is covered by 
DOE's regulatory program.
    As mentioned in the March 2012 SNOPR, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
expanded the scope of its coverage as compared to previous versions of 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 77 FR 16769, 16770 (March 22, 2012). Previous 
versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not apply to equipment and 
portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for 
industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes (see ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2007, section 2.3(c)). As discussed in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE 
still believes it is ASHRAE's intent to continue to exclude most of 
those equipment types that are used for manufacturing and industrial 
processes, despite the fact that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 now applies 
to new equipment or building systems used in manufacturing or 
industrial processes that are specifically identified in the standard 
(i.e., ``air conditioners and condensing units serving computer 
rooms''). Id. at 16774. DOE did not receive any comments suggesting 
that ASHRAE intended a general, rather than limited, broadening of 
coverage regarding these types of equipment.
    In order to aid regulated entities in determining whether their 
equipment falls within the scope of DOE's definition of ``commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment'' and, thus, is subject 
to DOE's regulatory requirements, DOE is providing the following 
guidance. If the equipment meets the definition of ``commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment'' in 10 CFR 431.92, is used 
exclusively for manufacturing and/or industrial processes, and is not 
listed as one of the equipment types specifically added to ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1's scope, then DOE does not consider such equipment to be 
covered under DOE's regulatory program. Manufacturers need to make this 
determination by comparing the characteristics of each basic model to 
DOE's regulatory definitions. Just like manufacturers, DOE will make 
this determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts 
of the particular basic model in question if questions arise regarding 
coverage. In making such determination, DOE will consider factors such 
as how the model is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in 
buildings, the extent to which the equipment provides comfort 
conditioning to occupants, and how the equipment is designed and 
manufactured. For equipment that is used in commercial or industrial 
buildings, that has a design similar to that of equipment used in 
manufacturing processes, but provides comfort conditioning, DOE 
considers such equipment to meet the definition of ``commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment'' and consequently to be covered 
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE notes that the fact that equipment 
may be advertised, marketed, and/or sold as part of industrial or 
manufacturing processes is not a mutually exclusive determination that 
the models are exempt them from coverage by DOE's standards for 
equipment in buildings. In the example of identical equipment used to 
serve both markets, DOE would consider that covered under DOE's 
regulatory program unless a specific basic model had an attribute that 
would preclude it from meeting the definition of ``commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment.''
    All equipment distributed in U.S. commerce that meets DOE's 
definition of ``commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment'' and is not subject to the Department's exclusion guidance 
set forth above must meet the applicable Federal energy conservation 
standards regardless of technology or design.

F. Definitions for Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed the following three 
definitions relating to the newly-covered variable refrigerant flow 
equipment classes--``variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 
conditioners,'' ``variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pumps,'' 
and ``heat recovery'':

    Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner means a 
unit of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment 
that is configured as a split system air-conditioner incorporating a 
single refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least 
one variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination 
for varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and 
multiple indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually 
metered and individually controlled by an integral control device 
and common communications network and which can operate 
independently in response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable 
refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on 
common, inter-connecting piping.
    Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump means a unit of 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that is 
configured as a split system heat pump that uses reverse cycle 
refrigeration as its primary heating source and which may include 
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, 
steam, hot water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a single 
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one 
variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination for 
varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and 
multiple indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually 
metered and individually controlled by a control device and common 
communications network and which can operate independently in 
response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable

[[Page 28941]]

refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on 
common, inter-connecting piping.
    Heat Recovery (in the context of variable refrigerant flow 
multi-split air conditioners or variable refrigerant flow multi-
split heat pumps) means that the air conditioner or heat pump is 
also capable of providing simultaneous heating and cooling 
operation, where recovered energy from the indoor units operating in 
one mode can be transferred to one or more other indoor units 
operating in the other mode. A variable refrigerant flow multi-split 
heat recovery heat pump is a variable refrigerant flow multi-split 
heat pump with the addition of heat recovery capability.

77 FR 2356, 2379-80 (Jan. 17, 2012).

    On this issue, AHRI, Mitsubishi, and Carrier submitted comments 
agreeing with these proposed definitions. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 5, 
Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2, and Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3) DOE received 
no other comments from stakeholders on these definitions. Thus, DOE is 
adopting the definitions as proposed in today's final rule.

IV. Test Procedure Amendments and Discussion of Related Comments

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the DOE test 
procedures for several types of ASHRAE equipment by incorporating the 
most recent version of the industry test methods referenced in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. For certain types of equipment that had not 
previously been subject to energy conservation standards, DOE proposed 
to adopt new test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 
Additionally, DOE conducted a substantive review of all of the test 
procedures that were updated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 in their 
entirety in order to satisfy the 7-year review provision for test 
procedures discussed in section II.A. As part of its review, DOE 
proposed to allow for an optional break-in period to allow the unit to 
achieve optimal performance before testing for small, large, and very 
large commercial air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow air 
conditioners and heat pumps, and single package vertical air 
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. 77 FR 2356, 2424-
33 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to include in 
its test procedures several clarifying provisions, along with certain 
provisions (with some modification) from AHRI operations manuals (AHRI 
OMs) that would harmonize equipment testing so that it is performed 
consistently at all test laboratories. 77 FR 16769, 16781-82 (March 22, 
2012). The updates to the test procedures being adopted as part of 
today's rule are discussed in the subsections immediately below.
    DOE received a general comment about the 7-year review process for 
test procedure updates from AHRI. AHRI commented that the 7-year review 
requirement is too infrequent, because most AHRI and ASHRAE standards 
are amended at intervals of 5 years or less. Therefore, AHRI asserted 
that DOE should conduct test procedure rulemakings to incorporate by 
reference new or revised industry test procedures once they are 
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2)
    In response, DOE notes that the 7-year requirement stems from 42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A), which requires that DOE shall conduct an 
evaluation of the test procedures for any covered equipment class and 
either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that 
amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the 
requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish a notice in the 
Federal Register of any determination not to amend a test procedure. 
This requirement compels DOE to take action on any test procedure that 
has not been reviewed within a 7-year timeframe. For the test 
procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE is also guided by EPCA 
that if an industry test procedure referenced in DOE's regulations is 
updated, DOE must assess the updated industry procedure and amend the 
test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent with the 
amended industry test procedure or rating procedure, unless DOE 
determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed 
to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy 
use, or estimated annual operating costs of the ASHRAE product during a 
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(4)) Thus, 
given that DOE has two triggers for reviewing the test procedures for 
covered ASHRAE equipment--the 7-year review requirement and the 
requirement for review subsequent to an update of the industry 
standard--DOE will consider any industry test procedure revisions in a 
timely manner.
    As noted above, in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE examined the AHRI 
operations manuals to identify areas where potential clarification to 
the DOE test procedure for commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment may be needed and proposed to include several 
clarifications in the Federal test procedures. 77 FR 16769, 16774-79 
(March 22, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to omit section 
6.5 from AHRI 210/240-2008, section 6.3 of AHRI 340/360-2007, section 
5.11 from ASHRAE 127-2007, section 6.4 from AHRI 390-2003, and section 
6.6 from AHRI 1230-2010 from its regulations at 10 CFR 431.96, which 
provide tolerance values for ratings of tested equipment to comply with 
that standard. Instead, DOE clarified that manufacturers must follow 
the equipment type-specific procedures in 10 CFR 429 when determining 
whether equipment ratings are within acceptable tolerance limits. DOE 
also issued guidance on various other aspects of testing, including 
defective samples, test set-up, enhancement devices, refrigerant 
charge, and rating air flow rates. 77 FR 16769, 16777-78 (March 22, 
2012). DOE determines whether a unit is defective on a case-by-case 
basis as part of its certification and enforcement program as listed in 
10 CFR 429.110(d)(3). As a general guidance for remaining topics, DOE 
will only consider information contained in the equipment's 
installation and operations manual (I&O manual) for conducting 
assessment and enforcement testing. That is, DOE will install the 
equipment for testing as is outlined in the I&O manual using any 
enhancement devices that are documented in the I&O manual as being a 
part of the equipment's basic model. If the I&O manual specifies a 
range of refrigerant charge or pressure, it will be valid for the 
equipment to be tested using any refrigerant charge within that range, 
unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise in the I&O manual. If the 
I&O manual does not specify a rating air flow rate for testing, DOE 
will use the nominal air flow rate (typically 400 scfm/ton) for 
testing.
    In response to the SNOPR, stakeholders submitted comments on DOE's 
clarifications related to tolerances in its test procedures. Rheem did 
not support DOE's decision with regard to the tolerances. Rheem stated 
that the current DOE regulations clearly incorporate by reference the 
entire ARI Standard 340/360-2004, including section 6.3 relating to 
tolerances, and that DOE's attempt to excise this protocol is 
procedurally inappropriate and at odds with the congressional balancing 
or regulatory determination that resulted in the current energy 
conservation standards; and, thus, it is illegal. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 
2) EEI recommended that DOE not tighten the tolerance of test procedure 
results because this would increase costs to the manufacturers of 
testing equipment and to commercial customers. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 1) 
Carrier commented that the issue of AHRI 340/360 tolerances does not 
apply to initial ratings, and it also stated that AHRI is in the 
process of modifying

[[Page 28942]]

this requirement to adopt the note in section 6.5 of AHRI 210/240, 
which states that ``[p]roducts covered by the National Appliance Energy 
Conservation Act (NAECA) shall be rated in accordance with 10 CFR Part 
430, Section 24 m (1)(i)-(ii)'' so that DOE will not have to make an 
exception to the AHRI procedure. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5) AHRI stated 
that the tolerances specified in AHRI 340/360 do not apply to ratings 
that are certified to DOE but applies only to verification testing 
conducted by AHRI. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) AHRI also commented that any 
issues pertaining to certification and enforcement should be addressed 
in a future NOPR for that topic. However, AHRI commented that DOE's 
policy of not applying a tolerance to the results of an assessment test 
is inconsistent with both DOE's certification procedures and the 
fundamental nature of any empirical test method. AHRI reasoned that is 
it wrong for DOE to employ a ``zero tolerance'' policy for assessment 
tests, arguing that DOE should try to harmonize the sampling plan 
probability levels between enforcement and assessment testing and 
further noting that the sampling plan for three-phase HVAC systems 
should not be more stringent than residential HVAC systems. (AHRI, No. 
30 at p. 6-8) Rheem also encouraged DOE to open a separate rulemaking, 
including public hearings and stakeholder discussions, with regard to 
the proposed changes related to testing and compliance with energy 
conservation standards. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 1)
    In response, DOE reiterates what it stated in the March 2012 SNOPR, 
that it has its own tolerances as part of its certification and 
enforcement program that have been established since 2006. 77 FR 16769, 
16777 (March 22, 2012). As AHRI notes in its comments, the tolerances 
in the AHRI standards do not apply to DOE's regulatory program and only 
apply to AHRI's verification program. Omitting the specific section on 
the tolerances used in AHRI's verification program from being 
incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure does not change how 
manufacturers have to conduct testing for DOE's regulatory program and 
how DOE conducts verification or enforcement testing. Omission of the 
AHRI verification program tolerances only serves to clarify to 
manufacturers that DOE does not employ AHRI's verification tolerance, 
which is a flat 5-percent tolerance, in its regulatory program. DOE 
believes this will help alleviate any confusion that may be introduced 
from the different tolerances used as part of DOE's regulatory program 
and AHRI's verification program.
    As to AHRI's specific comment regarding a tolerance associated with 
assessment testing conducted by DOE, DOE's regulations do not include a 
specific tolerance that is applied to an assessment test. DOE disagrees 
with commenters who suggest that DOE employs a zero-percent tolerance 
policy on any assessment test conducted. DOE specifically adopted 
provisions, which allow it to conduct enforcement testing if DOE has 
reason to believe that a basic model is not in compliance. 10 CFR 
429.110. While DOE has the authority under the statute to, at any time, 
test a basic model to assess whether the basic model is in compliance 
with the applicable energy conservation standard(s), assessment testing 
is only one method DOE utilizes to better inform its decision making 
when deciding whether to pursue enforcement testing. See 10 CFR 
429.104; 76 FR 12422, 12495 (March 7, 2011). Should DOE decide to 
revisit its current approach for assessment testing, it would do so in 
the next certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking.
    DOE also received other comments on its guidance on other aspects 
of testing as well. AHRI stated that the AHRI operation manuals only 
provide clarification and detailed instructions on how the AHRI 
certification program conducts those test procedures and do not counter 
or revise the Federal efficiency test methods. The commenter 
acknowledged that DOE is not required to consider including guidelines 
or checklists in AHRI operations manuals in the Federal test procedure, 
but it did encourage DOE to use the guidelines in any verification 
testing. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 6) Rheem commented that DOE should use the 
guidelines in the AHRI operations manual in any testing done by DOE to 
ensure proper and consistent testing and evaluation of a product's 
performance. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2) Rheem also commented that DOE's 
proposed changes in 10 CFR 431.96(e) are new and previously 
unannounced, and the company does not see the logic or utility in 
providing certification or testing specifications in installation and 
operations manuals used in the field. Rheem argued that the industry 
would need a minimum of 6 months to revise its technical literature if 
this requirement were to be imposed and that the industry should be 
allowed to supplement printed material through its Web site or other 
electronic means. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2)
    In response to these comments, DOE agrees that testing should be 
done in a consistent manner to achieve a level playing field for all 
manufacturers, as reflected in the proposed test procedure amendments 
which DOE published for notice and comment. By adopting some of the 
guidance in the AHRI OMs, DOE hopes to clarify what is and is not 
allowed during testing conducted by manufacturers for DOE's regulatory 
program and DOE-initiated testing. In certain cases, the AHRI OMs 
require manufacturers to provide information related to testing that is 
not publically disclosed. DOE reiterates its position in the January 
2012 NOPR and the March 2012 SNOPR that if manufacturers have specific 
conditions or instructions used in generating their energy efficiency 
ratings, they must be clearly provided in the I&O manual shipped with 
the unit. 77 FR 2356, 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012); 77 FR 16769, 16778 (March 
22, 2012). In DOE's view, the commercial customer has a right to know 
the operating conditions that are used to generate the certified 
efficiency values, including rated airflow and rated capacity.
    Regarding Rheem's assertion that a minimum of 6 months would be 
required to update technical literature to accommodate this 
requirement, DOE notes that the compliance dates are as specified in 
the DATES section of this notice and any testing done after the 
compliance dates would incorporate all additions to the DOE test 
procedure in this final rule; these compliance dates generally provide 
6 months or more for manufacturers to make any requisite changes to 
their I&O manuals. DOE may also reference online specification sheets 
for rated information prior to the compliance date of the test 
procedure amendments, provided that those specification sheets contain 
specific version numbers, revision dates, and rating information; 
however, DOE reiterates that it is adopting provisions that require 
manufacturers to disclose any rated conditions for testing in the 
information shipped with the units themselves in this final rule. DOE 
notes that when manufacturers are required to comply with the 
certification provisions for most types of the commercial equipment 
subject to this rulemaking, DOE will use the rated values certified by 
the manufacturers in addition to any information in the installation 
and operation manuals.

A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

    As explained in the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, DOE 
examined the differences between the current DOE test procedure and the

[[Page 28943]]

updated industry test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 for small,\7\ large, and very large commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment. 76 FR 25622, 25634-36 (May 5, 
2011); 77 FR 2356, 2373-74 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the January 2012 NOPR, 
DOE proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-2008 into the 
Federal test procedure for small (h cooling capacity) 
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment and AHRI 340/
360-2007 into the Federal test procedure for small (>=65,000 Btu/h and 
h cooling capacity), large, and very large commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment. Id. Additionally, in 
the January 2012 NOPR, DOE also proposed to add an optional ``break-
in'' period (no more than 16 hours) for small, large, and very large 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ EPCA defines ``small commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment'' as ``commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment that is rated below 135,000 Btu/h (cooling 
capacity).'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) ASHRAE 90.1-2010 generally 
divides covered commercial package air conditioners into the 
following class sizes: (1) h; (2) >=65,000 and h; (3) >=135,000 and h; and (4) >=240,000 Btu/h and 
h. Thus, ``small'' commercial package air conditioners, 
as defined by EPCA, are split into two size classes in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010: (1) h and (2) >=65,000 and h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Mitsubishi and EEI supported DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 210/
240-2008 and AHRI 340/360-2007. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1-2 and EEI, 
No. 29 at p. 2) Rheem and Engineered Air also supported DOE's proposed 
adoption of AHRI 340/360-2007. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3 and Engineered 
Air, No. 36 at p. 2) AHRI recommended that DOE should also include 
addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 210/240-2008 as part of the review process and 
adopt them as appropriate. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) These addenda made 
several updates to the test standard, which are discussed in detail in 
the paragraphs immediately below. Carrier urged DOE to adopt addenda 1 
and 2 to AHRI 210/240-2008 as well. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2) Carrier 
also noted that DOE should also adopt addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 340/360-
2007, which specify tolerances on external static pressures and include 
a correction on the test method for integrated energy efficiency ratio 
(IEER), and encouraged DOE to check with AHRI regarding the latest 
addenda prior to finalizing its rulemaking. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2)
    In response to stakeholder comments, DOE reviewed the addenda to 
AHRI 210/240-2008 and to AHRI 340/360-2007. The addenda to AHRI 210/
240-2008 generally replace any references to the part-load metric 
(i.e., integrated part load value (IPLV)) with references to the new 
part load metric (i.e., IEER). The addenda to AHRI 340/360-2007 expand 
the scope of the standard to include air-cooled package unitary air 
conditioners with cooling capacities from 250,000 Btu/h to less than 
760,000 Btu/h, add a -0.00 inch H2O to a 0.05 inch 
H2O tolerance to the external static pressure test 
condition, and add an external static pressure equation and a tolerance 
to the leaving dry-bulb temperature to the IEER part-load test. Because 
DOE does not regulate part-load performance of commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment and because the external static 
pressure tolerance update harmonizes the required measurements with 
those in the test procedure for residential air-conditioning equipment, 
DOE determined that the addenda would not impact the Federal energy 
efficiency ratings for small, large, and very large commercial air 
conditioners and heat pumps. As noted above, EPCA directs DOE to review 
and adopt the most recent version of industry test procedures for 
equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, provided that the industry 
test procedures are not unduly burdensome to conduct and provide an 
accurate assessment of the energy efficiency or energy use of the 
equipment. Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-
2008 with addenda 1 and 2 and AHRI 340/360-2008 with addenda 1 and 2 in 
10 CFR 431.96.
    On the topic of compressor break-in periods, Rheem supported DOE's 
proposal of a break-in period of 16 hours for small commercial 
equipment and recommended the same amount of time for large and very 
large equipment. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3) Carrier also supported the 
inclusion of a compressor break-in period for small, large, and very 
large commercial air conditioners and heat pumps and stated that a 16- 
to 20-hour compressor break-in period at 95 [deg]F would be sufficient. 
However, Carrier also commented that to reduce the time equipment is in 
the test room, the break-in run may sometimes be conducted outside the 
test room, in which case ambient air temperature may be lower than the 
95 [deg]F specified in the test method. When the ambient air 
temperature is lower than 95 [deg]F, Carrier stated that longer break-
in times of up to 50 hours may be necessary. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2) 
AHRI also agreed that a compressor break-in period is necessary for 
small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment, but it recommended, based on AHRI's experience, that 
the compressor break-in should be at minimum 16 hours. AHRI recommended 
that DOE allow a compressor break-in period to be the longer of 16 
hours or the amount of time it takes for the system to achieve four 
consecutive 30-minute averages of cooling capacity that do not deviate 
more than 2 percent between each average and 1 percent from hour to 
hour. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) Mitsubishi supported the same approach as 
AHRI. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1-2)
    DOE believes that setting a minimum compressor break-in period, as 
suggested by AHRI and Mitsubishi, would unnecessarily increase testing 
cost to manufacturers whose equipment could stabilize in less than 16 
hours. Interested parties did not provide additional data supporting 
how ambient temperatures may impact compressor break-in time and why a 
longer break-in time may be warranted. To Carrier's comment regarding 
the ambient conditions for the break-in period, DOE does not always 
perform the break-in period in a conditioned space at 95 [deg]F. DOE 
believes that running the break-in period in a conditioned room adds 
unnecessary burden on both the industry and on DOE for testing, given 
the unknown impact on product performance. DOE is reluctant to add an 
ambient temperature requirement to the break-in period in absence of 
data suggesting there is a large impact on product performance. DOE's 
proposal in the NOPR matched the 16-hour maximum period used by AHRI in 
its Operations Manual for Unitary Large Equipment Certification 
Program, so DOE is puzzled by AHRI's comment suggesting deviation from 
this approach. Therefore, DOE is not adopting a minimum length for the 
break-in period. Rather, DOE is adopting a break-in period that will 
allow manufacturers to run equipment for any amount of time up to a 
maximum time limit of up to 20 hours, as suggested by Carrier, because 
DOE believes that the comments indicate that a break-in period of 
slightly longer than the 16 hours proposed in the NOPR may be required 
for certain equipment. DOE recognizes that different compressors will 
require different amounts of break-in time to achieve optimal 
performance and appreciates the suggestion by AHRI and Mitsubishi to 
determine the length of the break-in period based on the stabilization 
of equipment's cooling capacity. However, DOE notes that determining 
the break-in period using a method based on stabilizing cooling 
capacity would require the testing entity

[[Page 28944]]

to continually monitor cooling capacity, which DOE believes may 
increase the testing burden. Therefore, DOE is not adopting a provision 
requiring that the break-in period, if used, be determined in any 
specific manner, but rather is adopting a provision that gives the 
manufacturer the option of determining the appropriate length of the 
break-in period using any method deemed appropriate up to a maximum 
time limit of 20 hours. The lack of a minimum time limit allows the 
manufacturer to conduct the break-in at its discretion or to allow any 
break-in period below the maximum time limit that the manufacturer 
feels is necessary and appropriate, and, thus, minimizes the burden of 
this addition to the test procedure. The maximum time limit on the 
optional compressor break-in period prevents an indefinite amount of 
time being allowed if a unit were to not stabilize and achieve optimal 
performance. Thus, DOE is adopting an optional compressor break-in 
allowing manufacturers to conduct a break-in period for any amount of 
time deemed necessary by the manufacturer, up to a maximum period of 20 
hours. Any manufacturer who elects to use this optional compressor 
break-in period in its certification testing should record this 
information (including the duration) in the test data underlying the 
certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 
429.71. DOE will use the exact same break-in period for any DOE-
initiated testing as the manufacturer used in its certified ratings. In 
the case an alternate efficiency determination method (AEDM) is used to 
develop the certified ratings, DOE will use the maximum 20-hour break-
in period, which DOE believes will provide the unit sufficient time to 
stabilize and achieve optimal performance.

B. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters

    In the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, DOE examined and 
proposed to incorporate by reference the three updated test procedures 
for commercial warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters 
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010: UL 727-2006 for commercial 
oil-fired warm-air furnaces, ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired 
warm-air furnaces, and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 for commercial water heaters. 
76 FR 25622, 25636-37 (May 5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2374-76 (Jan. 17, 
2012). DOE tentatively determined that the changes in the updated test 
procedures do not substantially impact the measurement of energy 
efficiency for commercial warm-air furnaces or commercial water 
heaters. In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE also explained its position on 
tolerances and test-set up for conducting the tests for this equipment. 
77 FR 16769, 16777-78 (March 22, 2012).
    In response to the January 2012 NOPR, AHRI supported DOE's proposal 
for adopting UL 727-2006 and ANSI Z21.47-2006, but it recommended that 
DOE should incorporate the latest version of ANSI Z21.10.3 (i.e., the 
2011 version of the standard). AHRI added that the thermal efficiency 
and standby loss tests in that edition of the ANSI standard have not 
changed from the 2004 edition, which is the version that DOE had 
proposed to adopt in the NOPR. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1 and 3) Rheem also 
supported the adoption of ANSI Z21.10.3 for commercial water heating 
equipment but similarly urged DOE to adopt the 2011 version of that 
standard. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3) EEI endorsed DOE's adoption of all 
the proposed test procedures for commercial warm-air furnaces and 
commercial water heaters. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2)
    DOE was triggered under EPCA to review and adopt the most recent 
version of the industry test methods for equipment covered by ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, provided that the industry test method meets the 
requirements of EPCA for test procedures. In response to the comments 
from AHRI and Rheem, DOE reviewed the 2011 version of ANSI Z21.10.3. 
DOE agrees with Rheem and AHRI that adopting ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 would 
not alter the DOE test method or the energy efficiency ratings for 
commercial water heaters as compared to adopting ANSI Z21.10.3-2004, 
which was proposed for adoption in the NOPR. However, when reviewing 
ANSI Z21.10.3-2011, DOE discovered an apparent error in the text of 
Exhibit G, Efficiency Test Procedures, in section G.1, Thermal 
Efficiency Test. The relevant text states that ``[w]ater-tube water 
heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for 
Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.'' 
DOE notes that Figure 3 in ANSI Z1.10.3-2011 deals with direct vent 
terminal clearances, and that Figure 2 is titled ``Arrangement for 
Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters,'' 
and depicts the test set-up for water-tube water heaters. Therefore, 
DOE believes this was a drafting error and that the correct figure to 
reference would be Figure 2. DOE is adopting such correction in today's 
final rule. In all other regards, DOE has concluded that ANSI Z21.10.3-
2011 meets the requirements of EPCA for incorporation into DOE's test 
procedures, and it is the most up-to-date version of the industry 
standard that is currently available. Thus, DOE is incorporating by 
reference ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 for commercial water heaters. DOE is also 
incorporating by reference UL 727-2006 for commercial oil-fired warm-
air furnaces, ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired warm-air 
furnaces, as proposed in the January 2012 NOPR.
    DOE did not receive any comments specifically related to commercial 
warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters on the issues of 
tolerances, defective units, and test set-up. For the same reasons 
explained in section IV.A, DOE is not adopting AHRI's tolerances, will 
determine if a unit is defective on a case-by-case basis according to 
10 CFR 429.110(d)(3), and will set up equipment for testing using only 
the equipment's I&O manual shipped with the unit.

C. Computer Room Air Conditioners

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference 
ASHRAE 127-2007 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for 
computer room air conditioners, which was the test procedure referenced 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 77 FR 2356, 2376 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE 
believes that this industry test procedure is best suited to measure 
the energy efficiency of computer room air conditioners due to its 
emphasis on the sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) metric. SCOP 
emphasizes the computer room air conditioners' sensible cooling \8\ 
ability, which is the predominant type of heating load in computer 
rooms. Energy efficiency ratio (EER), on the other hand, incorporates 
latent cooling, which could be detrimental in large quantities for 
computer rooms, because too much latent cooling could dry out the 
computer room, potentially causing harmful static discharges. DOE also 
asked for comment regarding the use of a compressor ``break-in'' period 
for this equipment, part-load performance and potential shortcomings of 
the SCOP metric, and how to treat the potential revisions of ASHRAE 
127-2007 released as draft for public review on July 14, 2011 . The new 
ASHRAE 127-2012, officially released on February 24, 2012, introduces a 
new efficiency metric

[[Page 28945]]

called net sensible coefficient of performance (NSenCOP) to replace the 
SCOP metric, which had caused some confusion with another term in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with the same acronym. Also, NSenCOP now 
incorporates the electric usage of the heat rejection equipment used by 
fluid-cooled computer room air conditioners (SCOP omitted this electric 
power in its equations).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Sensible cooling'' is the cooling effect that causes an 
increase in the dry-bulb temperature, which is the actual 
temperature of the air. ``Latent cooling'' is the cooling effect 
that causes a decrease in the wet-bulb temperature or the moisture 
content of the air, which is similar to the temperature one feels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also notes that even though AHRI does not currently have a 
certification program or operations manual for this equipment, the same 
DOE guidance that applies to commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment for determining the appropriate test set-up, 
enhancement devices, refrigerant charge, rating air flow rates, and 
whether a test sample is defective (as explained in section IV.A) is 
applicable for this equipment.
    In response to the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2012 SNOPR, EEI 
endorsed DOE's adoption of the ASHRAE 127 test procedures for computer 
room air conditioners. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) NEEA stated that DOE 
should review the possibility of adopting ASHRAE 127-2012 as the test 
procedure for computer room air conditioners because the updated test 
procedure has now been finalized. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1) AHRI and NEEA 
commented that there are significant improvements in the new draft of 
ASHRAE 127 (ASHRAE 127-2012) which would provide a more representative 
efficiency rating and allow for a better selection of models for any 
specific application and would provide some new efficiency metrics. 
(AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4 and NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1) AHRI suggested that DOE 
should delay the rulemaking in order to adopt the revised ASHRAE 127-
2012 test procedure and not adopt the current ASHRAE 127-2007 test 
procedure. AHRI further commented that if DOE adopts the ASHRAE 127-
2007 test procedure, it would be an injudicious use of resources and an 
unnecessary burden on manufacturers, because manufacturers would have 
to spend significant time and money to comply with the 2007 version of 
ASHRAE and then more time and money to retest all their models using 
ASHRAE 127-2012, when it is adopted in the next ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
rulemaking. AHRI asserted that delaying the rulemaking in order to 
adopt the revised ASHRAE Standard 127 would not be a lost opportunity 
for energy savings but that it would provide a better opportunity for 
effective energy savings because of improved metrics, additional 
application classes, and added rating conditions. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 
4) In addition, ASAP commented that the SCOP metric (in ASHRAE 127-
2007) does not reflect very well how computer room air conditioners 
perform in the field and that energy saving technologies such as 
variable speed fans are not captured in the SCOP metric. Instead, ASAP 
urged DOE to consider a test procedure with a metric that does capture 
part-load performance. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 
43-44). Similarly, NEEA urged DOE to value part-load operation 
efficiency of CRACs more than full-load operation efficiency, because 
in the field, computer room air conditioners tend to be oversized and 
operate at part-load most or all of the time. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2)
    In response, DOE notes that EPCA provides the requirements for 
adopting amended or new standards for ASHRAE equipment. When the 
efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are updated with respect to 
covered equipment, DOE must either adopt those levels as Federal 
standards within 18 months of the publication of the most recent 
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, or adopt more stringent Federal levels 
within 30 months. Once ASHRAE decides to act by amending Standard 90.1, 
EPCA does not provide DOE with discretion to delay the adoption of 
minimum standards pending test procedure updates as AHRI suggests. 
Because DOE must adopt energy conservation standards for computer room 
air conditioners within the time constraints laid out by EPCA, DOE must 
also adopt a test method for determining compliance with the minimum 
standard. DOE has found that ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 meets the 
statutory requirements for incorporation into DOE's test procedures and 
is appropriate for rating CRACs using the SCOP metric. In contrast, the 
new ASHRAE 127-2012 standard is not referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010, and, as a result, the efficiency levels that DOE considered were 
based on ASHRAE 127-2007. In order to justify the adoption of 
efficiency levels other than those contained in the most recent version 
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE notes that it would have to provide clear 
and convincing evidence that such levels are technologically feasible 
and economically justified. Due to the fact that ASHRAE 127-2012 has 
only been recently finalized, DOE was unable to find any test data 
showing the results of testing to this standard, and how the results 
compare to those obtained using the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 
127. Therefore, there is no basis for DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127-2012 and 
corresponding standards at this time. DOE believes that pursuing the 
use of the updated industry test procedure standard would unnecessarily 
delay the rulemaking for computer room air conditioners, and 
ultimately, the result would be that not enough information is 
available to promulgate standards at levels other than those in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. If the ASHRAE 127-2012 test method and 
corresponding efficiency levels using the new metric are included in 
the next version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE will review the amended 
test procedure and efficiency levels at that time, as required by EPCA.
    For the above reasons, in today's rulemaking, DOE is adopting a 
test procedure for computer room air conditioners by incorporating by 
reference ASHRAE 127-2007.
    Regarding the break-in period for computer room air conditioners, 
AHRI commented that computer room air conditioners should be allowed 
the same opportunity for a compressor break-in period as the other 
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. (AHRI, No. 
30 at p. 6) At the February 14, 2012 NOPR public meeting, Emerson 
stated that for all compressors, the break-in period is essential to 
stabilize the compressor's performance and efficiency. (Emerson, Public 
Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 49)
    Because computer room air conditioners mainly use scroll 
compressors like other commercial package air conditioners, DOE agrees 
that computer room manufacturers should be allowed the same opportunity 
for an optional compressor ``break-in'' period. Thus, DOE is adopting 
the same provision for an optional compressor break-in as it is 
adopting for other commercial air-conditioning equipment. Manufacturers 
may opt to use a break-in period for computer room air conditioners for 
any length of time, up to a maximum time of 20 hours. Manufacturers who 
elect to use this optional compressor break-in period in its 
certification testing should record this information (including the 
duration) as part of the test data underlying the certified ratings 
that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.

D. Variable Refrigerant Flow Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

    In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 1230-
2010 with addendum 1 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for 
variable refrigerant

[[Page 28946]]

flow equipment and is adopting the use of an optional compressor break-
in period for variable refrigerant flow equipment. DOE initially 
discussed its proposals for testing this equipment in the January 2012 
NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2377-78 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE 
asked for comment regarding the need for a compressor break-in period 
longer than 16 hours for this equipment class. 77 FR 16769, 16776-77 
(March 22, 2012). Also in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to allow a 
manufacturer representative to witness assessment and enforcement 
testing and to adjust the compressor speed during testing, and DOE 
requested comment on these proposals. Id. at 16778-79. In the SNOPR, 
DOE also stated that manufacturers must document their certification 
set-up (including the fixed compressor speed) and maintain this 
documentation as part of their test data underlying certification so 
that DOE can request the documentation from the manufacturer on an as-
needed basis. Id. Lastly, DOE proposed in the March 2012 SNOPR to adopt 
correction factors for the refrigerant line lengths for VRF systems 
only in instances where the physical constraints of the testing 
laboratory require a longer than minimum refrigerant line length. Id. 
at 16779. DOE also sought comment from stakeholders about its proposal 
to include these refrigerant line length correction factors.
    Mitsubishi, Carrier, and EEI agreed with DOE's proposed adoption of 
AHRI 1230-2010 with addenda 1 for VRF systems. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at 
p. 2, Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3, and EER, No. 29 at p. 2) There were no 
comments from stakeholders objecting to this proposal. DOE agrees with 
the submitted comments and is incorporating by reference AHRI 1230-2010 
with addenda 1 into the Federal test procedure for VRF systems as part 
of today's final rule.
    With respect to the break-in period for VRF systems, AHRI commented 
that VRF systems should be allowed the same compressor break-in period 
as it recommended for small, large, and very large commercial package 
air conditioners and heat pumps--the longer of 16 hour or the amount of 
time it takes for the system to complete 4 consecutive 30-minute cycles 
where the cooling capacity does not vary by more than 2 percent between 
each average and 1 percent from hour to hour. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4) 
Carrier stated that the compressor break-in period for VRF systems 
should be the same as for other commercial package air conditioners and 
heat pumps, as noted in section IV.A.
    DOE agrees with these comments and believes that the break-in 
period for VRF equipment should be the same as that for other 
commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps. Thus, DOE is 
adopting an optional compressor break-in period that allows 
manufacturers to break in VRF equipment prior to testing for any length 
of time up to a maximum of 20 hours. Manufacturers who elect to use 
this optional compressor break-in period during certification testing 
should record this information (including the duration) as part of the 
test data underlying the certified ratings that is required to be 
maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
    DOE also received several comments regarding the limited 
manufacturer involvement in assessment and enforcement testing proposed 
in the SNOPR. AHRI agreed with DOE's proposal to allow limited 
manufacturer involvement in the testing of VRF systems. (AHRI, No. 30 
at p. 9) Carrier also supported allowing limited manufacturer 
involvement during testing of VRF systems in order to ensure that the 
system has been set up properly and to lock compressor speeds for 
regulatory testing. However, Carrier extended that logic, arguing that 
the need for limited manufacturer involvement is not unique to VRF 
systems and that all commercial equipment is typically commissioned by 
a factory-trained person and should be allowed limited manufacturer 
involvement during testing as well. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5) 
Mitsubishi agreed with DOE's proposal to allow limited manufacturer 
involvement but suggested that the language be revised to allow the 
manufacturer representative to adjust the ``modulating components'' and 
not just to fix the compressor speed in order to achieve stabilization. 
(Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 3) More specifically, Mitsubishi commented 
that permissible manufacturer involvement should be clarified to allow 
manufacturers to properly interface with the unit control and 
communication system, to modulate control equipment in response to test 
room cycles, and to require factory-trained and certified installation 
technicians. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2)
    DOE believes that due to the unusually complicated nature of VRF 
systems, manufacturer involvement is necessary to ensure that the 
system operates properly during testing; however, DOE does not agree 
with Carrier's suggestion that the manufacturers also be allowed to 
assist in testing for other more typical commercial equipment. As noted 
in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE believes that, unlike the conventional 
unitary market, a representative from the VRF manufacturer's company 
will typically provide on-site expertise when a VRF system is installed 
in a building in order to help ensure proper operation. 77 FR 16769, 
16779 (March 22, 2012). In the conventional unitary market, trained 
general contractors can set up the commercial unitary equipment in the 
field without direct involvement from a manufacturer representative, 
and, thus, it would be reasonable to assume that test laboratories will 
be able to set up and run the test procedure for commercial unitary 
equipment without manufacturer involvement. DOE agrees with 
Mitsubishi's comment that VRF manufacturers might need to adjust more 
than just the compressor speed and is revising the language to allow 
manufacturers to adjust only the ``modulating components'' during 
testing in the presence of a DOE representative in order to achieve 
steady-state operation. Thus, DOE will allow manufacturer involvement 
in the testing of VRF systems under the condition that the manufacturer 
representative adjust only the modulating components in the presence of 
a DOE representative and that the manufacturer documents the test set-
up and fixed compressor speeds as part of the test data underlying the 
certified ratings.
    Lastly, regarding the refrigerant line correction factors proposed 
in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE received several comments. AHRI and 
Mitsubishi agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate the refrigerant 
line length correction factors into the DOE test procedure for VRF 
equipment. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 9 and Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 3) 
Carrier also commented that all VRF equipment should be tested with the 
standard line lengths as defined by the appropriate rating standard for 
which minimum efficiency requirements were developed. (Carrier, No. 28 
at p. 5)
    DOE agrees that manufacturers should be required to use the minimum 
refrigerant line lengths in AHRI 1230-2010 but also recognizes that 
there may be circumstances (i.e., the physical limitations of the 
laboratory) where this is not possible. Only in such cases, DOE will 
allow manufacturers to use correction factors in their calculations. 
Thus, DOE is adopting the minimum refrigerant line length correction 
factors, which are only to be used in instances where it is not 
possible to set up the test using the line lengths listed in Table 3 of 
AHRI 1230-2010.

[[Page 28947]]

E. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

    In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference 
AHRI 390-2003 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for single 
package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat 
pumps and proposed to adopt an optional compressor ``break-in'' period 
of no more than 16 hours. 77 FR 2356, 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the 
March 2012 SNOPR DOE asked for comment about the need for a longer 
break-in period for this equipment class. 77 FR 16769, 16776-77 (March 
22, 2012).
    Mitsubishi and EEI agreed with DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 390-
2003 for single package vertical air conditioners and single package 
vertical heat pumps. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2 and EEI, No. 29 at p. 
2) Carrier commented that single package vertical equipment with a 
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h should be rated 
according to AHRI 340/360-2007 with addenda 1 and 2 in order to ensure 
consistency in testing and rating vertical package and other commercial 
packaged equipment. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3)
    In response to stakeholder comment, DOE notes that EPCA directs DOE 
to review the test procedures as referenced in the most recent version 
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 references AHRI 390-
2003 as the test method for all classes of SPVUs. Upon reviewing AHRI 
390-2003, DOE believes that the standard is reasonably designed to 
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and 
estimated operating costs of all classes of single package vertical air 
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, as required by 
EPCA for adoption. Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 
390-2003 as the Federal test procedure for single package vertical air 
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps as required by 
EPCA.
    Regarding the break-in period for SPVUs, AHRI commented that SPVUs 
should be allowed the same compressor break-in period as AHRI 
recommended for small, large, and very large commercial package air 
conditioners and heat pumps, as noted in section IV.A (AHRI, No. 30 at 
p. 4) DOE agrees that the break-in period for SPVUs should be the same 
as for other air-conditioning and heating equipment, and, thus, DOE is 
adopting an optional compressor break-in period that allows the 
manufacturer to break in equipment for up to a maximum time of 20 hours 
before commencing testing.
    Similar to commercial package air conditioners, as discussed in 
section IV.A, DOE reiterates that DOE will only use information 
contained in a manufacturer's I&O manual for setting up testing, using 
enhancement devices, setting refrigerant charges, and setting rating 
air flow rates.

V. Methodology and Discussion of Comments for Computer Room Air 
Conditioners

A. Market Assessment

    To begin its analysis on computer room air conditioners, DOE 
researched publicly-available information to provide an overall outlook 
in terms of the market for this type of equipment. DOE researched 
information on the structure of the industry, the purpose of the 
equipment, manufacturers, and market characteristics. This assessment 
included both quantitative and qualitative information. The topics 
discussed in this market assessment include definitions, equipment 
classes, manufacturers, and efficiencies. For more details on any of 
these subjects, see Chapter 2 of the final rule TSD.
1. Definition of ``Computer Room Air Conditioner''
    As discussed in the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, ASHRAE 
expanded the scope in Standard 90.1-2010 to include air conditioners 
and condensing units serving computer rooms. 76 FR 25622, 25633-34 (May 
5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2382-83 (Jan. 17, 2012). Because of this 
expansion of scope, DOE has determined that it has the authority to 
consider and adopt standards for this equipment. Id. However, because 
DOE did not previously cover this equipment type and is only now 
considering standards for this equipment class, DOE does not currently 
have a definition for ``computer room air conditioner'' and must define 
this type of equipment. DOE initially proposed a definition of this 
term in the January 2012 NOPR and asked for comment on ways in which 
manufacturers differentiate commercial air conditioners used for 
manufacturing and industrial processes from commercial air conditioners 
used for comfort cooling. 77 FR 2356, 2383 (Jan. 17, 2012). Then, in 
light of stakeholder feedback at the NOPR public meeting, DOE published 
an SNOPR in the Federal Register on March 22, 2012, revising its 
proposed definition to read as follows:

    Computer room air conditioner means a basic model of commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is: (1) Used in 
computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other purpose-specific 
cooling applications; (2) rated for sensible coefficient of 
performance (SCOP) and tested in accordance with 10 CFR 431.96; and 
(3) not a covered, consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 
6292. A computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have 
as available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or 
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function.

77 FR 16769, 16773.
    In response, Carrier commented that it does believe there is a 
basis to differentiate computer room air conditioners from commercial 
package air conditioners used for comfort conditioning because computer 
room units are designed to handle different load characteristics, most 
notably by focusing on sensible load and not latent cooling. (Carrier, 
No. 28 at p. 1) Panasonic commented that computer room air conditioners 
have a different operating range and that the tolerances on the 
relative humidity and temperature control is tighter. Panasonic stated 
that the very sophisticated computer rooms and data centers require 50 
percent relative humidity, with a 10 percent tolerance, and a specific 
temperature; however, the commenter also said that 95 percent of data 
centers are less sensitive with regard to the operating ranges. 
(Panasonic, No. 20 at pp. 68-69) Mitsubishi commented that the DOE 
definition for ``computer room air conditioner'' should allow for dual 
ratings and certification for equipment and allow that products be used 
for multiple applications if they meet all applicable standards. 
(Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2) At the NOPR public meeting, Danfoss 
commented that DOE should not restrict the use of a product and leave 
it up to competitive pressures to determine where manufacturers rate 
and market their products and that DOE's vigilance would prevent 
manufacturers from constantly switching equipment classes. (Danfoss, 
No. 20 at p. 64-66)
    AHRI expressed disagreement with the proposed definition for 
``computer room air conditioner,'' because the commenter argued that it 
is unnecessarily complex and overly broad. AHRI commented that the list 
of options that may be available with a computer room air conditioner 
is not necessary to the basic definition of the product and that the 
term ``purpose-specific cooling application'' is vague and confusing. 
AHRI recommended the following for a definition of ``computer room air 
conditioner'': ``Computer room air conditioners means a unit of 
commercial air conditioning equipment (packaged or split) that's 
intended by the manufacturer for use in computer

[[Page 28948]]

rooms, data processing rooms, or other information technology cooling 
applications, and is rated for sensible coefficient of performance 
(SCOP) using ASHRAE Standard 127.'' (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 8)
    In response, DOE notes that its authority to cover computer room 
air conditioners stems from the expansion of ASHRAE Standard 90.1's 
scope and DOE's obligations pursuant to EPCA with regards to ASHRAE 
equipment. DOE is not aware of, nor did commenters identify, any 
distinct physical characteristic(s) that would consistently 
differentiate computer room air conditioners from other comfort-cooling 
commercial package air conditioners. DOE agrees with AHRI's assertion 
that ``purpose-specific cooling application is vague'' and, therefore, 
is removing that term from the definition. DOE acknowledges that the 
list of illustrative features of computer room air conditioners is not 
essential to the definition; however, DOE is retaining that language, 
because DOE believes that a recitation of such characteristics would 
provide useful assistance to manufacturers, industry, and DOE in 
determining which equipment should be considered to meet the definition 
of ``computer room air conditioner.'' Furthermore, DOE agrees with 
Mitsubishi's comment that the ``computer room air conditioner'' 
definition should allow for dual rating and certification for equipment 
if the basic model meets all applicable Federal standards, and notes 
that the definition proposed in the SNOPR would not preclude dual 
rating. Although DOE agrees with several points made by commenters, and 
is modifying the definition of ``computer room air conditioner'' 
accordingly, DOE is not adopting AHRI's proposed definition wholesale 
because it lacks several important clarifications. First, as discussed 
above, DOE believes that the list of features of computer room air 
conditioners provides useful assistance to DOE and industry in 
distinguishing computer room air conditioners from other types of 
covered commercial air conditioners. Second, DOE believes that the 
definition must clarify that the unit is tested for SCOP, which must be 
determined in accordance with DOE's test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96. 
In addition, DOE believes the clarification that a computer room air 
conditioner cannot be a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 
6292 is important to distinguish this equipment from residential 
products. Thus, DOE is adopting the following definition for ``computer 
room air conditioner,'':

    Computer Room Air Conditioner means a basic model of commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (packaged or split) 
that is: (1) Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other 
information technology cooling applications; (2) rated for sensible 
coefficient of performance (SCOP) and tested in accordance with 10 
CFR 431.96, and (3) not a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 
6291(1)-(2) and 6292. A computer room air conditioner may be 
provided with, or have as available options, an integrated 
humidifier, temperature, and/or humidity control of the supplied 
air, and reheating function.

    DOE believes that this definition does not prohibit manufacturers 
of commercial package air conditioners used for comfort cooling from 
advertising equipment for use in computer rooms or from making 
representations using the SCOP rating for computer air conditioners. 
However, DOE notes that if manufacturers of commercial package air 
conditioners used for comfort cooling wish to make representations of 
SCOP ratings, they must do so using only the procedures established by 
DOE in 10 CFR 431.96 for computer room air conditioners.
    In addition, in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that 
any basic model that meets the definition of ``commercial package air-
conditioning and heat equipment'' must be classified as one of the 
equipment types (e.g., small, large, or very large commercial package 
air-conditioning and heat equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners 
or heat pumps, variable refrigerant flow systems, computer room air 
conditioners, and single package vertical units) for the purposes of 
determining the primary applicable test procedure and energy 
conservation standard. 77 FR 16769, 16773-74 (March 22, 2012). DOE 
proposed adding a new section to the beginning of 10 CFR 431.97 to make 
it clear that each manufacturer of a basic model that meets this 
definition does have a regulatory obligation in terms of standards 
compliance. In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed a revision to 10 CFR 
431.97 to read as follows:

    (a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the 
applicable DOE test procedure in Sec.  431.96, be compliant with the 
applicable standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) of this 
section, and be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 429, 
where required.

Id.

    In response to this proposed change, AHRI commented that it does 
not agree with the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 431.97(a), because 
AHRI believes it is unnecessary and does not provide added clarity, but 
rather, it simply repeats the basic concept of DOE's certification, 
compliance, and enforcement regulations. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 8)
    DOE recognizes that the additional language in 10 CFR 431.97 
repeats the basic concepts from DOE's certification compliance and 
enforcement regulations. However, DOE believes that including this 
statement in 10 CFR 431.97 will serve as a reminder to manufacturers of 
commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment that their basic 
models must be certified to one of the equipment classes according to 
the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 429. In addition, the 
paragraph clarifies that all commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable 
test procedure in 10 CFR 431.96. DOE, therefore, believes that this 
statement will help clarify its requirements, and accordingly, DOE is 
adopting this change in the final rule.
    Finally, with regard to the third part of its definition for 
computer room air conditioners, specifically, that the equipment cannot 
be a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292, 
manufacturers should compare the characteristics of each basic model to 
the definition of a ``central air conditioner,'' as specified in 42 
U.S.C. 6291(21). If any basic model in question meets the definition of 
a ``central air conditioner,'' the onus is on the manufacturer to 
provide justification that the equipment is not a covered consumer 
product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and is instead subject to a 
different definition in DOE's regulatory program. In other words, all 
equipment meeting the definition of ``central air conditioner'' must be 
in compliance with the test procedure, standard, and certification 
provisions applicable to that product type. DOE will review the 
manufacturer's justification and make its own determination of coverage 
if questions arise regarding a given basic model.
2. Equipment Classes
    ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 divides computer room air conditioners 
into 30 different equipment classes based on the net sensible cooling 
capacity (i.e., h; >=65,000 Btu/h and h; or 
>=240,000 Btu/h and h), orientation of airflow (i.e., 
upflow or downflow), heat rejection method (i.e., air-cooled, water-
cooled, glycol-cooled), and the presence of a fluid economizer.\9\ DOE 
generally

[[Page 28949]]

divides equipment and product classes by the type of energy used or by 
capacity or other performance-related features that affect efficiency. 
Different energy conservation standards may apply to different 
equipment classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Because DOE believes that net 
sensible cooling capacity, orientation, heat rejection method, and use 
of a fluid economizer are all performance-related features that affect 
computer room air conditioner efficiency (i.e., SCOP), DOE is dividing 
computer room air conditioners into the 30 equipment classes shown in 
Table V.1. These are the same equipment classes DOE proposed to adopt 
in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2383-84; 2431 (Jan. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ A ``fluid economizer'' is a system configuration potentially 
available where an external fluid-cooler is utilized for heat 
rejection (i.e., for glycol-cooled or water-cooled equipment). The 
fluid economizer utilizes a separate liquid-to-air cooling coil 
within the CRAC unit and the cooled water or glycol fluid returning 
from the external fluid cooler to cool return air directly, much 
like a chilled water air handling unit (i.e., without the use of 
compressors). The ``economizer'' cooling can either augment or can 
take the place of compressor cooling, but only when returning water 
or glycol fluid temperatures are low enough to provide significant 
direct cooling from the liquid-to-air cooling coil.

                Table V.1--Computer Room Air Conditioners Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Minimum SCOP efficiency
                Equipment type                    Net sensible cooling capacity  -------------------------------
                                                                                  Downflow units   Upflow units
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled..................  h...................            2.20            2.09
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and             2.10            1.99
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and            1.90            1.79
                                                 h.
Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled................  h...................            2.60            2.49
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and             2.50            2.39
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and            2.40            2.29
                                                 h.
Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled with a Fluid     h...................            2.55            2.44
 Economizer.
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and             2.45            2.34
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and            2.35            2.24
                                                 h.
Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled...............  h...................            2.50            2.39
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and             2.15            2.04
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and            2.10            1.99
                                                 h.
Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid     h...................            2.45            2.34
 Economizer.
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and             2.10            1.99
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and            2.05            1.94
                                                 h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners
    DOE consulted a wide variety of sources, including manufacturer 
literature, manufacturer Web sites, and the California Energy 
Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency Database to obtain the 
information needed for the market assessment for computer room air 
conditioners. The information gathered from these sources serves as a 
basis for the analyses preformed in this rulemaking. The sections below 
provide a general overview of the computer room air conditioner market. 
More detail, including citations to relevant sources, of the computer 
room air conditioner market can be found in Chapter 2 of the final rule 
TSD.
a. Trade Association Information
    AHRI is the trade association representing most manufacturers of 
commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment; however, at the time 
of this final rule, AHRI did not have a certification program for 
computer room air conditioners, and with one exception, the major 
manufacturers of computer room air conditioners that DOE identified are 
not currently AHRI members. \10\ However, in its public comments, AHRI 
indicated that earlier this year, it added a Datacom Cooling Section 
and certification program which covers manufacturers of computer room 
air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ For more information see: http://www.ahrinet.org/
ahri+members.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

b. Manufacturer Information
    DOE initially identified manufacturers of computer room air 
conditioners by conversing with industry experts, by examining the CEC 
appliance efficiency database,\11\ and by examining individual 
manufacturers' Web sites. Manufacturers that DOE identified include 
American Power Conversion, Compu-Aire, Data Aire, Liebert, and Stulz. 
DOE reviewed their manufacturer literature to gain insight into product 
availability, technologies used to improve efficiency, and product 
characteristics (e.g., cooling capacities) of the models in each of the 
30 equipment classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

c. Market Data
    Using the CEC database and manufacturer literature, DOE compiled a 
database of 1,364 computer room air conditioner models from the five 
manufacturers it identified. Because manufacturers are not required to 
report efficiency information about computer room air conditioners, 
most manufacturers do not publish this information in their product 
literature. DOE gathered efficiency data in the form of energy 
efficiency ratio (EER) from the CEC database (where manufacturers are 
required to report efficiency information if they sell models in 
California) and an individual manufacturer's product literature. Of the 
1,364 models in DOE's database, DOE was only able to obtain efficiency 
information for 208 units (from three of the five manufacturers), which 
accounts for 15.2 percent of the database (see chapter 2 of the final 
rule TSD for information about how DOE estimated efficiency data in 
SCOP). As noted above, DOE was only able to obtain efficiency 
information from three of the five known manufacturers because two of 
the manufacturers did not provide SCOP or EER information in product 
literature or in the CEC database. The full breakdown of these 1,364 
units into the 30 equipment classes can be found in chapter 2 of the 
final rule TSD, along with information on the typical performance 
characteristics (e.g.,

[[Page 28950]]

average sensible cooling capacity, average SCOP) for each equipment 
class. DOE used the market data as a foundation for developing price-
efficiency curves in the engineering analysis. Additionally, DOE used 
the market data, along with other sources, to estimate shipments of 
computer room air conditioners. Further details regarding the 
development of shipment estimates and forecasts can be found in section 
V.F.2. of this final rule.

B. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between 
higher-efficiency equipment and the cost of achieving that higher 
efficiency when evaluating energy conservation standards. The results 
from the engineering analysis serve as the basis for the cost-benefit 
calculations for the individual consumers and the Nation. As explained 
in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE used an efficiency-level approach in 
conjunction with a pricing survey to develop the price-efficiency 
relationships for the 30 classes of computer room air conditioners. 77 
FR 2356, 2385-86 (Jan. 17, 2012). An efficiency-level approach allowed 
DOE to estimate the cost of achieving different SCOP levels in a timely 
manner (which was necessary to allow DOE to meet the statutorily-
required deadlines for ASHRAE equipment in EPCA). The efficiency-level 
approach allowed DOE to focus on the price of the computer room air 
conditioners at different SCOP ratings while capturing a variety of 
designs available of the market. The efficiency levels that DOE 
analyzed in the engineering analysis were within the range of 
efficiencies of computer room air conditioners on the market at the 
time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data 
collected from equipment distributors of three large computer room air 
conditioner manufacturers to develop its price-efficiency relationship 
for computer room air conditioners. (See chapter 3 of the final rule 
TSD for further detail.)
    Although there are certain benefits to using an efficiency-level 
approach with a pricing survey (namely the ability to conduct an 
analysis in a limited amount of time that spans a variety of equipment 
and technologies), DOE notes there are also drawbacks to this approach. 
The most significant drawback of such an approach is that equipment 
pricing is not always based solely on equipment cost and is often 
influenced by a variety of other factors. Factors such as whether the 
unit is a high-volume seller, whether the unit has premium features 
(such as more sophisticated controls or a longer warranty), and the 
differences in markup between different manufacturers all have an 
effect on the prices of computer room air conditioners. In certain 
instances, this can make it difficult to compare prices across 
manufacturers because of the number of different ways that 
manufacturers can decide to set pricing based on features that are not 
part of the basic equipment costs. As a result, the relationship 
between price and efficiency could be different from the relationship 
between manufacturer cost and efficiency that might be revealed through 
other engineering methods such as a design-option approach or a 
reverse-engineering approach. However, given the limited analysis time 
allowed by EPCA, DOE proceeded with an efficiency-level approach for 
computer room air conditioners in which it gathered the price of 
equipment at various efficiency levels. Nonetheless, DOE believes this 
approach provides a reasonable approximation of the cost increases 
associated with efficiency increases and could be conducted in a timely 
manner that would allow DOE to meet the deadlines specified in EPCA for 
ASHRAE products. The approach allowed DOE to provide an estimate of 
equipment prices at different efficiencies and spanned a range of 
technologies currently on the market that are used to achieve the 
increased efficiency levels. However, DOE also notes that there is a 
high level of uncertainty in the results based on such an approach due 
to the limited amount of data and information available about this 
particular type of equipment.
    The following provides an overview of the engineering analysis. DOE 
first determined which equipment classes it would need to analyze. DOE 
only analyzed the downflow equipment classes because after examining 
equipment designs, DOE found that that upflow and downflow units have 
the same interior components and technologies, and that every upflow 
model could be optionally arranged by the manufacturer in a downflow 
orientation (but not vice-versa). DOE assumed that the efficiency cost 
and benefit of a given technology would be the same in both the 
downflow and upflow orientations, which allowed for an analysis in 
downflow orientation only (the results of which would be assumed to be 
true for upflow models as well). This reduced the number of equipment 
classes that DOE needed to analyze from 30 to 15. Then, DOE chose a 
representative baseline computer room air conditioner, which is the 
starting point for analyzing possible benefits of energy efficiency 
improvements. Next, DOE used efficiency data from the market assessment 
to identify higher efficiency levels above the baseline. DOE collected 
contractor pricing information for models at the baseline and those 
higher efficiency levels, and used that information to estimate the 
cost increase of achieving those higher efficiency levels. Then, for 
equipment classes where there was too little data available to directly 
analyze the cost of increasing efficiency, DOE estimated the cost-
efficiency relationship based on the analysis done for the other 
classes where data were available. Further detail regarding the key 
inputs to the engineering analysis and the results generated are 
presented immediately below and in further detail in chapter 3 of the 
final rule TSD.
1. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis
    As explained in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE reviewed the 15 analyzed 
equipment classes of computer room air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2386 
(Jan.17, 2012). For each equipment class, DOE chose a representative 
net sensible input capacity as a starting point for the engineering 
analysis. In summary, DOE chose a representative capacity at the 
average sensible capacity for each of the three size categories 
regardless of heating type, orientation, or the presence of a fluid 
economizer. For computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 36,000 Btu/h; for those with 
a sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and 
less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 132,000 Btu/h; and for those with a 
sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and 
less than 760,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 288,000 Btu/h. These representative 
capacities also corresponded to the net sensible capacity of most the 
models in the corresponding equipment class. DOE attained pricing 
information for models with sensible cooling capacities that were 
generally within 15 percent of these representative sensible capacities 
for all equipment classes for which adequate efficiency data were 
available. In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE did not receive 
any comments regarding the representative sensible capacities for 
analysis. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for more information 
about the representative sensible capacities DOE selected.
2. Baseline Equipment
    Next, DOE selected baseline efficiency levels for 15 of the 30 
equipment

[[Page 28951]]

classes. DOE uses these baseline models as the basis against which it 
measures changes resulting from potential higher energy conservation 
standards. The engineering analysis, LCC analysis, and PBP analysis use 
the baseline efficiency as a reference point to compare the technology, 
energy savings, and the cost of equipment with higher efficiency 
levels. A baseline equipment model typically contains the features and 
technologies that are most common in a certain equipment class 
currently offered for sale. As explained in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE 
chose the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as baseline 
efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners, because DOE 
cannot adopt minimum standards at levels that are less stringent than 
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels. 77 FR 2356, 2386 (Jan. 
17, 2012). In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE did not receive 
any comments regarding the baseline efficiency levels selected. Table 
V.2 shows the baseline efficiency level for each computer room air 
conditioner equipment class in the downflow orientation.

                                    Table V.2--Baseline SCOP Efficiency Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Downflow
            Equipment class                   Size category         Representative sensible       orientation
                                                                        cooling capacity        baseline  SCOP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled............................  h............  36,000 Btu/h.............                2.2
                                        >=65,000 Btu/h and         132,000 Btu/h............                2.1
                                         h.
                                        >=240,000 Btu/h and        288,000 Btu/h............                1.9
                                         h.
Water-Cooled..........................  h............  36,000 Btu/h.............                2.6
                                        >=65,000 Btu/h and         132,000 Btu/h............                2.5
                                         h.
                                        >=240,000 Btu/h and        288,000 Btu/h............                2.4
                                         h.
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer..  h............  36,000 Btu/h.............                2.55
                                        >=65,000 Btu/h and         132,000 Btu/h............                2.45
                                         h.
                                        >=240,000 Btu/h and        288,000 Btu/h............                2.35
                                         h.
Glycol-Cooled.........................  h............  36,000 Btu/h.............                2.5
                                        >=65,000 Btu/h and         132,000 Btu/h............                2.15
                                         h.
                                        >=240,000 Btu/h and        288,000 Btu/h............                2.1
                                         h.
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer.  h............  36,000 Btu/h.............                2.45
                                        >=65,000 Btu/h and         132,000 Btu/h............                2.1
                                         h.
                                        >=240,000 Btu/h and        288,000 Btu/h............                2.05
                                         h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency Levels for 
Analysis
    As reported in detail in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE selected 
multiple efficiency levels for analysis for each of the 15 equipment 
classes directly analyzed. 77 FR 2356, 2387 (Jan. 17, 2012). In 
summary, because DOE does not currently regulate computer room air 
conditioners, manufacturers are not required to report or rate the 
efficiency of their equipment, and efficiency data are often either not 
available or only available as an EER value determined through testing 
with a previous version of the ASHRAE 127 standard. Thus, DOE had to 
translate the EER information found in manufacturer literature and in 
the CEC database into SCOP using a ``rule-of-thumb'' equation found in 
ASHRAE 127-2007. The ``rule-of-thumb'' equation uses the EER as 
measured by ASHRAE 127-2001 and the sensible heat ratio (SHR) \12\ 
found in manufacturer specification sheets to estimate the SCOP. For 
more detail about this conversion, see chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ ``Sensible heat ratio'' is the ratio of a unit's sensible 
cooling capacity to its total (i.e., sensible and latent) cooling 
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to select efficiency levels for analysis, DOE examined 
available market data and concluded that enough efficiency information 
was available in only four equipment classes that would allow DOE to 
reasonably select SCOP efficiency levels for analysis for that 
equipment class. For the equipment classes where DOE did not have 
enough SCOP data to select efficiency levels, DOE translated the 
efficiency levels from one of the four previously mentioned equipment 
classes based on the SCOP differences between the different equipment 
classes as specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. The efficiency 
levels selected for analysis for each equipment class are shown in 
Table V.3. Chapter 3 of the final rule TSD shows additional details on 
the efficiency levels selected for analysis. In response to the January 
2012 NOPR, DOE did not receive any comments regarding the efficiency 
levels selected for analysis.

                   Table V.3--Efficiency Levels for Analysis of Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Efficiency levels (SCOP)
            Equipment            -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Baseline level      Level 1         Level 2         Level 3         Level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled, h.......            2.20            2.40            2.60            2.80            3.00
Air-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and              2.10            2.35            2.60            2.85            3.10
 h.................
Air-Cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h and             1.90            2.15            2.40            2.65            2.90
 h.................
Water-Cooled, h.....            2.60            2.80            3.00            3.20            3.40
Water-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and            2.50            2.70            2.90            3.10            3.30
 h.................
Water-Cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h               2.40            2.60            2.80            3.00            3.20
 and h.............
Water-Cooled with a Fluid                   2.55            2.75            2.95            3.15            3.35
 Economizer, h......
Water-Cooled with a Fluid                   2.45            2.65            2.85            3.05            3.25
 Economizer, >=65,000 Btu/h and
 h.................

[[Page 28952]]

 
Water-Cooled with a Fluid                   2.35            2.55            2.75            2.95            3.15
 Economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h and
 h.................
Glycol-Cooled, h....            2.50            2.70            2.90            3.10            3.30
Glycol-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h               2.15            2.35            2.55            2.75            2.95
 and h.............
Glycol-Cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h              2.10            2.30            2.50            2.70            2.90
 and h.............
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid                  2.45            2.65            2.85            3.05            3.25
 Economizer, h......
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid                  2.10            2.30            2.50            2.70            2.90
 Economizer, >=65,000 Btu/h and
 h.................
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid                  2.05            2.25            2.45            2.65            2.85
 Economizer, >=240,000 Btu/h and
 h.................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Pricing Data
    Once DOE identified representative capacities and baseline units, 
and selected equipment classes and efficiency levels to analyze, DOE 
contacted three of the manufacturers of computer room air conditioners 
\13\ to obtain pricing information for individual models in quantities 
of 10 units. DOE used 10 as a standard request that would be typical of 
a contractor installing the units in an office space. DOE received 
pricing information for 32 models total. DOE then used the pricing 
information in conjunction with the SCOP data (estimated from EER data) 
to build price-efficiency curves. See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD 
for additional details about the pricing data DOE received. DOE did not 
receive any comment about its approach of obtaining pricing 
information. DOE did receive a comment on the results of the pricing 
analysis which is addressed in section V.B.6. below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ As noted in section VA.3.c, DOE was able to obtain 
efficiency data for three of the five manufacturers. DOE obtained 
pricing from all manufacturers for which it had efficiency data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to Unanalyzed 
Equipment Classes
    As explained in section V.B and in detail in the January 2012 NOPR, 
DOE did not directly analyze all 30 equipment classes of computer room 
air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2387-88 (Jan. 17, 2012). Rather, DOE 
analyzed the equipment classes with the largest number of models on the 
market (and as a result the most data available) and used a variety of 
assumptions to extrapolate the analysis to those equipment classes with 
less information available. In addition to only directly analyzing the 
downflow equipment classes (as explained above), DOE also only directly 
analyzed those equipment classes without a fluid economizer and assumed 
what the potential cost of adding a fluid economizer and what the 
potential efficiency effects of the economizer coil would be for those 
classes with a fluid economizer.
    As in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE found that there was only enough 
efficiency information to directly analyze four equipment classes: (1) 
Small (i.e., sensible cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) air-
cooled; (2) large (i.e., sensible cooling capacity greater than or 
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h) air-cooled; (3) 
small water-cooled; and (4) and large water-cooled. For the other 11 
downflow equipment classes, DOE extrapolated the analysis based on 
these four primary equipment classes because of a lack of efficiency 
and pricing data for those other equipment classes. DOE did not receive 
any comments from stakeholders on the methodology of extrapolating the 
results to the equipment classes with inadequate data. Thus, DOE has 
not changed the methodology of extrapolating this data in this final 
rule. For information about how DOE extrapolated to these 11 equipment 
classes, see the January 2012 NOPR (77 FR 2356, 2387-88 (Jan. 17, 
2012)) and chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.
6. Engineering Analysis Results
    The results of the engineering analysis are reported in the form of 
price-efficiency tables that represent the cost to a contractor for 
equipment at the baseline levels and at more-stringent efficiency 
levels for each equipment class. The results of the engineering 
analysis are the basis for the downstream LCC and PBP analyses. Table 
V.4 and Table V.5 below show the engineering analysis results for the 
four equipment classes that were directly analyzed. Chapter 3 of the 
final rule TSD contains the price-efficiency tables for all 15 
equipment classes of computer room air conditioners, including those 
that were not directly analyzed. In summary, when examining the pricing 
information for each individual manufacturer, DOE found there was no 
correlation between pricing and efficiency. Only when all the 
manufacturer data points were aggregated across all manufacturers for 
each equipment class did a correlation appear. Generally, there were 
manufacturers who sold lower-priced, lower-SCOP equipment and those who 
sold higher-priced, higher-SCOP equipment. DOE also notes that the 
results for the small (h) water-cooled and glycol-cooled 
equipment classes are counter-intuitive because the correlation between 
price and efficiency showed an inverse trend. This result can be 
attributed to the lack of data points, which prevented a statistically 
significant trend between price and efficiency. In DOE's experience, an 
inverse correlation between price and efficiency is not typical, and 
thus, DOE believes additional data and analysis would possibly reveal a 
different relationship than this pricing analysis.

[[Page 28953]]

                   Table V.4--Air-Cooled Computer Room Air Conditioners Price-Efficiency Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               h                                  >=65,000 Btu/h and h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SCOP                                 Price               SCOP              Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.20...................................................          $6,681.09               2.10         $22,621.45
2.40...................................................           7,853.51               2.35          24,383.30
2.60...................................................           9,231.68               2.60          26,282.38
2.80...................................................          10,851.69               2.85          28,329.36
3.00...................................................          12,755.99               3.10          30,535.77
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                     Table V.5--Water-Cooled Computer Air Conditioners Price-Efficiency Data
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               h                                  >=65,000 Btu/h and h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                          SCOP                                 Price               SCOP              Price
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.60...................................................         $14,232.84               2.50         $12,883.01
2.80...................................................          11,527.69               2.70          17,315.28
3.00...................................................           9,336.69               2.90          23,272.43
3.20...................................................           7,562.12               3.10          31,279.07
3.40...................................................           6,124.84               3.30          42,040.32
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EEI commented at the February 14, 2012, public meeting that DOE 
should state that its analyses for computer room air conditioners were 
limited and would affect the downstream life-cycle analysis. (EEI, 
Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 85) DOE agrees with EEI in that 
its analysis was limited and contained a lot of uncertainty in its data 
because computer room air conditioners were not previously regulated 
and limited efficiency and price information is available. Because of 
this lack of clear data and other uncertainties in the analyses 
performed, DOE does not have clear and convincing evidence to adopt 
higher efficiency levels than ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, as discussed 
in section VI.D.3. of this final rule.

C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price

    DOE understands that the price of CRAC equipment depends on the 
distribution channel the customer uses to purchase the equipment. 
Typical distribution channels for most commercial HVAC equipment 
include shipments that may pass through manufacturers' national 
accounts, or through entities including wholesalers, mechanical 
contractors, and/or general contractors. However, DOE understands that 
the typical distribution channel for CRAC equipment for either new 
construction or replacement involves a mechanical contractor ordering 
the equipment from a manufacturer representative or distributor who 
delivers the equipment to the job site at a ``contractor's price.'' The 
contractor's price includes the distributor's sales commission. The 
distributor does not take a separate markup. The manufacturer's sales 
price in both the NOPR and the final rule reflects the contractor's 
price. The mechanical contractor takes delivery, then adds a markup and 
provides installation services. Because the equipment is specialized, 
general contractors are not involved in the transaction, nor did DOE 
find any evidence of wholesaler involvement or national accounts for 
distribution of this specialized CRAC equipment. DOE developed 
equipment costs for mechanical contractors directly in the engineering 
analysis and estimated the cost to customers using a markup chain 
beginning with the mechanical contractor cost. Because of the 
complexity of installation, DOE assumed most sales of CRAC equipment 
involved mechanical contractors. Consequently, DOE did not develop 
separate markups for other distribution channels.
    DOE developed supply chain markups in the form of multipliers that 
represent increases above the mechanical contractor cost. DOE applied 
these markups (or multipliers) to the mechanical contractor costs it 
developed from the engineering analysis. DOE then added sales taxes and 
installation costs to arrive at the final installed equipment prices 
for baseline and higher-efficiency equipment. See chapter 5 of the 
ASHRAE final rule TSD for additional details on markups. DOE identified 
two separate distribution channels for CRAC equipment to describe how 
the equipment passes from the mechanical contractor to the customer 
(Table V.6).

           Table V.6--Distribution Channels for CRAC Equipment
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Channel 1 (Replacements)           Channel 2 (New Construction)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Distributor or Manufacturer          Distributor or Manufacturer
                Representative                      Representative
         (No Separate Markup)                 (No Separate Markup)
                  Mechanical Contractor                Mechanical Contractor
                             Customer                             Customer
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated a baseline markup and an incremental markup. DOE 
defined a ``baseline markup'' as a multiplier that converts the 
mechanical contractor cost of equipment with baseline efficiency to the 
customer purchase price for the equipment at the same baseline 
efficiency level. An ``incremental markup'' is defined as the 
multiplier used to convert the incremental increase in mechanical 
contractor cost of higher-efficiency equipment into the customer

[[Page 28954]]

purchase price for the same equipment. Both baseline and incremental 
markups are independent of the CRAC equipment efficiency levels.
    DOE developed the markups based on available financial data. DOE 
based the mechanical contractor markups on data from the 2007 U.S. 
Census Bureau financial data \14\ for the plumbing, heating, and air-
conditioning industry.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The 2007 U.S. Census Bureau financial data for the 
plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning industry is the latest 
version data set and was issued in August 2009. (Available by 
searching for Table EC0723A1 at: http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/searchresults.xhtml?refresh=t#none).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The overall markup is the product of all the markups (baseline or 
incremental) for the different steps within a distribution channel plus 
sales tax. DOE calculated sales taxes based on 2012 State-by-State 
sales tax data reported by the Sales Tax Clearinghouse.\15\ Because 
both contractor costs and sales tax vary by State, DOE developed 
distributions of markups within each distribution channel by State. No 
information was available to develop State-by-State distributions of 
CRAC equipment by building or business type, so the percentage 
distributions of sales by business type are assumed to be the same in 
all States. The National distribution of the markups varies among 
business types. Chapter 5 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD provides 
additional detail on markups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ The Sales Tax Clearinghouse, Table of state sales tax rates 
along with combined city and county rates. (Last accessed January 
11, 2012) (Available at: https://thestc.com/STRates.stm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the January 2012 NOPR, DOE received a comment from 
Panasonic Air Conditioning Group (Panasonic) that at least some 
distribution channels may include distributors, manufacturer's 
representatives, or sales representatives, and that, therefore, one 
link in the distribution channel was missing. (Panasonic, Public 
Meeting Transcript, pp. 97-98) However, DOE determined that the 
manufacturer sales prices used in the NOPR were contractor prices that 
included manufacturer sales representative or distributor charges and, 
therefore, did not require a separate markup. Chapter 5 of the ASHRAE 
final rule TSD provides additional detail on markups.

D. Energy Use Characterization

    DOE's building energy use characterization assesses the annual 
energy use for each of the 15 classes of computer room air conditioners 
at the efficiency levels established in the engineering analysis. 
Because of the fixed 0.11 SCOP difference between upflow and downflow 
CRAC units established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and presumed in the 
engineering analysis for all higher efficiency levels, DOE determined 
that the per-unit energy savings benefits for corresponding upflow 
computer room air conditioners at higher efficiency levels could be 
represented using these 15 downflow equipment classes. The energy use 
characterization assessed the energy use of computer room air 
conditioners using a purpose-built spreadsheet that estimates the 
annual energy consumption for each equipment class at each efficiency 
level. The spreadsheet uses a modified outside temperature bin 
analysis. For each air-cooled equipment class, the spreadsheet 
calculates fan energy and condensing unit power consumption at each 5 
[deg]F outdoor air dry bulb temperature bin. The condensing unit power 
in this context includes the compressor(s) and condenser fan(s) and/or 
pump(s) included as part of the equipment rating. For water-cooled and 
glycol-cooled equipment, the spreadsheet first estimates the condensing 
water supply temperature from either an evaporative cooling tower or a 
dry cooler for water-cooled and for glycol-cooled CRAC equipment, 
respectively, based on binned weather data. Using these results, DOE 
then estimates the condensing unit power consumption and adds to this 
the estimated supply fan power. The sum of the CRAC condensing unit 
power and the CRAC supply fan power is the estimated average CRAC total 
power consumption for each temperature bin. Annual estimates of energy 
use are developed by multiplying the power consumption at each 
temperature bin by the number of hours in that bin for each climate 
analyzed.
    To implement DOE's analytical methodology, DOE estimated the 
average heat load on each type and size of CRAC equipment based on an 
average thermal load set at 65 percent of the nominal sensible capacity 
based on an estimate provided in an Australian energy performance 
standards report.\16\ As CRAC equipment is used to cool internally-
generated thermal loads which are generally not climate dependent, DOE 
believes that this figure would also apply to CRAC equipment in the 
United States. DOE did not have manufacturer efficiency or performance 
data as a function of the outdoor temperature or the fraction of full 
load. Accordingly, DOE used an example of the variation in full-load 
performance as a function of ambient air temperature (for air-cooled 
equipment) or entering fluid temperature (for water-cooled and glycol-
cooled equipment) provided in the ASHRAE 127-2007 test procedure and 
based on computer simulations to adjust full-load performance from the 
SCOP rating condition. A part-load performance degradation was also 
included, based on the methodology outlined for unitary direct-
expansion air-conditioning equipment presented in the DOE EnergyPlus 
simulation tool documentation.\17\ For water-cooled and glycol-cooled 
equipment with economizer coils, DOE reduced the thermal load on the 
condensing unit during hours when the economizer would be expected to 
meet some or all of the sensible cooling load. Because the primary heat 
load met with computer room air conditioners is a sensible load and 
because DOE did not have data to adequately estimate the relative 
sensible load versus latent load during the year for computer rooms, 
DOE did not separately examine the latent load on the equipment as a 
function of conditions, but determined that the total energy use could 
be based on the SCOP performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy Efficiency 
Committee Regulatory Impact Statement Consultation Draft: Minimum 
Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close 
Control Air Conditioners, Report No 2008/11 (2008) (Available at: 
www.energyrating.gov.au).
    \17\ U.S. Department of Energy-Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. EnergyPlus Documentation, Engineering Reference 
(Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/pdfs/engineeringreference.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While the computer room heat load met by CRAC equipment is 
generally not climate sensitive, the performance of the equipment is 
climate sensitive. DOE estimated the annual energy consumption for each 
equipment class at each efficiency level for 239 climate locations 
using typical meteorological year (TMY3) weather data.\18\ DOE relied 
on population-based climate location weights to map the results for 
individual TMY locations to State-level annual energy consumption 
estimates for each U.S. State. DOE used the resulting State-by-State 
annual energy consumption estimates for each efficiency level in the 
subsequent life-cycle cost analysis. DOE received no comments on the 
January 2012 NOPR regarding the energy use analysis for CRAC equipment 
and retains the approach for this final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ S. Wilcox and W. Marion, Users Manual for TMY3 Data Sets, 
National Renewable Energy Laboratory: Golden, CO., Report No. NREL/
TP-581-43156 (2008).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28955]]

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

    DOE conducted the life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) 
analyses to estimate the economic impacts of potential standards on 
individual customers of CRAC equipment. DOE first analyzed these 
impacts for CRAC equipment by calculating the change in customer LCCs 
likely to result from higher efficiency levels compared with the ASHRAE 
baseline efficiency levels for the 15 downflow CRAC classes discussed 
in the engineering analysis. DOE determined that the LCC benefits for 
higher efficiency levels for each downflow class of CRAC equipment 
would adequately represent LCC benefits for the corresponding upflow 
class. The LCC calculation considers total installed cost (contractor 
cost, sales taxes, distribution chain markups, and installation cost), 
operating expenses (energy, repair, and maintenance costs), equipment 
lifetime, and discount rate. DOE calculated the LCC for all customers 
as if each would purchase a new CRAC unit in the year the standard 
takes effect. Since DOE is considering both the efficiency levels in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and more-stringent efficiency levels, the 
compliance date for a new DOE energy conservation standard for any 
equipment class would depend on the efficiency level adopted. This is 
because the statutory lead times for DOE adoption of the ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels and the adoption of more-stringent 
efficiency levels are different. (See section V.I.1. for additional 
explanation regarding compliance dates.) However, the LCC benefits to 
the customer of standards higher than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 can begin to accrue only after the compliance date for such a 
higher standard is adopted by DOE. To account for this fact and to 
facilitate comparison, DOE presumed that the purchase year for all CRAC 
equipment for purposes of the LCC calculation is 2017, the earliest 
year in which DOE can establish an amended energy conservation level at 
an efficiency level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency level. To 
compute LCCs, DOE discounted future operating costs to the time of 
purchase and summed them over the lifetime of the equipment.
    Next, DOE analyzed the effect of changes in installed costs and 
operating expenses by calculating the PBP of potential standards 
relative to baseline efficiency levels. The PBP is the amount of time 
it would take the customer to recover the incremental increase in the 
purchase price of more-efficient equipment through lower operating 
costs. The PBP is the change in purchase price divided by the change in 
annual operating cost that results from the energy conservation 
standard. DOE expresses the PBP in years. Similar to the LCC, the PBP 
is based on the total installed cost and the operating expenses. 
However, unlike the LCC, DOE only considers the first year's operating 
expenses in the PBP calculation. Because the PBP does not account for 
changes in operating expense over time or the time value of money, it 
is also referred to as a simple PBP.
    DOE conducted the LCC and PBP analyses using a commercially-
available spreadsheet tool and a purpose-built spreadsheet model, 
available online.\19\ This spreadsheet model developed by DOE accounts 
for variability in energy use and prices, installation costs, repair 
and maintenance costs, and energy costs. It uses weighting factors to 
account for distributions of shipments to different building types and 
States to generate national LCC savings by efficiency level. The 
results of DOE's LCC and PBP analyses are summarized in section VI.B.3. 
and described in detail in chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD. DOE 
received comments on specific aspects of the LCC and PBP methods and 
input data. These comments are addressed in the appropriate subsections 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE's Life-Cycle Cost spreadsheet model can be found on the 
DOE's ASHRAE Products Web site at: www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Approach
    Recognizing that each business that uses CRAC equipment is unique, 
DOE analyzed variability and uncertainty by performing the LCC and PBP 
calculations assuming a correspondence between business types and 
market segments (characterized as building types) for customers located 
in three types of commercial buildings (health care, education, and 
office). DOE developed financial data appropriate for the customers in 
each building type. Each type of building has typical customers who 
have different costs of financing because of the nature of the 
business. DOE derived the financing costs based on data from the 
Damodaran Online site.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Damodaran Online, The Data Page (Last Accessed Jan. 2012) 
(Available at: ~adamodar/New--Home--Page/
data.html).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The LCC analysis used the estimated annual energy use for selected 
size units in each CRAC equipment class described in section V.B. The 
energy use characterization is described in section V.D and in greater 
detail in Chapter 4 of the final rule TSD. Because energy use of CRAC 
equipment is sensitive to climate, energy use varies by State. Aside 
from energy use, other important factors influencing the LCC and PBP 
analyses are energy prices, installation costs, equipment distribution 
markups, and sales tax. All of these are assumed to vary by State. At 
the national level, the LCC spreadsheets explicitly modeled both the 
uncertainty and the variability in the model's inputs, using 
probability distributions based on State population, which serves as a 
proxy for the shipment of CRAC equipment to different States.
    As mentioned above, DOE generated LCC and PBP results by building 
type and State and used weighting factors to generate national average 
LCC savings and PBP for each efficiency level. Because there is a 
unique LCC and PBP for each calculated value at the building type and 
State level, the outcomes of the analysis can also be expressed as 
probability distributions with a range of LCC and PBP results. A 
distinct advantage of this type of approach is that DOE can identify 
the percentage of customers achieving LCC savings or attaining certain 
PBP values due to an increased efficiency level, in addition to the 
average LCC savings or average PBP for that efficiency level. DOE 
received no comments on its general LCC and PBP approach and has 
retained it for the final rule.
2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs
    For each efficiency level DOE analyzed, the LCC analysis required 
input data for the total installed cost of the equipment, its operating 
cost, and the discount rate. Table V.7 summarizes the inputs and key 
assumptions DOE used to calculate the customer economic impacts of all 
energy efficiency levels analyzed in this rulemaking. A more detailed 
discussion of the inputs follows.

[[Page 28956]]

Table V.7--Summary of Inputs and Key Assumptions Used in the LCC and PBP
                                Analyses
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Changes for the
              Inputs                       NOPR             final rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Affecting Installed Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Price..................  Equipment price was   Sales taxes
                                    derived by            updates to
                                    multiplying           2012 rates. No
                                    manufacturer sales    other changes.
                                    price or MSP
                                    (distributor's or
                                    manufacturer's
                                    representative's
                                    price delivered to
                                    a mechanical
                                    contractor at the
                                    job site,
                                    calculated in the
                                    engineering
                                    analysis) by
                                    mechanical
                                    contractor markups,
                                    as needed, plus
                                    sales tax from the
                                    markups analysis.
Installation Cost................  Installation cost     Updated
                                    includes              installation
                                    installation labor,   costs and
                                    installer overhead,   relative
                                    and any               regional cost
                                    miscellaneous         multipliers
                                    materials and         from 2011 to
                                    parts, derived from   2012
                                    RS Means CostWorks    conditions
                                    2011.\21\             using RS Means
                                                          CostWorks
                                                          2012.\22\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                        Affecting Operating Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Energy Use................  Annual unit energy    No change.
                                    consumption for
                                    each class of
                                    equipment at each
                                    efficiency level
                                    estimated on a per-
                                    State basis using a
                                    spreadsheet model
                                    and a population-
                                    based mapping of
                                    climate locations
                                    to States.
Electricity Prices...............  DOE developed         Updated from
                                    average electricity   2010 to 2011
                                    prices based on       using EIA Form
                                    EIA's Form 861 data   826 data for
                                    for 2010.\23\ Price   2011.\25\
                                    projections based     Price
                                    on AEO 2011.\24\      projections
                                                          based on AEO
                                                          2011.
Maintenance Cost.................  DOE estimated annual  Updated
                                    maintenance costs     maintenance
                                    based on RS Means     using RS Means
                                    CostWorks 2011 for    CostWorks 2012
                                    CRAC equipment.       and to reflect
                                    Annual maintenance    more frequent
                                    cost did not vary     maintenance
                                    as a function of      schedules for
                                    efficiency.           all CRAC
                                                          equipment.
Repair Cost......................  DOE estimated the     Updated repair
                                    annualized repair     costs using RS
                                    cost for baseline     Means
                                    efficiency CRAC       CostWorks
                                    equipment based on    2012.
                                    cost data from RS
                                    Means CostWorks
                                    2011 (2010 data).
                                    DOE assumed that
                                    the materials
                                    components portion
                                    of the repair costs
                                    would vary in
                                    direct proportion
                                    with the MSP at
                                    higher efficiency
                                    levels because it
                                    generally costs
                                    more to replace
                                    components that are
                                    more efficient.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Lifetime...............  DOE estimated CRAC    No change.
                                    equipment lifetime
                                    ranged between 10
                                    and 25 years, with
                                    an average lifespan
                                    of 15 years, based
                                    on estimates cited
                                    in available CRAC
                                    literature.
Discount Rate....................  Mean real discount    Updated to
                                    rates for business    early 2012
                                    types considered      conditions.
                                    range from 2.68       Additional
                                    percent for           business
                                    education to 4.51     included in
                                    percent for           office
                                    offices. Health       category.
                                    care was 4.10         Education was
                                    percent based on a    2.98 percent.
                                    limited sample.       Office was
                                                          4.46 percent.
                                                          Health care
                                                          was 4.98
                                                          percent, based
                                                          on an expanded
                                                          sample.
Analysis Start Year..............  Start year for LCC    No change.
                                    is 2017, which is
                                    the earliest
                                    compliance date
                                    that DOE can set
                                    for new standards
                                    if it adopts any
                                    efficiency level
                                    for energy
                                    conservation
                                    standards higher
                                    than that shown in
                                    ASHRAE Standard
                                    90.1-2010.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Analyzed Efficiency Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Analyzed Efficiency Levels.......  DOE analyzed the      No change.
                                    baseline efficiency
                                    levels (ASHRAE
                                    Standard 90.1-2010)
                                    and four higher
                                    efficiency levels
                                    for all 15
                                    equipment classes.
                                    See the engineering
                                    analysis for
                                    additional details
                                    on selections of
                                    efficiency levels
                                    and cost.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

     
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ RS Means Company Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2011 (2011) 
(Available at: www.meanscostworks.com/>).
    \22\ RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2012 (2012) 
(Available at: www.meanscostworks.com/>).
    \23\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electric Sales, 
Revenue, and Average Price 2009 (Last accessed May 10, 2011) 
(Available at: www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/esr_sum.html>). Inflator--2009 to 2010 dollars from EIA AEO 2011 GDP 
Price Index. (Last accessed April 27, 2011 at www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=18-AEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=ref2011-d020911a>).
    \24\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Annual Energy 
Outlook 2011 (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data.cfm>).
    \25\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, Sales and Revenue 
Data by State, Monthly Back to 1990 (Form EIA-826) (Last accessed 
Jan. 27, 2012) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/cneaf/electricity/page/sales_revenue.xls>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

a. Equipment Prices
    The price of CRAC equipment reflects the application of 
distribution channel markups (mechanical contractor markups) and sales 
tax to the manufacturer sales price (distributor's price, delivered to 
the job site), which is the cost established in the engineering 
analysis. As described in section V.C, DOE determined mechanical 
contractor costs and markup for air-conditioning equipment. For each 
equipment class, the engineering analysis provided contractor costs for 
the baseline equipment and up to four higher equipment efficiencies.
    The markup is the percentage increase in price as the CRAC 
equipment passes

[[Page 28957]]

through the distribution channel. As explained in section V.C, all CRAC 
equipment is assumed to be delivered to the mechanical contractor at 
the job site for installation without the involvement of a general 
contractor. This is assumed to happen whether the equipment is being 
purchased for the new construction market or to replace existing 
equipment.
    To project a price trend for the final rule, DOE initially derived 
an inflation-adjusted index of the Producer Price Index (PPI) for 
miscellaneous refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment over 1990-
2010.\26\ These data show a general price index decline from 1990 to 
2004, followed by a sharp increase, primarily due to rising prices of 
copper and steel products that go into this equipment. Given the 
slowdown in global economic activity in 2011, DOE believes that the 
extent to which the trends of the past few years will continue is very 
uncertain and that the observed data do not provide a firm basis for 
projecting future costs trends for CRAC equipment. Therefore, DOE used 
a constant price assumption as the default price factor index to 
project future computer room air conditioner prices in 2017. Thus, 
prices projected for the LCC and PBP analysis are equal to the 2011 
values for each efficiency level in each equipment class. Appendix 8D 
of the final rule TSD describes the historical data and the derivation 
of the price projection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Series ID PCU3334153334159; http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requested comments on the most appropriate trend to use for 
real (inflation-adjusted) computer room air conditioner prices. DOE 
received no comments on this issue and has retained the same approach 
for the final rule.
b. Installation Costs
    For the NOPR, DOE derived national average installation costs for 
CRAC equipment from data provided in RS Means CostWorks 2011 (RS Means) 
specifically for CRAC equipment.\27\ RS Means provides estimates for 
installation costs for CRAC units by equipment capacity, as well as 
city cost indices that reflect the variation in installation costs. DOE 
uses the RS Means cost indexes for 288 cities in the United States to 
determine State-level markups. The RS Means data identify several 
cities in all 50 States and the District of Columbia. DOE incorporated 
location-based cost indices into the analysis to capture variation in 
installation cost, depending on the location of the customer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ R.S. Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2011 (2011) 
(Available at: www.meanscostworks.com/>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE recognized that 
installation costs could potentially be higher with larger units and 
higher-efficiency CRAC equipment due to larger sizes and more complex 
setup requirements. DOE utilized RS Means installation cost data from 
RS Means CostWorks 2011 to derive installation cost curves by size of 
unit for the base-efficiency unit. These cost curves were updated for 
the final rule using RS Means CostWorks 2012.\28\ DOE did not have data 
to calibrate the extent to which installation cost might change as 
efficiency increased. This was identified as Issue 13 under ``Issues on 
Which DOE Seeks Comment'' in section X.E of the January 2012 NOPR. 77 
FR 2356, 2424 (Jan. 17, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 2012 (2012) 
(Available at: www.meanscostworks.com/>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received two comments on the NOPR concerning its installation 
costs for the LCC analysis. Danfoss commented that installation costs 
in replacement and retrofit applications might be higher than for new 
applications, because higher-efficiency equipment may be larger and 
harder to adapt to existing spaces. (Danfoss, Public Meeting Transcript 
at p. 110) Emerson commented that installation costs in situations 
where much attention is paid to efficiency may be higher because of the 
intentions of the designer interested in energy efficiency, not the 
equipment itself. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 110-111) 
DOE acknowledges that either of these comments may be correct under 
certain circumstances, but it does not have quantitative information 
that would allow computation of an installation cost curve that is 
sensitive to efficiency level. Accordingly, DOE is using average 
installation cost data from RS Means that spans a variety of 
installation circumstances at a range of capacities. These data 
indicated that installation costs for replacements overall were 
slightly less costly than new installations. In this final rule, DOE is 
maintaining the approach used in the NOPR, specifically that 
installation costs do not vary with efficiency level.
c. Annual Energy Use
    DOE estimated the annual electricity consumed by each class of CRAC 
equipment, by efficiency level, based on the energy use 
characterization described in section V.D and in chapter 4 of the final 
rule TSD. DOE received no comments on energy use. Accordingly, DOE is 
maintaining the same approach in the final rule.
d. Electricity Prices
    Electricity prices are used to convert the electric energy savings 
from higher-efficiency equipment into energy cost savings. Because 
annual electricity consumption savings and equipment costs vary across 
the country, it is important to consider regional differences in 
electricity prices. DOE used average effective commercial electricity 
prices at the State level from U.S. Energy Information Administration 
(EIA) data for 2011.\29\ This approach captured a wide range of 
commercial electricity prices across the United States. Furthermore, 
different kinds of businesses typically use electricity in different 
amounts at different times of the day, week, and year, and therefore, 
face different effective prices. To make this adjustment, DOE used 
EIA's 2003 Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) \30\ 
data set to identify the average prices the three building types paid 
and compared them with the average prices paid by all commercial 
customers.\31\ DOE used the ratios of prices paid by the three types of 
businesses to the national average commercial prices seen in the 2003 
CBECS as multipliers to adjust the average commercial 2011 State price 
data.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Not all of the 2011 data had been posted by EIA by the time 
calculations for the final rule were required. Consequently, prices 
for the period November 2010 through October 2011 were used.
    \30\ U.S. Energy Information Administration, CBECS Public Use 
Microdata Files (Last Accessed April 2012) (Available at: 
www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/public_use_2003/cbecs_pudata2003.html>).
    \31\ EIA's 2003 CBECS is the most recent version of the data 
set.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE estimated the relative prices each building type paid in each 
State and the estimated relative sales of CRAC equipment to each 
building type in each State. The relative prices were compared with a 
weighted-average national electricity price for 2011. The State/
building type weights reflect the probabilities that a given unit of 
CRAC equipment shipped will operate with a given fuel price. The 
original State-by-State average commercial prices in the NOPR (adjusted 
to 2011$) range from $0.066 per kWh to approximately $0.216 per kWh. 
The commercial electricity prices for each State used in the final rule 
were updated through October 2011 and range from $0.065 per kWh to 
$0.312 per kWh (See chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD for further 
details.)
    The electricity price trends provide the relative change in 
electricity costs

[[Page 28958]]

for future years. DOE applied the AEO 2011 reference case as the 
default scenario and extrapolated the trend in values at the Census 
Division level from 2025 to 2035 of the projection to establish prices 
in 2036 to 2060. This method of extrapolation is in line with methods 
EIA uses to project fuel prices for the Federal Energy Management 
Program (FEMP). DOE provides a sensitivity analysis of the LCC savings 
and PBP results to different fuel price scenarios using both the AEO 
2011 high-price and low-price projections in the ASHRAE final rule TSD.
    DOE received no comments concerning either electricity prices or 
electricity price trends. Accordingly, DOE updated the data used in the 
NOPR to reflect the latest available prices and price forecasts and 
retained the same analytical approach for the final rule.
e. Maintenance Costs
    Maintenance costs are the costs to the customer of maintaining 
equipment operation. Maintenance costs include services such as 
cleaning heat-exchanger coils and changing air filters. For the NOPR, 
DOE estimated annual routine maintenance costs for CRAC equipment as 
$84 per year for capacities up to 288 kBtu per hour and $102 per year 
for larger capacities, as reported in the RS Means CostWorks 2011 
database. For the final rule, these values were increased to account 
for recommended CRAC quarterly and semi-annual maintenance schedules 
and for changes in unit costs reflected in RS Means CostWorks 2012. 
Because data did not indicate how maintenance costs vary with equipment 
efficiency, DOE used preventive maintenance costs that remain constant 
as equipment efficiency increases. DOE received no comments on the NOPR 
concerning the maintenance cost estimates. DOE made no changes to the 
maintenance cost estimates for this final rule other than those 
updating the RS Means maintenance schedules and unit costs.
f. Repair Costs
    The repair cost is the cost to the customer of replacing or 
repairing components that have failed in the CRAC equipment. For the 
NOPR, DOE estimated the one-time repair cost in RS Means CostWorks 2011 
as a percentage of MSP for capacities between 5 tons (T) (60,000 Btu/h) 
and 15 T (180,000 Btu/h), with the curve flattening at the 15 T 
percentage thereafter. DOE applied the percentage to the MSP for more-
efficient equipment at each capacity for the one-time repair, then 
annualized the resulting repair costs. For the final rule, DOE updated 
repair costs using data in RS Means CostWorks 2012. DOE determined that 
annualized repair costs would increase in direct proportion with 
increases in equipment prices. Because the price of CRAC equipment 
increases with efficiency, the cost for component repair will also 
increase as the efficiency of equipment increases. See chapter 6 of the 
ASHRAE final rule TSD for details on the development of repair costs.
    DOE received two comments on the January 2012 NOPR concerning 
repair cost estimates. The Appliance Standard Awareness Project (ASAP) 
questioned whether annualizing the present value of a future outlay 
results in the same value as directly calculating the present value of 
that outlay. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript at pp.114-116) Emerson 
commented that the time profile of failure rates for compressors, which 
would represent a significant portion of repair costs, are basically 
constant over time. Therefore, according to the comment, it makes no 
difference whether the cost was calculated for a single year or an 
equivalent annual cost. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript at pp. 116-
117) For the final rule, DOE calculated annualized repair costs for 
CRAC equipment by first calculating the present value of a major repair 
at the mid-point of the average lifetime and then calculating the 
equivalent annual payment that would yield the same present value.
g. Equipment Lifetime
    DOE defines ``equipment lifetime'' as the age at which a unit of 
CRAC equipment is retired from service. DOE reviewed available 
literature to establish typical equipment lifetimes. The literature 
offered a wide range of typical equipment lifetimes, ranging from 10 to 
25 years. The data did not distinguish between classes of CRAC 
equipment. Consequently, DOE used a distribution of lifetimes between 
10 and 25 years, with an average of 15 years based on review of a range 
of CRAC lifetime estimates found in published studies and online 
documents. DOE applied this distribution to all classes of CRAC 
equipment analyzed. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD discusses 
equipment lifetime. DOE received no comments on the January 2012 NOPR 
regarding the distribution of equipment lifetimes or the average 
equipment lifespan used in the LCC analysis. Accordingly, no changes 
were made to this analysis for the final rule.
h. Discount Rate
    The discount rate is the rate at which future expenditures are 
discounted to establish their present value. DOE determined the 
discount rate by estimating the cost of capital for purchasers of CRAC 
equipment. Most purchasers use both debt and equity capital to fund 
investments. Therefore, for most purchasers, the discount rate is the 
weighted-average cost of debt and equity financing, or the weighted-
average cost of capital (WACC), less the expected inflation.
    DOE updated the data sources for the final rule. As was done in the 
NOPR, to estimate the WACC of computer room air conditioner equipment 
purchasers that are private firms, DOE used a sample of more than 2,000 
companies, grouped to represent operators of each of three commercial 
building types (health care, education, and office). These companies 
were drawn from a database of 5,891 U.S. companies presented on the 
Damodaran Online Web site in January 2012.\32\ This database includes 
most of the publicly-traded companies in the United States. For most 
educational buildings and a portion of the office buildings occupied by 
public schools, universities, and State and local government agencies, 
DOE estimated the cost of capital based on a 40-year geometric mean of 
the Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index.\33\ Federal office 
space was assumed to use the Federal bond rate, derived as the 40-year 
geometric mean of long-term (>10 years) U.S. government securities.\34\ 
When one or more of the variables needed to estimate the discount rate 
in the Damodaran dataset were missing or could not be obtained, DOE 
discarded the firm from the analysis. DOE further reduced the sample to 
exclude firms that were unlikely to use the computer rooms served by 
CRAC equipment. The WACC approach for determining discount rates 
accounts for the current tax status of individual firms on an overall 
corporate basis. DOE did not evaluate the marginal effects of increased 
costs, and, thus, depreciation due to more expensive equipment, on the 
overall tax status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Damodaran financial data used for determining cost of 
capital is available at http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/ for 
commercial businesses (Last accessed Jan. 27, 2012).
    \33\ Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, State and Local Bonds-
Bond Buyer Go 20-Bond Municipal Bond Index (Last accessed April 6, 
2012) (Available at: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MSLB20/downloaddata?cid=32995).
    \34\ Calculated as a 40-year geometric average of long-term (>10 
year) U.S. government securities. Rate calculated with 1972-2011 
data. Data source: U.S. Federal Reserve (Last accessed Jan. 23, 2012 
at www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h15/data.htm).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a comment on the January 2012 NOPR concerning the 
discount rates used in the LCC analysis.

[[Page 28959]]

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) requested that major retail and 
internet service companies be added to the businesses that would use 
computer rooms having CRAC equipment. (EEI, Public Meeting Transcript 
at p. 120) For the final rule, DOE added several additional types of 
businesses into the ``office'' category to broaden that classification. 
Retail and internet firms were included.
    DOE used the final sample of companies to represent purchasers of 
CRAC equipment. For each company in the sample, DOE derived the cost of 
equity, cost of debt, percent debt financing, and systematic company 
risk from information on the Damodaran Online Web site. DOE estimated 
the cost of debt financing as the ``risk-free'' rate--long-term Federal 
government bond rate (6.61 percent)--added to a company-specific risk 
premium based on the standard deviation of its stock price. DOE 
estimated the cost of equity financing based on the risk-free rate, 
plus the product of the company-specific risk premium and an expected 
equity risk premium for firms facing average market risk. DOE then 
determined WACC for each company and the weighted average WACC for each 
category of the sample companies. Deducting expected inflation from the 
cost of capital provided estimates of real discount rate for each 
company. Based on this database, DOE calculated the weighted average 
after-tax discount rate for CRAC equipment purchases, adjusted for 
inflation, in each of the three building types used in the analysis. 
Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD contains the detailed 
calculations on the discount rate.
3. Payback Period
    DOE also determined the economic impact of potential amended energy 
conservation standards on customers by calculating the PBP of more-
stringent efficiency levels relative to a baseline efficiency level. 
The PBP measures the amount of time it takes the commercial customer to 
recover the assumed higher purchase expense of more-efficient equipment 
through lower operating costs. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on 
the total installed cost and the operating expenses for each building 
type and State, weighted on the probability of shipment to each market. 
Because the simple PBP does not take into account changes in operating 
expense over time or the time value of money, DOE considered only the 
first year's operating expenses to calculate the PBP, unlike the LCC, 
which is calculated over the lifetime of the equipment. Chapter 6 of 
the ASHRAE final rule TSD provides additional details about the PBP. 
DOE received no comments on the January 2012 NOPR concerning the PBP 
analysis. Accordingly, no changes were made to this analysis for the 
final rule.

F. National Impact Analysis

    The national impact analysis (NIA) evaluates the effects of a 
proposed energy conservation standard from a national perspective 
rather than from the customer perspective represented by the LCC. This 
analysis assesses the net present value (NPV) (future amounts 
discounted to the present) and the national energy savings (NES) of 
total commercial customer costs and savings that are expected to result 
from amended and new standards at specific efficiency levels. For each 
efficiency level analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and NES for adopting 
more-stringent standards than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010.
    The NES refers to cumulative energy savings from 2012 through 2041 
or 2013 through 2042, depending on the equipment class. DOE calculated 
energy savings in each year relative to a base case, which reflects DOE 
adoption of the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. DOE also calculated energy savings from adopting efficiency 
levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 compared to the current 
market base case. The NPV refers to cumulative monetary savings. DOE 
calculated net monetary savings in each year relative to the base case 
(ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010) as the difference between total operating 
cost savings and increases in total installed cost. Cumulative savings 
are the sum of the annual NPV over the specified period. DOE accounted 
for operating cost savings until 2055 or 2056, when the equipment 
installed in the 30th year after the compliance date of the amended 
standards should be retired.
1. Approach
    The NES and NPV are a function of the total number of units in use 
and their efficiencies. Both the NES and NPV depend on annual shipments 
and equipment lifetime. Both calculations start by using the shipments 
estimate and the quantity of units in service derived from the 
shipments model.
    With regard to estimating the NES, because more-efficient computer 
room air conditioners are expected to gradually replace less-efficient 
ones, the energy per unit of capacity used by the computer room air 
conditioners in service gradually decreases in the standards case 
relative to the base case. DOE calculated the NES by subtracting energy 
use under a standards-case scenario from energy use in the base case.
    Unit energy savings for each equipment class are taken from the LCC 
spreadsheet for each efficiency level and weighted based on market 
efficiency distributions. To estimate the total energy savings for each 
efficiency level, DOE first calculated the national site energy 
consumption (i.e., the energy directly consumed by the units of 
equipment in operation) for each class of computer room air 
conditioners for each year of the analysis period. The analysis period 
begins with the earliest expected compliance date of amended Federal 
energy conservation standards (i.e., 2012 or 2013), assuming DOE 
adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels. For the 
analysis of DOE's potential adoption of more-stringent efficiency 
levels, the earliest compliance date would be 2017, four years after 
DOE would likely issue a final rule requiring such standards. Second, 
DOE determined the annual site energy savings, consisting of the 
difference in site energy consumption between the base case and the 
standards case for each class of computer room air conditioner. Third, 
DOE converted the annual site energy savings into the annual amount of 
energy saved at the source of electricity generation (the source 
energy), using a site-to-source conversion factor. Finally, DOE summed 
the annual source energy savings over a 30-year period to calculate the 
total NES. DOE performed these calculations for each efficiency level 
considered for computer room air conditioners in this rulemaking.
    DOE considered whether a rebound effect is applicable in its NES 
analysis. A rebound effect occurs when an increase in equipment 
efficiency leads to increased demand for its service. EIA in its 
National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) model assumes an efficiency 
rebound to account for an increased demand for service due to the 
increase in cooling (or heating) efficiency.\35\ For the computer room 
air conditioning equipment market, there are two ways that a rebound 
effect could occur: (1) Increased use of the air-conditioning equipment 
within the commercial buildings in which such units are installed; and 
(2) additional instances of air-conditioning computer rooms that were 
not being cooled before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ An overview of the NEMS model and documentation is found 
at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE believes that the first instance does not occur often because 
computer rooms are generally cooled to the level

[[Page 28960]]

required for safe operation of the servers and other equipment. Persons 
maintaining the equipment have no reason to deviate from the optimal 
range of environmental conditions. With regard to the second instance, 
computer room air conditioners are unlikely to be installed in 
previously uncooled computer rooms, because servers and other equipment 
that need to be cooled or otherwise space conditioned to the degree of 
precision that requires a computer room air conditioner already would 
be. Given the potential for computer equipment damage or diminished 
performance, running a computer room without the appropriate 
environmental controls from the outset is highly unlikely. DOE received 
no public comments in response to the January 2012 NOPR on the issue of 
rebound effect. Therefore, DOE did not assume a rebound effect in the 
analysis.
    To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the net impact as the difference 
between total operating cost savings and increases in total installed 
costs. DOE calculated the NPV of each considered standard level over 
the life of the equipment using the following three steps. First, DOE 
determined the difference between the equipment costs under the 
standard-level case and the base case in order to obtain the net 
equipment cost increase resulting from the higher standard level. 
Second, DOE determined the difference between the base-case operating 
costs and the standard-level operating costs in order to obtain the net 
operating cost savings from each higher efficiency level. Third, DOE 
determined the difference between the net operating cost savings and 
the net equipment cost increase in order to obtain the net savings (or 
expense) for each year. DOE then discounted the annual net savings (or 
expenses) to 2012 for computer room air conditioners bought on or after 
2012 or 2013, depending on product class, and summed the discounted 
values to provide the NPV for an efficiency level. An NPV greater than 
zero shows net savings (i.e., the efficiency level would reduce 
customer expenditures relative to the base case in present value 
terms). An NPV that is less than zero indicates that the efficiency 
level would result in a net increase in customer expenditures in 
present value terms.
    To make the analysis more transparent to all interested parties, 
DOE used a commercially-available spreadsheet tool to calculate the 
energy savings and the national economic costs and savings from 
potential amended standards. Chapter 8 of the final rule TSD explains 
the models and how to use them. Interested parties can review DOE's 
analyses by changing various input quantities within the spreadsheet.
    Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES spreadsheet does not use 
distributions for inputs or outputs, but relies on national average 
equipment costs and energy costs developed from the LCC spreadsheet. 
DOE used the NES spreadsheet to perform calculations of energy savings 
and NPV using the annual energy consumption and total installed cost 
data from the LCC analysis. DOE forecasted the energy savings, energy 
cost savings, equipment costs, and NPV of benefits for equipment sold 
in each computer room air conditioner class from 2012 through 2041 or 
2013 through 2042, depending on the product class. The forecast 
provided annual and cumulative values for all four output parameters 
described above. DOE received no public comments on these calculations. 
Accordingly, DOE maintained the same approach in this final rule.
2. Shipments Analysis
    DOE developed shipment projections and, in turn, calculated 
equipment stock by assuming that in each year, each existing computer 
room air conditioners either age by one year or break down after a 15-
year equipment life. DOE used the shipments projection and the 
equipment stock to determine the NES. The shipments portion of the 
spreadsheet model forecasts computer room air conditioner shipments 
from 2012 or 2013 to 2041 or 2042, depending on the product class.
    Data on computer room air conditioner shipments in the U.S. were 
not available. To estimate U.S. shipments, DOE obtained historical and 
projected (2000-2020) computer room air conditioner shipment data from 
an Australian energy performance standards report.\36\ DOE then used 
the ratio of business establishments in the U.S. compared to Australia 
to inflate Australian shipments to reflect the U.S. market. The 
inflator used was 13.2. Table V.8 exhibits the shipment data provided 
for a selection of years, while the full data set and the complete 
discussion of energy use indicators can be found in chapter 7 of the 
ASHRAE final rule TSD. DOE used these shipments data to extend a 
shipments trend into the future.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy Efficiency 
Committee Regulatory Impact Statement Consultation Draft: Minimum 
Energy Performance Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close 
Control Air Conditioners, Report No. 2008/11 (Sept. 2008) (Available 
at: www.energyrating.gov.au).

      Table V.8--Total Shipments of Computer Room Air Conditioners
                                 [Units]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Units shipped
                Year                     (Australian      Units shipped
                                            data)        (U.S. estimate)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000................................               850            11,228
2005................................               985            13,011
2010................................             1,140            15,058
2015................................             1,320            17,436
2020................................             1,526            20,157
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE allocated overall shipments into product classes using a two-
step process. First, DOE used Australian market shares to allocate 
shipments to six broad product classes. DOE then used the relative 
fraction of models for each equipment class reflected in DOE's market 
database to allocate shipments further into the 15 product classes 
analyzed. The complete discussion of shipment allocation and forecasted 
shipments for the different equipment classes can be found in chapter 7 
of the ASHRAE final rule TSD.
    As equipment purchase price and repair costs increase with 
efficiency, DOE recognizes that higher first costs and repair costs can 
result in a drop in shipments. However, DOE had no basis for estimating 
the elasticity of shipments for computer room air conditioners as a 
function of first costs, repair costs, or operating costs. In addition, 
because computer room air conditioners are necessary for their 
application, DOE believes shipments would not change as a result of the

[[Page 28961]]

higher first costs and repair costs considered in this rulemaking. 
Therefore, DOE assumed that the shipments projection does not change 
with higher standard levels. DOE received no comments on its shipments 
analysis in response to the January 2012 NOPR. Accordingly, DOE 
maintained its approach for this final rule.
3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies
    DOE reviewed the distribution of efficiency levels for 
commercially-available models within each equipment class in order to 
develop base-case efficiency distributions. DOE bundled the efficiency 
levels into ``efficiency ranges'' and determined the percentage of 
models within each range. DOE applied the percentages of models within 
each efficiency range to the total unit shipments for a given equipment 
class to estimate the distribution of shipments for the base case. 
Then, from those market shares and projections of shipments by 
equipment class, DOE extrapolated future equipment efficiency trends 
both for a base-case scenario and for standards-case scenarios.
    For each efficiency level analyzed, DOE used a ``roll-up'' scenario 
to establish the market shares by efficiency level for the year that 
compliance would be required with amended standards (i.e., 2017 if DOE 
adopts more-stringent efficiency levels than those in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010). DOE collected information that suggests 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. This 
information also suggests that equipment efficiencies in the base case 
that were above the standard level under consideration would not be 
affected. The base-case efficiency distributions for each equipment 
class are presented in chapter 7 of the ASHRAE final rule TSD.
    For the base case, DOE had no basis to estimate potential change in 
efficiency market shares. Therefore, DOE assumed that, absent amended 
standards, forecasted market shares would remain constant until the end 
of the forecast period (30 years after the compliance date). This 
prediction could cause DOE to overestimate the savings associated with 
the higher efficiency levels discussed in this notice because computer 
room air conditioner efficiencies or relative efficiency class 
preferences could change over time.
    In response to this approach in the January 2012 NOPR, AHRI stated 
that the analysis of the NES-forecasted base-case distribution of 
efficiencies and DOE's prediction of how amended energy conservation 
standards might affect the distribution of efficiencies in the 
standards case should be redone, with the assumption being that the 
applicable industry test procedure will be the new edition of ASHRAE 
Standard 127 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 127-2012). AHRI stated that the 
result should be an improved forecast of energy savings. (AHRI, No. 30 
at p. 6) In response, DOE notes that as mentioned in section IV.C, it 
is unable to adopt ASHRAE 127-2012, because there are no test data 
showing the results of testing to this standard (using the NSenCOP 
metric) and how they compare to those obtained using ASHRAE 127-2007 
(using the SCOP metric, which is also the metric of the standard levels 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010), so DOE could not obtain clear and 
convincing evidence that any new efficiency levels based on ASHRAE 127-
2012 would be technologically feasible or economically justified. 
Therefore, DOE is retaining the approach taken in the NOPR.
    NEEA asked whether the national energy savings take into account 
the energy presumably lost due to reduced energy efficiency standards 
in the markets regulated by the California Energy Commission (CEC). 
NEEA provided a table comparing the CEC levels to the ASHRAE levels 
using the rule-of-thumb with a sensible heat ratio of 0.9, which 
suggested that in contrast to the CEC's EER requirement for several 
equipment classes, the corresponding SCOP level in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010 may be less stringent. (NEEA, No. at p. 2) In response, DOE 
notes that the rule-of-thumb method is approximate, and no test data 
are available to provide an accurate comparison between the EER 
standards required by the CEC and the SCOP levels in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010. Commenters provided no data that would help clarify this 
matter. In addition, DOE has no information on how the markets 
regulated by the CEC would react to a national standard and, therefore, 
how the distribution of efficiencies would be expected to change. As a 
result, DOE was not able to take this issue into account in its 
analyses.

G. Emissions Analysis

    In the emissions analysis, DOE estimated the reduction in power 
sector emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and mercury (Hg) from amended energy conservation 
standards for ASHRAE equipment. DOE used the NEMS-BT computer 
model,\37\ which is run similarly to the AEO NEMS, except that 
equipment energy use is reduced by the amount of energy saved (by fuel 
type) at each efficiency level. The inputs of national energy savings 
come from the NIA spreadsheet model, while the output is the forecasted 
physical emissions. The net benefit of each efficiency level in today's 
final rule is the difference between the forecasted emissions estimated 
by NEMS-BT at each efficiency level and the AEO 2011 Reference case, 
which incorporates projected effects of all emissions regulations 
promulgated as of January 31, 2011. NEMS-BT tracks CO2 
emissions using a detailed module that provides results with broad 
coverage of all sectors and inclusion of interactive effects. For 
today's final rule, DOE used the version of NEMS-BT based on AEO 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ EIA approves the use of the name ``NEMS'' to describe only 
an AEO version of the model without any modification to code or 
data. Because the present analysis entails some minor code 
modifications and runs the model under various policy scenarios that 
deviate from AEO assumptions, the name ``NEMS-BT'' refers to the 
model as used here. (BT stands for DOE's Building Technologies 
Program.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SO2 emissions from affected electric generating units 
(EGUs) are subject to nationwide and regional emissions cap-and-trade 
programs, and DOE has preliminarily determined that these programs 
create uncertainty about the impact of energy conservation standards on 
SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean Air Act sets an annual 
emissions cap on SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 contiguous 
States and the District of Columbia (D.C.). SO2 emissions 
from 28 eastern States and D.C. are also limited under the Clean Air 
Interstate Rule (CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), which created an 
allowance-based trading program. Although CAIR was remanded to the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. Court of Appeals for 
the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) (see North Carolina v. 
EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (D.C. Cir. 2008)), it remained in effect 
temporarily, consistent with the D.C. Circuit's earlier opinion in 
North Carolina v. EPA, 531 F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 2010, 
EPA issued the Transport Rule proposal, a replacement for CAIR. 75 FR 
45210 (August 2, 2010). On July 6, 2011, EPA issued the final Transport 
Rule, titled the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 
2011). (See http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/). On December 30, 2011, 
however, the D.C. Circuit stayed the new rules while a panel of judges

[[Page 28962]]

reviews them, and told EPA to continue enforcing CAIR (see EME Homer 
City Generation v. EPA, No. 11-1302, Order at *2 (D.C. Cir. Dec. 30, 
2011)). The AEO 2011 NEMS-BT used for today's final rule assumes the 
implementation of CAIR.\38\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS-BT model will 
incorporate any changes necessitated by the Transport Rule, if and 
when regulatory and judicial review of the rule is complete.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The attainment of emissions caps typically is flexible among EGUs 
and is enforced through the use of emissions allowances and tradable 
permits. Under existing EPA regulations, any excess SO2 
emissions allowances resulting from the lower electricity demand caused 
by the imposition of an energy conservation standard could be used to 
permit offsetting increases in SO2 emissions by any 
regulated EGU. However, if the new and amended standards resulted in a 
permanent increase in the quantity of unused emissions allowances, 
there would be an overall reduction in SO2 emissions from 
the standards. While there remains some uncertainty about the ultimate 
effects of energy conservation standards on SO2 emissions 
covered by the existing cap-and-trade system, the NEMS-BT modeling 
system that DOE uses to forecast emissions reductions currently 
indicates that no physical reductions in power sector emissions would 
occur for SO2. DOE acknowledges, however, that even though 
there is a cap on SO2 emissions and uncertainty whether 
efficiency standards would reduce SO2 emissions, it is 
possible that standards could reduce the compliance cost by reducing 
demand for SO2 allowances.
    As discussed above, the AEO 2011 NEMS used for today's final rule 
assumes the implementation of CAIR, which established a cap on 
NOX emissions in 28 eastern States and the District of 
Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the energy conservation standards that 
are the subject of today's final rule are expected to have little or no 
physical effect on NOX emissions in those States covered by 
CAIR, for the same reasons that they may have little effect on 
SO2 emissions. However, the final standards would be 
expected to reduce NOX emissions in the 22 States not 
affected by CAIR. For these 22 States, DOE is using the NEMS-BT to 
estimate NOX emissions reductions from the standards 
considered in today's final rule.
    On February 16, 2012, EPA published national emissions standards 
for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) for mercury and certain other 
pollutants emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 77 FR 9304 (Feb. 16, 
2012) (Final Rule). The NESHAPs do not include emissions caps and, as 
such, DOE's energy conservation standards would likely reduce Hg 
emissions. For the emissions analysis for this rulemaking, DOE 
estimated mercury emissions reductions using NEMS-BT based on AEO 2011, 
which does not incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE expects that future 
versions of the NEMS-BT model will reflect the implementation of the 
NESHAPs.

H. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

    As part of the development of this final rule, DOE considered the 
estimated monetary benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions 
of CO2 and NOX that are expected to result from 
each of the considered efficiency levels. In order to make this 
calculation similar to the calculation of the NPV of customer benefit, 
DOE considered the reduced emissions expected to result over the 
lifetime of products shipped in the forecast period for each efficiency 
level. This section summarizes the basis for the monetary values used 
for each of these emissions and presents the values considered in this 
rulemaking.
    For today's final rule, DOE is relying on a set of values for the 
social cost of carbon (SCC) that was developed by an interagency 
process. A summary of the basis for those values is provided below, and 
a more detailed description of the methodologies used is provided as an 
appendix to chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.
1. Social Cost of Carbon
    Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), agencies must, to 
the extent permitted by law, assess both the costs and the benefits of 
the intended regulation and, recognizing that some costs and benefits 
are difficult to quantify, propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that the benefits of the intended regulation 
justify its costs. The purpose of the SCC estimates presented here is 
to allow agencies to incorporate the monetized social benefits of 
reducing CO2 emissions into cost-benefit analyses of 
regulatory actions that have small, or ``marginal,'' impacts on 
cumulative global emissions. The estimates are presented with an 
acknowledgement of the many uncertainties involved and with a clear 
understanding that they should be updated over time to reflect 
increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate impacts.
    As part of the interagency process that developed the SCC 
estimates, technical experts from numerous agencies met on a regular 
basis to consider public comments, explore the technical literature in 
relevant fields, and discuss key model inputs and assumptions. The main 
objective of this process was to develop a range of SCC values using a 
defensible set of input assumptions grounded in the existing scientific 
and economic literatures. In this way, key uncertainties and model 
differences transparently and consistently inform the range of SCC 
estimates used in the rulemaking process.
a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions
    The SCC is an estimate of the monetized damages associated with an 
incremental increase in carbon emissions in a given year. It is 
intended to include (but is not limited to) changes in net agricultural 
productivity, human health, property damages from increased flood risk, 
and the value of ecosystem services. Estimates of the SCC are provided 
in dollars per metric ton of carbon dioxide.
    When attempting to assess the incremental economic impacts of 
carbon dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a number of serious 
challenges. A recent report from the National Research Council \39\ 
points out that any assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 
speculation, and lack of information about: (1) Future emissions of 
greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past and future emissions on the 
climate system; (3) the impact of changes in climate on the physical 
and biological environment; and (4) the translation of these 
environmental impacts into economic damages. As a result, any effort to 
quantify and monetize the harms associated with climate change will 
raise serious questions of science, economics, and ethics and should be 
viewed as provisional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ National Research Council, ``Hidden Costs of Energy: 
Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use,'' National 
Academies Press: Washington, DC (2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite the serious limits of both quantification and monetization, 
SCC estimates can be useful in estimating the social benefits of 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Consistent with the directive in 
Executive Order 12866 discussed above, the purpose of the SCC estimates 
presented here is to make it possible for agencies to incorporate the 
social benefits from reducing carbon dioxide emissions into cost-
benefit analyses of regulatory actions that have small, or 
``marginal,'' impacts on cumulative global emissions. Most

[[Page 28963]]

Federal regulatory actions can be expected to have marginal impacts on 
global emissions.
    For such policies, the agency can estimate the benefits from 
reduced (or costs from increased) emissions in any future year by 
multiplying the change in emissions in that year by the SCC value 
appropriate for that year. The net present value of the benefits can 
then be calculated by multiplying each of these future benefits by an 
appropriate discount factor and summing across all affected years. This 
approach assumes that the marginal damages from increased emissions are 
constant for small departures from the baseline emissions path, an 
approximation that is reasonable for policies that have effects on 
emissions that are small relative to cumulative global carbon dioxide 
emissions. For policies that have a large (non-marginal) impact on 
global cumulative emissions, there is a separate question of whether 
the SCC is an appropriate tool for calculating the benefits of reduced 
emissions. This concern is not applicable to this notice, and DOE does 
not attempt to answer that question here.
    At the time of the preparation of this notice, the most recent 
interagency estimates of the potential global benefits resulting from 
reduced CO2 emissions in 2010, expressed in 2010$, were 
$4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton avoided. For emissions 
reductions that occur in later years, these values grow in real terms 
over time. Additionally, the interagency group determined that a range 
of values from 7 percent to 23 percent should be used to adjust the 
global SCC to calculate domestic effects,\40\ although preference is 
given to consideration of the global benefits of reducing 
CO2 emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \40\ It is recognized that this calculation for domestic values 
is approximate, provisional, and highly speculative. There is no a 
priori reason why domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 
net global damages over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to emphasize that the interagency process is 
committed to updating these estimates as the science and economic 
understanding of climate change and its impacts on society improves 
over time. Specifically, the interagency group has set a preliminary 
goal of revisiting the SCC values within 2 years or at such time as 
substantially updated models become available, and to continue to 
support research in this area. In the meantime, the interagency group 
will continue to explore the issues raised by this analysis and 
consider public comments as part of the ongoing interagency process.
b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses
    To date, economic analyses for Federal regulations have used a wide 
range of values to estimate the benefits associated with reducing 
carbon dioxide emissions. In the model year 2011 CAFE final rule, the 
Department of Transportation (DOT) used both a ``domestic'' SCC value 
of $2 per ton of CO2 and a ``global'' SCC value of $33 per 
ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 2007$), 
increasing both values at 2.4 percent per year. It also included a 
sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of CO2. See Average Fuel 
Economy Standards Passenger Cars and Light Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 
FR 14196 (March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final Environmental Impact 
Statement Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and 
Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015 at 3-90 (Oct. 2008) (Available at: 
http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A domestic SCC value is meant to 
reflect the value of damages in the United States resulting from a unit 
change in carbon dioxide emissions, while a global SCC value is meant 
to reflect the value of damages worldwide.
    A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT assumed a domestic SCC value of 
$7 per ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission reductions 
(with a range of $0 to $14 for sensitivity analysis), also increasing 
at 2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 
Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011-2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 
(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental Impact Statement Corporate Average 
Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 
2011-2015 at 3-58 (June 2008) (Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A regulation for packaged terminal air conditioners and 
packaged terminal heat pumps finalized by DOE in October of 2008 used a 
domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton CO2 for 2007 
emission reductions (in 2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 2008). In 
addition, EPA's 2008 Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 
Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions Under the Clean Air Act identified 
what it described as ``very preliminary'' SCC estimates subject to 
revision. 73 FR 44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA's global mean values were 
$68 and $40 per ton CO2 for discount rates of approximately 
2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 2006$ for 2007 emissions).
    In 2009, an interagency process was initiated to offer a 
preliminary assessment of how best to quantify the benefits from 
reducing carbon dioxide emissions. To ensure consistency in how 
benefits are evaluated across agencies, the Administration sought to 
develop a transparent and defensible method, specifically designed for 
the rulemaking process, to quantify avoided climate change damages from 
reduced CO2 emissions. The interagency group did not 
undertake any original analysis. Instead, it combined SCC estimates 
from the existing literature to use as interim values until a more 
comprehensive analysis could be conducted. The outcome of the 
preliminary assessment by the interagency group was a set of five 
interim values: Global SCC estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, $33, 
$19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. These interim values 
represent the first sustained interagency effort within the U.S. 
government to develop an SCC for use in regulatory analysis. The 
results of this preliminary effort were presented in several proposed 
and final rules and were offered for public comment in connection with 
proposed rules, including the joint EPA-DOT fuel economy and 
CO2 tailpipe emission proposed rules.
c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions
    Since the release of the interim values, the interagency group 
reconvened on a regular basis to generate improved SCC estimates, which 
were considered for this final rule. Specifically, the group considered 
public comments and further explored the technical literature in 
relevant fields. The interagency group relied on three integrated 
assessment models (IAMs) commonly used to estimate the SCC: The FUND, 
DICE, and PAGE models.\41\ These models are frequently cited in the 
peer-reviewed literature and were used in the last assessment of the 
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Each model was given equal 
weight in the SCC values that were developed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ The models are described in appendix 15-A of the final rule 
TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Each model takes a slightly different approach to model how changes 
in emissions result in changes in economic damages. A key objective of 
the interagency process was to enable a consistent exploration of the 
three models while respecting the different approaches to quantifying 
damages taken by the key modelers in the field. An extensive review of 
the literature was conducted to select three sets of input parameters 
for these models: Climate sensitivity, socio-economic and emissions 
trajectories, and discount rates. A probability distribution for

[[Page 28964]]

climate sensitivity was specified as an input into all three models. In 
addition, the interagency group used a range of scenarios for the 
socio-economic parameters and a range of values for the discount rate. 
All other model features were left unchanged, relying on the model 
developers' best estimates and judgments.
    The interagency group selected four SCC values for use in 
regulatory analyses. Three values are based on the average SCC from 
three integrated assessment models, at discount rates of 2.5 percent, 3 
percent, and 5 percent. The fourth value, which represents the 95th-
percentile SCC estimate across all three models at a 3-percent discount 
rate, is included to represent higher-than-expected impacts from 
temperature change further out in the tails of the SCC distribution. 
For emissions (or emission reductions) that occur in later years, these 
values grow in real terms over time, as depicted in Table V.9.

                                    Table V.9--Social Cost of CO2, 2010-2050
                                        [In 2007 dollars per metric ton]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   Discount rate (%)
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                          5                  3                 2.5                 3
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           Average            Average            Average        95th Percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2010................................                4.7               21.4               35.1               64.9
2015................................                5.7               23.8               38.4               72.8
2020................................                6.8               26.3               41.7               80.7
2025................................                8.2               29.6               45.9               90.4
2030................................                9.7               32.8               50.0              100.0
2035................................               11.2               36.0               54.2              109.7
2040................................               12.7               39.2               58.4              119.3
2045................................               14.2               42.1               61.7              127.8
2050................................               15.7               44.9               65.0              136.2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    It is important to recognize that a number of key uncertainties 
remain, and that current SCC estimates should be treated as provisional 
and revisable since they will evolve with improved scientific and 
economic understanding. The interagency group also recognizes that the 
existing models are imperfect and incomplete. The National Research 
Council report mentioned above points out that there is tension between 
the goal of producing quantified estimates of the economic damages from 
an incremental ton of carbon and the limits of existing efforts to 
model these effects. There are a number of concerns and problems that 
should be addressed by the research community, including research 
programs housed in many of the Federal agencies participating in the 
interagency process to estimate the SCC.
    DOE recognizes the uncertainties embedded in the estimates of the 
SCC used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, DOE and others in the U.S. 
Government intend to periodically review and reconsider those estimates 
to reflect increasing knowledge of the science and economics of climate 
impacts, as well as improvements in modeling. In this context, 
statements recognizing the limitations of the analysis and calling for 
further research take on exceptional significance.
    In summary, in considering the potential global benefits resulting 
from reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the most recent values 
identified by the interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ using the GDP 
price deflator. For each of the four cases specified, the values used 
for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, $22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 
avoided (values expressed in 2010$).\42\ To monetize the CO2 
emissions reductions expected to result from new or amended standards 
for the product classes in today's final rule, DOE used the values 
identified in Table A1 of the ``Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 
Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 12866,'' which is reprinted in 
appendix 10-A of the final rule TSD, appropriately escalated to 2010$. 
To calculate a present value of the stream of monetary values, DOE 
discounted the values in each of the four cases using the specific 
discount rate that had been used to obtain the SCC values in each case.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. For DOE's 
calculation, it derived values after 2050 using the 3-percent per 
year escalation rate used by the interagency group.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions
    DOE investigated the potential monetary benefit of reduced 
NOX emissions from the efficiency levels it considered. As 
noted above, DOE has taken into account how new or amended energy 
conservation standards would reduce NOX emissions in those 
22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE estimated the monetized value 
of NOX emissions reductions resulting from each of the 
efficiency levels considered for today's final rule based on 
environmental damage estimates found in the relevant scientific 
literature. Available estimates suggest a very wide range of monetary 
values, ranging from $370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX 
from stationary sources, measured in 2001$ (equivalent to a range of 
$450 to $4,623 per ton in 2010$).\43\ In accordance with OMB guidance, 
DOE conducted two calculations of the monetary benefits derived using 
each of the economic values used for NOX, one using a real 
discount rate of 3 percent and the other using a real discount rate of 
7 percent.\44\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ For additional information, refer to U.S. Office of 
Management and Budget, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
2006 Report to Congress on the Costs and Benefits of Federal 
Regulations and Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 
Entities, Washington, DC.
    \44\ OMB, Circular A-4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 17, 2003).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is aware of multiple agency efforts to determine the 
appropriate range of values used in evaluating the potential economic 
benefits of reduced Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await further 
guidance regarding consistent valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 
before it monetizes Hg in its rulemakings.

I. Other Issues

1. Compliance Dates of the Amended and New Energy Conservation 
Standards
    Generally, covered equipment to which a new or amended energy 
conservation standard applies must comply with the standard if such

[[Page 28965]]

equipment is manufactured or imported on or after a specified date. In 
today's final rule, DOE is evaluating whether more-stringent efficiency 
levels than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 would be technologically 
feasible, economically justified, and result in a significant amount of 
energy savings. If DOE were to adopt a rule prescribing energy 
conservation standards at the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010, EPCA states that compliance with any such standards 
shall be required on or after a date which is two or three years 
(depending on equipment size) after the compliance date of the 
applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement in the amended ASHRAE/
IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) DOE has applied this two-year 
or three-year implementation period to determine the compliance date of 
any energy conservation standard equal to the efficiency levels 
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 proposed by this rulemaking. 
Thus, if DOE decides to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010, the compliance date of the rulemaking would be dependent 
upon the date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or its publication 
date, if none is specified.
    The rule would apply to equipment h (10 product classes 
\45\) manufactured on and after October 29, 2012, which is two years 
after the publication date of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, and to 
equipment >=65,000 Btu/h (20 product classes \46\) manufactured on and 
after October 29, 2013, which is three years after the publication date 
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Typically, equipment equal to or greater 
than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h would have a compliance 
date two years after the publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. However, 
because ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 established a product class for 
computer room air conditioners that combines traditional small and 
large categories, DOE has decided to assign the later compliance date 
of three years after the publication of ASHRAE 90.1-2010 to all 
computer room air conditioner product classes that cover products 
between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ The analysis only shows five product classes for this 
equipment size because DOE was able to analyze downflow and upflow 
units in combination. These units are nearly identical, but ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010 identifies a 0.11 SCOP reduction in efficiency 
levels for upflow units as compared to downflow units (likely as a 
result of the additional static pressure that the blower fan must 
overcome in the upflow orientation). By adjusting the upflow units 
by 0.11 SCOP, DOE could analyze upflow and downflow units in 
combination.
    \46\ The analysis only shows ten product classes for this 
equipment size for the same reasons mentioned for equipment h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If DOE were to adopt a rule prescribing energy conservation 
standards higher than the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010, EPCA states that compliance with any such standards 
is required for products manufactured on and after a date which is four 
years after the date the rule is published in the Federal Register. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) DOE has applied this 4-year implementation period 
to determine the compliance date for any energy conservation standard 
higher than the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 that might be prescribed. Thus, for products for which DOE might 
adopt a level more stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency levels, the 
rule would apply to products manufactured on and after a date four 
years from the date of publication of the final rule, which the statute 
requires to be completed by April 29, 2013 (thereby resulting in a 
compliance date no later than April 29, 2017).\47\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \47\ Since ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 on October 
29, 2010, EPCA requires that DOE publish a final rule adopting more-
stringent standards than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, if 
warranted, within 30 months of ASHRAE action (i.e., by April 2013). 
Thus, four years from April 2013 would be April 2017, which would be 
the anticipated compliance date for DOE adoption of more-stringent 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table V.10 presents the anticipated compliance dates of a new 
energy conservation standard for each equipment class of computer room 
air conditioners.

 Table V.10--Compliance Dates for an Energy Conservation Standard for Each Equipment Class of Computer Room Air
                                                  Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Compliance date for adopting more-
                                          Compliance date for adopting the     stringent efficiency levels than
            Equipment class                 efficiency levels in ASHRAE       those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010
                                                 Standard 90.1-2010                 (no later than * * *)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000  October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 and h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled,           October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled,         October 29, 2012...................  April 29, 2017.
 h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled,         October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 >=65,000 and h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled,         October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with     October 29, 2012...................  April 29, 2017.
 fluid economizers, h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with     October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 fluid economizers, >=65,000 and
 h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled with     October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 fluid economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h
 and h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,        October 29, 2012...................  April 29, 2017.
 h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,        October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 >=65,000 and h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,        October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 >=240,000 Btu/h and h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with    October 29, 2012...................  April 29, 2017.
 fluid economizers, h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with    October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 fluid economizers, >=65,000 and
 h.
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with    October 29, 2013...................  April 29, 2017.
 fluid economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h
 and h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28966]]

VI. Analytical Results

A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    The methodology for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled products 
was presented in the May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637-40 (May 5, 
2011). Table VI.1 presents the baseline efficiency level and the higher 
efficiency levels analyzed for each equipment class of water-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled products subject to today's final rule. The 
baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels 
currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the 
baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and higher efficiency levels where equipment is currently 
available on the market.

            Table VI.1--Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Representative
                Equipment class                   capacity  (tons)        Efficiency levels analyzed (EER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric                    8  Baseline--11.5
 or No Heat, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.                     ASHRAE--12.1
                                                                    13.0
                                                                    14.0
                                                 .................  15.0
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--16.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other                       8  Baseline--11.3
 Heat, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.                           ASHRAE--11.9
                                                                    13.0
                                                                    14.0
                                                 .................  15.0
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--16.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric                   15  Baseline--11.0
 or No Heat, >=135,000 Btu/h and h.                    ASHRAE--12.5
                                                                    13.0
                                                                    14.0
                                                 .................  15.0
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other                      15  Baseline--11.0
 Heat, >=135,000 Btu/h and h.                          ASHRAE--12.3
                                                                    13.0
                                                                    14.0
                                                 .................  15.0
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--16.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners,                       35  Baseline--11.0
 Electric or No Heat, >=240,000 Btu/h and                           ASHRAE--12.4
 h.                                                    13.0
                                                 .................  14.0
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--14.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other                 35  Baseline--10.8
 Heat, >=240,000 Btu/h and h.                          ASHRAE--12.2
                                                                    13.0
                                                 .................  14.0
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--14.8
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air                             40  Baseline--11.0
 Conditioner, Electric or No Heat, >=240,000                        ASHRAE--11.9
 Btu/h and h.                                          12.5
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--13.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air                             40  Baseline--10.8
 Conditioner, Other Heat, >=240,000 and                             ASHRAE--11.7
 h.                                                    12.5
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--13.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
    The methodology for VRF water-source heat pumps was presented in 
the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2379-82 (Jan. 17, 2012). Table VI.2 
presents the baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels 
analyzed for each equipment class of VRF water-source heat pumps 
subject to today's final rule and with equipment on the market. The 
baseline efficiency levels correspond to the lowest efficiency levels 
currently available on the market. The efficiency levels above the 
baseline represent efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 and higher efficiency levels where equipment is currently 
available on the market.

[[Page 28967]]

                     Table VI.2--Efficiency Levels Analyzed for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Representative
                Equipment class                   capacity  kBtu/h        Efficiency levels analyzed  (EER)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, >=135,000 Btu/h                   242  Baseline--9.5
 and h, without heat recovery.                         ASHRAE--10
                                                                    11
                                                                    12
                                                 .................  13
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--14.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, >=135,000 Btu/h                   215  Baseline--9.5
 and h, with heat recovery.                            ASHRAE--9.8
                                                                    11
                                                                    12
                                                 .................  13
                                                 .................  Max-Tech--14.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
    The methodology for computer room air conditioners was presented in 
section V of today's final rule. Table VI.3 presents the market 
baseline efficiency level and the higher efficiency levels analyzed for 
each equipment class of computer room air conditioners subject to 
today's final rule. The market baseline efficiency levels correspond to 
the lowest efficiency levels currently available on the market. The 
efficiency levels above the baseline represent efficiency levels 
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and efficiency levels above 
those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 where equipment is 
currently available on the market. Note that for the economic analysis, 
efficiency levels above those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
are compared to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as the baseline rather than 
the market baseline.

                    Table VI.3--Efficiency Levels Analyzed for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Representative
                Equipment class                   capacity kBtu/h        Efficiency levels  analyzed (SCOP)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, h....                 36  Market Baseline--2.00
                                                                    ASHRAE--2.20
                                                                    2.40
                                                                    2.60
                                                                    2.80
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.00
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h                   132  Market Baseline--2.10
 and h.                                                ASHRAE--2.10
                                                                    2.35
                                                                    2.60
                                                                    2.85
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h                  288  Market Baseline--1.90
 and h.                                                ASHRAE--1.90
                                                                    2.15
                                                                    2.40
                                                                    2.65
                                                                    Max-Tech--2.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled, h..                 36  Market Baseline--2.40
                                                                    ASHRAE--2.60
                                                                    2.80
                                                                    3.00
                                                                    3.20
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.40
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h                 132  Market Baseline--2.30
 and h.                                                ASHRAE--2.50
                                                                    2.70
                                                                    2.90
                                                                    3.10

[[Page 28968]]

 
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=240,000 Btu/h                288  Market Baseline--2.20
 and h.                                                ASHRAE--2.40
                                                                    2.60
                                                                    2.80
                                                                    3.00
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.20
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid                       36  Market Baseline--2.35
 economizers, h.                                        ASHRAE--2.55
                                                                    2.75
                                                                    2.95
                                                                    3.15
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.35
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid                      132  Market Baseline--2.25
 economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.                    ASHRAE--2.45
                                                                    2.65
                                                                    2.85
                                                                    3.05
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid                      288  Market Baseline--2.15
 economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h and                      ASHRAE--2.35
 h.                                                                 2.55
                                                                    2.75
                                                                    2.95
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.15
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, h.                 36  Market Baseline--2.30
                                                                    ASHRAE--2.50
                                                                    2.70
                                                                    2.90
                                                                    3.10
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=65,000 and                  132  Market Baseline--1.95
 h.                                                    ASHRAE--2.15
                                                                    2.35
                                                                    2.55
                                                                    2.75
                                                                    Max-Tech--2.95
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=240,000 Btu/                288  Market Baseline--1.90
 h and h.                                              ASHRAE--2.10
                                                                    2.30
                                                                    2.50
                                                                    2.70
                                                                    Max-Tech--2.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid                      36  Market Baseline--2.25
 economizers, h.                                        ASHRAE--2.45
                                                                    2.65
                                                                    2.85
                                                                    3.05
                                                                    Max-Tech--3.25
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 28969]]

 
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid                     132  Market Baseline--1.90
 economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and h.                    ASHRAE--2.10
                                                                    2.30
                                                                    2.50
                                                                    2.70
                                                                    Max-Tech--2.90
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid                     288  Market Baseline--1.85
 economizers, >=240,000 Btu/h and                      ASHRAE--2.05
 h.                                                                 2.25
                                                                    2.45
                                                                    2.65
                                                                    Max-Tech--2.85
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    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 VI.4 to Table VI.11 show the potential energy 
savings resulting from the analyses conducted as part of the May 2011 
NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637 (May 5, 2011). As discussed in the January 
2012 NOPR, DOE did not conduct an economic analysis for this equipment 
category, because of the minimal energy savings. 77 FR 2356, 2405 (Jan. 
17, 2012).

    Table VI.4--Potential Energy Savings for Small Water-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or No Heat
                                                   [2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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 VI.5--Potential Energy Savings for Small Water-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
                                                   [2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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.

    Table VI.6--Potential Energy Savings for Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or No Heat
                                                   [2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           Historical shipment
                                                                         trend           Shipments fixed to 2009
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--12.5 EER.....................................                  0.00014                  0.00027

[[Page 28970]]

 
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 VI.7--Potential Energy Savings for Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
                                                   [2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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 VI.8--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or No Heat
                                                   [2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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 VI.9--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Water-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
                                                   [2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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.

 Table VI.10--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment With Electric Resistance or
                                                     No Heat
                                                   [2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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

[[Page 28971]]

 
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 VI.11--Potential Energy Savings for Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment With Other Heat
                                                   [2014-2043]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Primary energy savings * (quads)
                                                               -------------------------------------------------
                       Efficiency level                           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.

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
    DOE estimated the potential primary energy savings in quads (i.e., 
10\15\ Btu) for each efficiency level considered within the two 
equipment classes of VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 
135,000 Btu/h. Table VI.12 and Table VI.13 show the potential energy 
savings resulting from the analyses conducted as part of the January 
2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2379-82 (Jan. 17, 2012). Because there appear to 
be no models on the market below ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels, 
there are no energy savings from adopting ASHRAE. However, there are 
also extremely minimal energy savings from adopting a higher standard. 
As discussed in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE did not conduct an economic 
analysis for this equipment category. Id. at 2368-70. In addition, DOE 
did not identify any models on the market less than 17,000 Btu/h, and, 
therefore, did not conduct any analyses for this equipment category. 
Id. at 2368.

 Table VI.12--Potential Energy Savings for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps,
        >=135,000 Btu/h and h, Without Heat Recovery
                               [2013-2042]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Primary energy
                   Efficiency level                         savings *
                                                             (quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--10.0 EER.............................  ................
Level 2--11 EER.......................................            0.0009
Level 3--12 EER.......................................            0.0174
Level 4--13 EER.......................................            0.0416
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--14.5 EER.......................            0.0761
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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 VI.13--Potential Energy Savings for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps,
          >=135,000 Btu/h and h With Heat Recovery
                               [2013-2042]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Primary energy
                   Efficiency level                         savings *
                                                             (quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Level 1--ASHRAE--9.8 EER..............................  ................
Level 2--11 EER.......................................            0.0008
Level 3--12 EER.......................................            0.0083
Level 4--13 EER.......................................            0.0195
Level 5--``Max-Tech''--14.5 EER.......................            0.0358
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 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.

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers
i. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
    To evaluate the economic impact of the efficiency levels on 
commercial customers, DOE conducted an LCC analysis for each efficiency 
level. More-efficient computer room air conditioners would affect these 
customers in two ways: (1) Annual operating expense would decrease; and 
(2) purchase price would increase. Inputs used for calculating the LCC 
include total installed costs (i.e., equipment price plus installation 
costs), operating expenses (i.e., annual energy savings, energy prices, 
energy price trends, repair costs, and maintenance costs), equipment 
lifetime, and discount rates.
    The output of the LCC model is a mean LCC savings (or cost \48\) 
for each equipment class, relative to the baseline CRAC efficiency 
level. The LCC analysis also provides information on the percentage of 
customers that are negatively affected by an increase in the minimum 
efficiency standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \48\ An LCC cost is shown as a negative savings in the results 
presented.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also performed a PBP analysis as part of the LCC analysis. The 
PBP is the number of years it would take for the customer to recover 
the increased costs of higher-efficiency equipment as a result of 
energy savings based on the operating cost savings. The PBP is an 
economic benefit-cost measure that uses benefits and costs without 
discounting. Chapter 5 of the final rule TSD provides

[[Page 28972]]

detailed information on the LCC and PBP analyses.
    DOE's LCC and PBP analyses provided five key outputs for each 
efficiency level above the baseline (i.e., efficiency levels more 
stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010), as reported in 
Table VI.14 through Table VI.28 These outputs include the proportion of 
CRAC purchases in which the purchase of a computer room air conditioner 
that is compliant with the new energy conservation standard creates a 
net LCC increase, no impact, or a net LCC savings for the customer. 
Another output is the average net LCC savings from standard-compliant 
equipment, as well as the average PBP for the customer investment in 
standard-compliant equipment.

                         Table VI.14--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled, h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                  Payback
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                               Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience        (years)
                                                  Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ----------------------------------------------------
                                                     cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact    Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................       12,003       33,563       45,566  ...........  ...........  ...........  ............  ...........
1..............................................       13,491       31,554       45,045          584            2           89            9           8.6
2..............................................       15,239       29,905       45,144          122           18           68           14          10.3
3..............................................       17,295       28,548       45,842        (648)           67           23           10          12.2
4..............................................       19,711       27,436       47,147      (1,828)           91            5            4          14.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.

                  Table VI.15--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled, >=65,000 and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience       (years)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                    (2011$)      Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       38,943      118,114      157,057  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       41,179      108,190      149,369        8,535            0           98            2          2.6
2...............................................       43,588      100,283      143,871        6,378            0           78           22          3.0
3...............................................       46,185       93,872      140,057        5,894            0           33           67          3.5
4...............................................       48,984       88,606      137,590        6,474            0            2           98          3.9
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Table VI.16--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled, >=240,000 and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience       (years)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                    (2011$)      Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       56,633      288,343      344,977  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       59,852      262,649      322,501       24,709            0           98            2          1.4
2...............................................       63,322      242,741      306,063       18,947            0           78           22          1.7
3...............................................       67,061      227,026      294,087       18,146            0           33           67          2.0
4...............................................       71,092      214,460      285,553       20,871            0            2           98          2.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        Table VI.17--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled, h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost  (2011$)                      Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                    (2011$)      Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       23,716       30,844       54,560  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       20,284       29,008       49,292        5,286            0           72           28       (21.7)
2...............................................       17,504       27,426       44,930        7,264            0           49           51       (21.1)
3...............................................       15,253       26,051       41,303        7,896            0           13           87       (20.5)
4...............................................       13,429       24,845       38,274       10,089            0            3           97       (19.9)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.

[[Page 28973]]

              Table VI.18--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost  (2011$)                      Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience       (years)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       22,767      106,535      129,302  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       28,390      101,751      130,141        (774)           21           72            7         14.2
2...............................................       35,948       98,421      134,370      (4,582)           56           42            2         19.9
3...............................................       46,106       96,571      142,677     (11,622)           80           20            0         29.3
4...............................................       59,759       96,331      156,090     (23,097)           96            4            0         47.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.

                 Table VI.19--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled, >=240,000 and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost  (2011$)                      Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience       (years)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       42,240      240,877      283,117  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       52,910      230,552      283,462        (196)           17           72           11         12.6
2...............................................       67,250      224,068      291,318      (7,906)           54           42            4         18.6
3...............................................       86,522      221,566      308,088     (22,491)           79           20            1         29.7
4...............................................      112,423      223,494      335,917     (46,570)           96            4            0         54.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.

                    Table VI.20--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost  (2011$)                      Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                    (2011$)      Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       25,025       21,485       46,510  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       21,393       20,449       41,842        4,686            0           72           28       (40.7)
2...............................................       18,451       19,563       38,015        6,400            0           49           51       (39.7)
3...............................................       16,069       18,798       34,867        6,908            0           13           87       (38.7)
4...............................................       14,139       18,132       32,272        8,772            0            3           97       (37.7)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.

   Table VI.21--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       23,952       71,670       95,622  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       29,903       69,964       99,867      (4,179)           28           72            0         36.8
2...............................................       37,901       69,297      107,198      (9,336)           58           42            0         48.1
3...............................................       48,651       69,771      118,421     (17,987)           80           20            0         35.8
4...............................................       63,099       71,578      134,677     (31,244)           96            4            0       (73.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.

[[Page 28974]]

     Table VI.22--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=240,000 and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       44,489      161,303      205,792  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       55,781      158,228      214,009      (8,064)           28           72            0         32.3
2...............................................       70,956      157,979      228,935     (18,795)           58           42            0         22.6
3...............................................       91,351      160,896      252,247     (36,931)           80           20            0       (43.7)
4...............................................      118,760      167,577      286,337     (64,864)           96            4            0       (57.2)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.

                        Table VI.23--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled, h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       23,764       31,335       55,099  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       20,332       29,414       49,746        5,372            0           72           28       (20.5)
2...............................................       17,552       27,768       45,321        7,375            0           49           51       (20.0)
3...............................................       15,301       26,345       41,646        8,009            0           13           87       (19.5)
4...............................................       13,477       25,104       38,581       10,226            0            3           97       (19.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.

              Table VI.24--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled, >=65,000 Btu/h and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                  Payback
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                               Discounted                  Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                  Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                     cost         cost                    (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................       22,857      118,862      141,719  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1..............................................       28,473      112,743      141,215          588            14           72           14         10.9
2..............................................       36,020      108,621      144,642       (3,117)           51           42            7         15.5
3..............................................       46,164      106,463      152,626      (10,236)           79           20            1         23.0
4..............................................       59,795      106,392      166,188      (22,091)           96            4            0         37.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.

                Table VI.25--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled, >=240,000 and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                  Payback
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                               Discounted                  Average        % of Consumers that experience       (years)
                                                  Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                     cost         cost                    (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................       42,419      268,376      310,795  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1..............................................       53,089      256,260      309,349        1,633            13           72           15         10.6
2..............................................       67,430      249,398      316,828       (6,637)           51           42            7         16.3
3..............................................       86,702      247,905      334,607      (22,582)           79           20            1         28.0
4..............................................      112,602      252,346      364,948      (49,159)           96            4            0         48.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.

[[Page 28975]]

                   Table VI.26--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                    (2011$)      Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       25,073       26,615       51,689  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       21,441       25,108       46,550        5,162            0           72           28       (28.4)
2...............................................       18,500       23,823       42,323        7,064            0           49           51       (27.8)
3...............................................       16,117       22,716       38,833        7,640            0           13           87       (27.1)
4...............................................       14,187       21,755       35,942        9,722            0            3           97       (26.4)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels.

  Table VI.27--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=65,000 Btu/h and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                 Payback
                                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    period
                Efficiency level                                Discounted                 Average        % of Consumers that experience       (years)
                                                   Installed    operating       LCC        savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                      cost         cost                   (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline........................................       24,041       99,288      123,328  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1...............................................       29,984       95,100      125,083      (1,652)           23           72            5         18.0
2...............................................       37,971       92,626      130,597      (6,282)           55           42            3         27.3
3...............................................       48,705       91,890      140,595     (14,548)           79           20            1         45.3
4...............................................       63,131       93,060      156,191     (27,719)           96            4            0         49.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings.

     Table VI.28--Summary LCC and PBP Results for Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled With Fluid Economizers, >=240,000 and h
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        Life-cycle cost (2011$)                       Life-cycle cost savings                  Payback
                                                --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------    Period
                Efficiency level                               Discounted                  Average        % of Consumers that experience      (years *)
                                                  Installed    operating       LCC         savings   ---------------------------------------------------
                                                     cost         cost                    (2011$ *)     Net cost    No impact   Net benefit     Median
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline.......................................       44,668      224,664      269,332  ............  ...........  ...........  ...........  ...........
1..............................................       55,960      216,938      272,898       (3,338)           22           72            6         19.4
2..............................................       71,136      213,811      284,947      (13,598)           55           42            3         26.8
3..............................................       91,530      215,533      307,063      (31,974)           79           20            1         17.6
4..............................................      118,939      222,769      341,709      (61,294)           96            4            0       (45.0)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs.

b. National Impact Analysis
i. Amount and Significance of Energy Savings
    To estimate the energy savings through 2041 or 2042 due to amended 
or new energy conservation standards, DOE compared the energy 
consumption of computer room air conditioners under the ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010 efficiency levels to energy consumption of computer room air 
conditioners under higher efficiency standards. DOE also compared the 
energy consumption of computer room air conditioners under the ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels to energy consumption of computer 
room air conditioners under the current market base case. DOE examined 
up to four efficiency levels higher than those of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. Table VI.29 shows the forecasted national energy savings at each 
of the considered standard levels. (See chapter 8 of the final rule 
TSD.) As mentioned in section V.B, DOE adjusted the efficiency rating 
(SCOP) upward for all upflow units in order to analyze the energy 
savings from only 15 classes of computer room air conditioners, with 
upflow and downflow units combined.

          Table VI.29--Summary of Cumulative National Energy Savings for Computer Room Air Conditioners
                                            [2012-2041 or 2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         National energy savings (quads) *
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Equipment class                            Efficiency      Efficiency      Efficiency      Efficiency
                                   ASHRAE level       level 1         level 2         level 3         level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled,            0.00018          0.0006          0.0021          0.0052          0.0086
 h..................
Air conditioners, air-cooled,                 **           0.006           0.059           0.196           0.364
 >=65,000 and h....
Air conditioners, air-cooled,                 **           0.004           0.034           0.112           0.206
 >=240,000 and h...

[[Page 28976]]

 
Air conditioners, water-cooled,          0.00003          0.0001          0.0003          0.0007          0.0010
 h..................
Air conditioners, water-cooled,           0.0009          0.0088          0.0246          0.0435          0.0634
 >=65,000 and h....
Air conditioners, water-cooled,           0.0008          0.0079          0.0220          0.0388          0.0565
 >=240,000 and h...
Air conditioners, water-cooled           0.00001         0.00004         0.00011         0.00021         0.00031
 with fluid economizers, h..........................
Air conditioners, water-cooled            0.0004          0.0038          0.0106          0.0188          0.0273
 with fluid economizers,
 >=65,000 and h....
Air conditioners, water-cooled            0.0002          0.0016          0.0043          0.0076          0.0111
 with fluid economizers,
 >=240,000 and h...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,         0.00003         0.00013         0.00033         0.00063         0.00092
 h..................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,           0.001           0.011           0.031           0.054           0.078
 >=65,000 and h....
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,          0.0008          0.0080          0.0220          0.0384          0.0554
 >=240,000 and h...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled          0.00002          0.0001          0.0002          0.0005          0.0007
 with fluid economizers, h..........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled            0.001           0.010           0.027           0.047           0.067
 with fluid economizers,
 >=65,000 and h....
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled           0.0005          0.0054          0.0147          0.0257          0.0370
 with fluid economizers,
 >=240,000 and h...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* All energy savings from efficiency levels above ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are calculated with those ASHRAE
  levels as a baseline.
** For these equipment classes, no models were identified below the efficiency levels shown in ASHRAE Standard
  90.1-2010, so there are no energy savings for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels.

ii. Net Present Value
    The NPV analysis measures the cumulative benefit or cost of 
standards to equipment customers from a national perspective. In 
accordance with OMB's guidelines on regulatory analysis (OMB Circular 
A-4, section E (Sept. 17, 2003)), DOE calculated NPV using both a 7-
percent and a 3-percent real discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an 
estimate of the average before-tax rate of return on private capital in 
the U.S. economy, and reflects the returns to real estate and small 
business capital, as well as corporate capital. It approximates the 
opportunity cost of capital in the private sector. The 3-percent rate 
represents the rate at which society discounts future consumption flows 
to their present value. This rate can be approximated by the real rate 
of return on long-term government debt (e.g., yield on Treasury notes 
minus annual rate of change in the Consumer Price Index), which has 
averaged about 3 percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 years. 
Table VI.30 and Table VI.31 provide an overview of the NPV results. 
(See chapter 7 of the final rule TSD for further detail.)

      Table VI.30--Cumulative Net Present Value for Potential Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
                                          [Discounted at seven percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Net present value (billion 2011$ *)
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
               Equipment class                   Efficiency       Efficiency       Efficiency       Efficiency
                                                  level 1          level 2          level 3          level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, h.         $0.0004         $(0.0000)        $(0.0048)        $(0.0154)
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 and              0.01             0.12             0.34             0.54
 h.............................
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=240,000 and             0.01             0.08             0.24             0.40
 h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled,            0.001            0.003            0.006            0.009
 h..........................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=65,000 and          (0.004)          (0.041)          (0.140)          (0.332)
 h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=240,000             (0.001)          (0.026)          (0.102)          (0.251)
 and h.........................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid              0.001            0.002            0.003            0.005
 economizers, h.................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid              (0.02)           (0.07)           (0.18)           (0.38)
 economizers, >=65,000 and h...
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid             (0.005)          (0.024)          (0.064)          (0.134)
 economizers, >=240,000 and h..
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,           0.001            0.003            0.006            0.008
 h..........................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=65,000              0.002           (0.028)          (0.123)          (0.316)
 and h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=240,000             0.002           (0.018)          (0.083)          (0.215)
 and h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid             0.001            0.003            0.006            0.008
 economizers, h.................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid             (0.01)           (0.07)           (0.20)           (0.46)
 economizers, >=65,000 and h...

[[Page 28977]]

 
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid            (0.004)          (0.033)          (0.106)          (0.242)
 economizers, >=240,000 and h..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.

      Table VI.31--Cumulative Net Present Value for Potential Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
                                          [Discounted at three percent]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Net present value (billion 2011$ *)
                                             -------------------------------------------------------------------
               Equipment class                   Efficiency       Efficiency       Efficiency       Efficiency
                                                  level 1          level 2          level 3          level 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled, h.          $0.002           $0.003          $(0.002)         $(0.017)
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=65,000 and              0.03             0.29             0.88             1.48
 h.............................
Air conditioners, air-cooled, >=240,000 and             0.02             0.19             0.58             1.00
 h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled,            0.003            0.007            0.012            0.018
 h..........................................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=65,000 and           0.003           (0.051)          (0.220)          (0.566)
 h.............................
Air conditioners, water-cooled, >=240,000              0.007           (0.029)          (0.160)          (0.435)
 and h.........................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid              0.001            0.004            0.006            0.009
 economizers, h.................
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid              (0.02)           (0.12)           (0.33)           (0.69)
 economizers, >=65,000 and h...
Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid             (0.008)          (0.042)          (0.117)          (0.251)
 economizers, >=240,000 and h..
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled,           0.003            0.006            0.012            0.017
 h..........................................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=65,000               0.02            (0.02)           (0.18)           (0.53)
 and h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, >=240,000              0.01            (0.02)           (0.13)           (0.38)
 and h.........................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid             0.002            0.006            0.011            0.015
 economizers, h.................
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid             (0.01)           (0.10)           (0.34)           (0.82)
 economizers, >=65,000 and h...
Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid            (0.004)          (0.052)          (0.187)          (0.447)
 economizers, >=240,000 and h..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV.

C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

    Enhanced energy efficiency, where economically justified, improves 
the Nation's energy security, strengthens the economy, and reduces the 
environmental impacts or costs of energy production. Reduced 
electricity demand from energy conservation standards is also likely to 
reduce the cost of maintaining the reliability of the electricity 
system, particularly during peak-load periods. As a measure of this 
reduced demand, Table VI.32 presents the estimated reduction in 
generating capacity in 2042-relative to the AEO Reference case-
attributable to the efficiency levels that DOE considered in this 
rulemaking.

   Table VI.32--Reduction in National Electric Generating Capacity in 2042 Under Considered Efficiency Levels
                                                   (Gigawatts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Efficiency level
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ASHRAE
                                    (baseline)           1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-             0.00            0.01            0.01            0.02            0.02
 Cooled Products................
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps.....            0.00            0.00            0.05            0.12            0.23
Computer Room Air Conditioners..            0.01            0.12            0.47            1.09            1.81
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Energy savings from standards for the equipment classes covered in 
today's final rule could also produce environmental benefits in the 
form of reduced emissions of air pollutants and greenhouse gases 
associated with electricity production. Table VI.33 provides DOE's 
estimate of cumulative CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions 
reductions projected to result from the efficiency levels considered in 
this rulemaking. DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and 
Hg emissions reductions for each efficiency level in chapter 9 of the 
final rule TSD.
    As discussed in section V.G, DOE did not report SO2 
emissions reductions from power plants because there is uncertainty 
about the effect of energy conservation standards on the overall level 
of SO2 emissions in the United States due to SO2 
emissions caps. DOE

[[Page 28978]]

also did not include NOX emissions reduction from power 
plants in States subject to CAIR, because an energy conservation 
standard would not affect the overall level of NOX emissions 
in those States due to the emissions caps mandated by CAIR.

             Table VI.33--Summary of Emissions Reduction Estimated for Considered Efficiency Levels
                                     [Cumulative in 2012-2041 or 2013-2042]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Efficiency level
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      ASHRAE
                                    (baseline)           1               2               3               4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......            0.10            0.10            0.25            0.36            0.37
NOX (thousand tons).............            0.08            0.08            0.21            0.30            0.31
Hg (tons).......................           0.001           0.001           0.003           0.004           0.004
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......            0.00            0.05            0.82            1.96            3.58
NOX (thousand tons).............            0.00            0.04            0.68            1.60            2.93
Hg (tons).......................           0.000           0.001           0.009           0.022           0.040
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons).......            0.18            2.14            8.06            18.7            31.1
NOX (thousand tons).............            0.14            1.76            6.62            15.4            25.6
Hg (tons).......................           0.001           0.023           0.087           0.203           0.337
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the analysis for this final rule, DOE estimated monetary 
benefits likely to result from the reduced emissions of CO2 
and NOX that DOE estimated for each of the efficiency levels 
considered. As discussed in section V.H, DOE used values for the SCC 
developed by an interagency process. The four values for CO2 
emissions reductions resulting from that process (expressed in 2010$) 
are $4.9/ton (the average value from a distribution that uses a 5-
percent discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average value from a 
distribution that uses a 3-percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the 
average value from a distribution that uses a 2.5-percent discount 
rate), and $67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value from a distribution 
that uses a 3-percent discount rate). These values correspond to the 
value of emission reductions in 2010; the values for later years are 
higher due to increasing damages as the magnitude of climate change 
increases.
    Table VI.34 presents the global value of CO2 emissions 
reductions at each efficiency level. For each of the four cases, DOE 
calculated a present value of the stream of annual values using the 
same discount rate as was used in the studies upon which the dollar-
per-ton values are based. DOE calculated domestic values as a range 
from 7 percent to 23 percent of the global values, and these results 
are presented in chapter 10 of the final rule TSD.

  Table VI.34--Estimates of Global Present Value of CO2 Emissions Reduction Under Considered Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   3% discount
            Efficiency level                 5% discount       3% discount      2.5% discount      rate, 95th
                                            rate, average     rate, average     rate, average      percentile
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Million 2011$
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline).......................               0.5               2.4               4.1               7.4
1.......................................               0.5               2.5               4.3               7.7
2.......................................               1.2               6.3              10.6              19.1
3.......................................               1.8               9.0              15.2              27.4
4.......................................               1.8               9.2              15.6              28.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline).......................               0.0               0.0               0.0               0.0
1.......................................               0.3               1.4               2.3               4.2
2.......................................               4.3              22.5              38.1              68.4
3.......................................              10.3              53.7              91.1             163.4
4.......................................              18.9              98.1             166.5             298.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline).......................               0.9               4.7               7.9              14.4
1.......................................              11.2              57.5              97.4             175.2
2.......................................              48.2             246.7             417.5             751.4

[[Page 28979]]

 
3.......................................             119.9             613.9            1038.7            1869.3
4.......................................             214.6            1099.0            1859.6            3346.6
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is well aware that scientific and economic knowledge about the 
contribution of CO2 and other greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions 
to changes in the future global climate and the potential resulting 
damages to the world economy continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 
value placed in this rulemaking on reducing CO2 emissions is 
subject to change. DOE, together with other Federal agencies, will 
continue to review various methodologies for estimating the monetary 
value of reductions in CO2 and other GHG emissions. This 
ongoing review will consider the comments on this subject that are part 
of the public record for this and other rulemakings, as well as other 
methodological assumptions and issues. However, consistent with DOE's 
legal obligations, and taking into account the uncertainty involved 
with this particular issue, DOE has included in this final rule the 
most recent values and analyses resulting from the ongoing interagency 
review process.
    DOE also estimated a range for the cumulative monetary value of the 
economic benefits associated with NOX emissions reductions 
anticipated to result from amended standards for the equipment that is 
the subject of today's final rule. The low and high dollar-per-ton 
values that DOE used are discussed in section V.H. Table VI.35 presents 
the cumulative present values of NOX emissions reductions 
for each efficiency level calculated using seven-percent and three-
percent discount rates.

      Table VI.35--Estimates of Present Value of NOX Emissions Reduction Under Considered Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Million 2011$
           Efficiency level            -------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  3% Discount rate                     7% Discount rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline).....................  0.02 to 0.25.......................  0.01 to 0.12.
1.....................................  0.02 to 0.24.......................  0.01 to 0.10.
2.....................................  0.06 to 0.64.......................  0.03 to 0.28.
3.....................................  0.09 to 0.92.......................  0.04 to 0.40.
4.....................................  0.09 to 0.95.......................  0.04 to 0.42.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline).....................  0.0 to 0.0.........................  0.0 to 0.0.
1.....................................  0.01 to 0.13.......................  0.01 to 0.05.
2.....................................  0.2 to 2.2.........................  0.1 to 0.9.
3.....................................  0.5 to 5.2.........................  0.2 to 2.2.
4.....................................  0.9 to 9.5.........................  0.4 to 4.0.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ASHRAE (baseline).....................  0.04 to 0.46.......................  0.02 to 0.22.
1.....................................  0.6 to 6.1.........................  0.3 to 2.7.
2.....................................  2.4 to 24.6........................  1.0 to 10.7.
3.....................................  6.0 to 61.4........................  2.6 to 26.6.
4.....................................  10.7 to 109.8......................  4.6 to 47.6.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

D. Amended and New Energy Conservation Standards

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
    EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and industrial equipment 
addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an energy 
conservation standard more stringent than the level for such equipment 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' shows that a more-stringent standard would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
    In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for water-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled equipment than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2010, DOE reviewed the results in terms of the significance of 
their energy savings. As noted in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE does not 
have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant additional 
conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent 
standard levels. 77 FR 2356, 2415 (Jan. 17, 2012). Commenters on the 
NOPR did not provide any additional information to alter this 
conclusion. Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are 
economically justified, and DOE is adopting the energy efficiency 
levels for these products as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 
Table VI.36 presents the energy conservation standards and compliance 
dates for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment.

[[Page 28980]]

                             Table VI.36--Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                Efficiency
            Equipment type                              Subcategory                  Size category  (Input)    level  (EER)         Compliance date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners...  Electric or No Heat.......................  >=65,000 Btu/h and                  12.1  June 1, 2013.
                                                                                     h.
Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners...  Other Heat................................  >=65,000 Btu/h and                  11.9  June 1, 2013.
                                                                                     h.
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners...  Electric or No Heat.......................  >=135,000 Btu/h and                 12.5  June 1, 2014.
                                                                                     h.
Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners...  Other Heat................................  >=135,000 Btu/h and                 12.3  June 1, 2014.
                                                                                     h.
Very Large Water-Cooled Air             Electric or No Heat.......................  >=240,000 Btu/h and                 12.4  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Very Large Water-Cooled Air             Other Heat................................  >=240,000 Btu/h and                 12.2  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air          Electric or No Heat.......................  >=65,000 Btu/h and                  12.1  June 1, 2013.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air          Other Heat................................  >=65,000 Btu/h and                  11.9  June 1, 2013.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air          Electric or No Heat.......................  >=135,000 Btu/h and                 12.0  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air          Other Heat................................  >=135,000 Btu/h and                 11.8  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air     Electric or No Heat.......................  >=240,000 Btu/h and                 11.9  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air     Other Heat................................  >=240,000 Btu/h and        [dagger] 11.7  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioners.                                                                       h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[dagger] ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, DOE has determined and AHRI has concurred that this level was
  mistakenly reported and that the correct level is 11.7 EER. (AHRI, No. 1 at p. 1).

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
    As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and 
industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE 
may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the 
level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if 
``clear and convincing evidence'' shows that a more-stringent standard 
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
    In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for VRF water-source 
heat pumps than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE 
reviewed the results in terms of the significance of their energy 
savings. As discussed in the January 2012 NOPR, the energy savings for 
more-stringent efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps equal 
to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h would be minimal. 77 FR 2356, 2416 
(Jan. 17, 2012). In addition, there are no models on the market of VRF 
water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, so there are no energy 
savings predicted for this product class. As such, DOE does not have 
``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant additional 
conservation of energy would result from adoption of more-stringent 
efficiency levels than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 
Therefore, DOE did not examine whether the levels are economically 
justified, and DOE is adopting the energy efficiency levels for these 
products as set forth in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.\49\ Table VI.37 
presents the amended energy conservation standards and compliance dates 
for VRF water-source heat pumps.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \49\ For other classes of VRF systems introduced by ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010, DOE is not adopting new standards but is 
clarifying that existing standards for air-cooled or water-source 
heat pumps continue to apply. In addition, DOE is adopting a new 
test procedure for all classes of VRF equipment. The changes to the 
Code of Federal Regulations are found at the end of this final rule.

                   Table VI.37--Energy Conservation Standards for VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Size category
        Equipment type             Subcategory          (Input)       Efficiency level     Compliance date **
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps...  Without Heat       h....  12.0 EER 4.2 COP  October 29, 2012.
                                 Recovery.                             *.
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps...  With Heat          h....  11.8 EER 4.2 COP  October 29, 2012.
                                 Recovery.                             *.
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps...  Without Heat       >=135,000 Btu/h    10.0 EER 3.9 COP  October 29, 2013.
                                 Recovery.          and 
                                                    h.
VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps...  With Heat          >=135,000 Btu/h    9.8 EER 3.9 COP.  October 29, 2013.
                                 Recovery.          and 
                                                    h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* 4.2 COP is the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standard for water-source heat pumps 
  h. Although ASHRAE did not increase the COP level in Standard 90.1, it did increase the corresponding EER
  level for this equipment.
** ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not provide an effective date for these products, so it is assumed to be
  publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, or October 29, 2010. Compliance dates for Federal standards are two
  or three years after the effective date in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, depending on product size.

[[Page 28981]]

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners
    As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and 
industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE 
may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the 
level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, only if 
``clear and convincing evidence'' shows that a more-stringent standard 
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
    In evaluating more-stringent efficiency levels for computer room 
air conditioners than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE 
reviewed the results in terms of their technological feasibility, 
significance of energy savings, and economic justification.
    DOE has concluded that all of the SCOP levels considered by DOE are 
technologically feasible, as units with equivalent efficiency appeared 
to be available in the current market at all levels examined. As noted 
in section V.B.3., manufacturers are currently not reporting CRAC 
equipment efficiencies in terms of SCOP as defined and tested for in 
ASHRAE 127-2007. As a result, the efficiency data used to determine the 
SCOP levels for analysis were obtained using a rule-of-thumb method to 
convert EER (as determined using ASHRAE Standard 127-2001) to an 
estimate of the SCOP (as determined by ASHRAE Standard 127-2007), which 
lends some uncertainty to the SCOP ratings of computer room air 
conditioners. However, based on this mapping between EER and SCOP, DOE 
believes that all SCOP levels analyzed are technically feasible.
    DOE examined the potential energy savings that would result from 
the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 and 
compared these to the potential energy savings that would result from 
efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010. DOE estimates that 0.01 quad of energy would be saved if DOE 
adopts the efficiency levels set in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for each 
computer room air conditioner equipment class specified in that 
standard. If DOE were to adopt efficiency levels more stringent than 
those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, the potential additional 
energy savings range from 0.07 quad to 0.98 quad. Associated with 
proposing more-stringent efficiency levels is a three-and-a-half to 
four-and-a-half-year delay in implementation (depending on equipment 
size) compared to the adoption of energy conservation standards at the 
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (see section V.I.1.). 
This delay in implementation of amended energy conservation standards 
would result in a small amount of energy savings being lost in the 
first years (2012 through 2016) compared to the savings from adopting 
the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 (approximately 0.0001 quad); 
however, this loss may be compensated for by increased savings in later 
years. Taken in isolation, the energy savings associated with more-
stringent standards might be considered significant enough to warrant 
adoption of such standards. However, as noted above, energy savings are 
not the only factor which DOE must consider.
    In considering whether potential standards are economically 
justified, DOE also examined the NPV that would result from adopting 
efficiency levels more stringent than those set forth in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010. With a 7-percent discount rate, all of the 
efficiency levels examined by DOE resulted in negative NPV. With a 3-
percent discount rate, Levels 1 and 2 create positive NPV, while Levels 
3 and 4 create negative NPV. These results indicate that adoption of 
efficiency levels more stringent than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2010 as Federal energy conservation standards would likely lead to 
negative economic outcomes for the Nation. Consequently, this criterion 
for adoption of more-stringent standard levels does not appear to have 
been met.
    Furthermore, although DOE based it analyses on the best available 
data when examining the potential energy savings and the economic 
justification of efficiency levels more stringent than those specified 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE believes there are several 
limitations regarding that data which should be assessed when 
considering amended energy conservation standards for computer room air 
conditioners. As explained below, none of these concerns are likely to 
run in the direction of more-stringent standards.
    First, DOE reexamined the uncertainty in its analysis of computer 
room air conditioners. As noted in section V.B.3, due to the lack of 
current coverage and certification requirements, no manufacturers 
currently test for the SCOP of their computer room air conditioner 
models, nor do they all report such information in their literature. 
DOE's efficiency information used in the analysis was the result of a 
``rule-of-thumb'' method that provides an approximation of SCOP, but 
DOE did not obtain any actual SCOP efficiency information that resulted 
from testing, leading to uncertainty over whether the levels considered 
(particularly at the max-tech level) are technologically feasible and 
also adding uncertainty in the energy savings estimates. In addition, 
for certain equipment classes, DOE was unable to obtain enough 
information even to estimate SCOP for a useful portion of the models on 
the market. For those equipment classes, DOE had to analyze various 
efficiency levels above the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels using SCOP 
levels that were estimated based on the SCOP differences established by 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 between the different equipment classes. The 
combination of these factors leads to concerns about the viability of 
using the estimated SCOP data for the basis of this analysis. Such 
concerns are heightened the further one moves away from the efficiency 
levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 in the context of this rulemaking.
    Second, to assess the cost of increasing efficiency, DOE conducted 
a pricing survey in which DOE collected contractor price data across a 
range of efficiency levels, and examined the trend in price as 
efficiency increased. As noted in section V.B, the primary drawback to 
this approach is that contractor pricing can be based on a variety of 
factors, some of which have little or nothing to do with changes in 
equipment efficiency (e.g., differences in manufacturer markups). This 
leads to unexpected results for certain equipment classes, including an 
observed trend of decreasing price with increasing efficiency for small 
water-cooled equipment based on the data collected, which reduces the 
certainty of the analysis in terms of economic justification. 
Therefore, the trends developed through such analyses may not be 
representative of the actual relationship between manufacturer cost and 
efficiency, or of what DOE would find if it used a design option 
approach with reverse engineering analysis (which is more time-
intensive). Further, although there was generally a trend of increasing 
price with increased efficiency across all manufacturers for most 
product classes, there was little discernable trend between price and 
efficiency for each individual manufacturer, leading to additional 
doubts about the role of equipment efficiency in determining pricing. 
As a result, DOE believes the results of this analysis are highly 
uncertain, and that a more in-depth analysis of the relationship 
between cost of

[[Page 28982]]

manufacturing and efficiency could lead to different results.
    Third, due to the limited data on the existing distribution of 
shipments by efficiency level or historical efficiency trends, DOE was 
not able to assess possible future changes in either the available 
efficiencies of equipment in the computer room air conditioner market 
or the sales distribution of shipments by efficiency level in the 
absence of setting more-stringent standards. DOE recognizes that 
manufacturers may continue to make future improvements in the computer 
room air conditioner efficiencies even in the absence of mandated 
energy conservation standards. This possibility increases the 
uncertainty of the energy savings estimates. To the extent that 
manufacturers improve product efficiency and customers choose to 
purchase improved products in the absence of standards, the energy 
savings estimates would likely be reduced.
    Fourth, as a result of a lack of shipment information for the 
United States, DOE's shipment analysis rests primarily on a single 
market report from Australia. While DOE attempted to use an appropriate 
inflator to adjust Australian shipments to the United States market, 
DOE recognizes the uncertainty inherent in this approach. DOE also 
based its equipment class allocations on market share for a few classes 
from the Australian report, as well as model availability in the United 
States. It is unknown whether the United States market mirrors the 
Australian market or whether model availability approximates shipment 
distributions. Any inaccuracy in the shipment forecast in total or by 
product class contributes to the uncertainty of the energy savings 
results and thus makes it difficult for DOE to determine that any 
energy savings are significant.
    To repeat, to adopt energy conservation standards more stringent 
than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must have ``clear and 
convincing'' evidence in order to adopt efficiency levels more 
stringent than those specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. For the 
reasons explained in the preceding paragraphs, the totality of 
information does not meet the level necessary to support more-stringent 
efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners. Consequently, 
although certain stakeholders have recommended that DOE adopt higher 
efficiency levels for some CRAC classes (as discussed in section 
III.D), DOE has decided to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010 as amended energy conservation standards for all 30 
computer room air conditioner equipment classes. Table VI.38 presents 
the energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners.
    By adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 as 
energy conservation standards, DOE is setting a minimum floor for these 
previously unregulated products. This allows the industry time to 
transition to coverage of these products, requires manufacturers to 
begin submitting efficiency data, and will spur the tracking of 
shipments. These data will improve DOE's future analysis of computer 
room air conditioners. DOE notes that it will be able to undertake such 
an analysis without waiting for the trigger of a subsequent amendment 
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, because of the six-year look back provision in 
the relevant EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))

                  Table VI.38--Energy Conservation Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Efficiency
        Equipment type              Subcategory       Size category     level  (SCOP-       Compliance  date
                                                         (input)            127)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air conditioners, air-cooled..  Downflow..........  h....            2.20  October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, air-cooled..  Upflow............  h....            2.09  October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, air-cooled..  Downflow..........  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.10  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled..  Upflow............  >=65,000 Btu/h               1.99  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled..  Downflow..........  >=240,000 Btu/h              1.90  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, air-cooled..  Upflow............  >=240,000 Btu/h              1.79  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Downflow..........  h....            2.60  October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Upflow............  h....            2.49  October 29, 2012.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Downflow..........  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.50  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Upflow............  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.39  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Downflow..........  >=240,000 Btu/h              2.40  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Upflow............  >=240,000 Btu/h              2.29  October 29, 2013.
                                                     and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Downflow..........  h....            2.55  October 29, 2012.
 with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Upflow............  h....            2.44  October 29, 2012.
 with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Downflow..........  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.45  October 29, 2013.
 with fluid economizer.                              and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Upflow............  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.34  October 29, 2013.
 with fluid economizer.                              and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Downflow..........  >=240,000 Btu/h              2.35  October 29, 2013.
 with fluid economizer.                              and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, water-cooled  Upflow............  >=240,000 Btu/h              2.24  October 29, 2013.
 with fluid economizer.                              and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Downflow..........  h....            2.50  October 29, 2012.
 cooled.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Upflow............  h....            2.39  October 29, 2012.
 cooled.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Downflow..........  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.15  October 29, 2013.
 cooled.                                             and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Upflow............  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.04  October 29, 2013.
 cooled.                                             and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Downflow..........  >=240,000 Btu/h              2.10  October 29, 2013.
 cooled.                                             and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Upflow............  >=240,000 Btu/h              1.99  October 29, 2013.
 cooled.                                             and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Downflow..........  h....            2.45  October 29, 2012.
 cooled with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Upflow............  h....            2.34  October 29, 2012.
 cooled with fluid economizer.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Downflow..........  >=65,000 Btu/h               2.10  October 29, 2013.
 cooled with fluid economizer.                       and 
                                                     h.

[[Page 28983]]

 
Air conditioners, glycol-       Upflow............  >=65,000 Btu/h               1.99  October 29, 2013.
 cooled with fluid economizer.                       and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Downflow..........  >=240,000 Btu/h              2.05  October 29, 2013.
 cooled with fluid economizer.                       and 
                                                     h.
Air conditioners, glycol-       Upflow............  >=240,000 Btu/h              1.94  October 29, 2013.
 cooled with fluid economizer.                       and 
                                                     h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency to identify 
the problem that it intends to address, including, where applicable, 
the failures of private markets or public institutions that warrant new 
agency action, as well as to assess the significance of that problem. 
The problems that today's standards address are as follows:
    (1) There is a lack of consumer information and/or information 
processing capability about energy efficiency opportunities in the 
commercial equipment market.
    (2) There is asymmetric information (one party to a transaction has 
more and better information than the other) and/or high transactions 
costs (costs of gathering information and effecting exchanges of goods 
and services).
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package 
air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow air conditioners, and 
computer room air conditioners that are not captured by the users of 
such equipment. These benefits include externalities related to 
environmental protection and energy security that are not reflected in 
energy prices, such as reduced emissions of greenhouse gases.
    In addition, DOE has determined that today's regulatory action is 
not an ``economically significant regulatory action'' under section 
3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
regulatory impact analysis (RIA) for today's rule, and the Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has not reviewed this rule.
    DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). 
Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the 
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review 
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, 
agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt 
a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits 
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are 
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least 
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, 
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, 
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health 
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); 
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than 
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities 
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to 
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage 
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or 
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 
to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present 
and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its 
guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these 
principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by 
law, agencies adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination 
that its benefits justify its costs and select, in choosing among 
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net 
benefits.
    Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts 
analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy conservation standards adopted 
in this final rule maximize net benefits to the extent permitted by 
EPCA.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, and a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such rule that an agency 
adopts as a final rule, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if 
promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 
13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 
67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on 
February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on 
small entities are properly considered during the rulemaking process. 
68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the 
Office of the General Counsel's Web site (www.gc.doe.gov). DOE reviewed 
the January 2012 NOPR and today's final rule under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003.
    For manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-conditioning 
and heating equipment (including water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 
equipment, CRACs, VRF systems, and SPVUs), commercial warm-air 
furnaces, and commercial water heaters, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
rule. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 
53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 121. The size 
standards are listed by North American

[[Page 28984]]

Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description 
and are available at http://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_Standards_Table.pdf. The ASHRAE equipment covered by this rule, with 
the exception of commercial water heaters, are classified under NAICS 
333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The 
SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or fewer for an entity to be 
considered as a small business for this category. Commercial water 
heaters are classified under NAICS 333319, ``Other Commercial and 
Service Industry Machinery Manufacturing,'' for which SBA sets a size 
threshold of 500 employees or fewer for being considered a small 
business.
    DOE examined each of the manufacturers it found during its market 
assessment and used publicly-available information to determine if any 
manufacturers identified qualify as a small business under the SBA 
guidelines discussed above. (For a list of all manufacturers of ASHRAE 
equipment covered by this rule, see Chapter 2 of the TSD.) DOE's 
research involved individual company Web sites, marketing research 
tools (e.g., Hoovers reports \50\), and contacting individual companies 
to create a list of companies that manufacture the types of ASHRAE 
equipment affected by this rule. DOE screened out companies that do not 
have domestic manufacturing operations for ASHRAE equipment (i.e., 
manufacturers that produce all of their ASHRAE equipment 
internationally). DOE also did not consider manufacturers which are 
subsidiaries of parent companies that exceed the employee threshold set 
by the SBA to be small businesses. DOE identified 46 total 
manufacturers impacted by the proposed amendments related to energy 
conservation standards and test procedures, including 14 that qualify 
as a small business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ For more information, see http://www.hoovers.com/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the provisions of the 
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on 
February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. As part of this rulemaking, DOE examined 
not only the impacts on manufacturers of revised standard levels, but 
also the existing compliance costs manufacturers already bear as 
compared to the revised compliance costs, based on the revisions to the 
test procedures. Since DOE is adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2010, which are part of the prevailing industry standard, 
DOE believes that manufacturers of water-cooled and evaporatively-
cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment, 
computer room air conditioners, and VRF water-source heat pumps with a 
cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 
760,000 Btu/h are already producing equipment at these efficiency 
levels. For VRF water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity below 
17,000 Btu/h, DOE believes the efficiency levels being adopted in 
today's final rule are also part of the prevailing industry standard 
and that manufacturers would experience no impacts, because no such 
equipment is currently manufactured. Furthermore, DOE believes the 
industry standard was developed through a process which would attempt 
to mitigate the impacts on manufacturers, including any impacted small 
business manufacturers, while increasing the efficiency of this 
equipment.
    In addition, DOE does not find that the costs associated with the 
adoption of updated test procedures for commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment, commercial water-heating equipment, 
or commercial warm-air furnaces in this document would result in any 
significant increase in testing or compliance costs. For these types of 
equipment, DOE already has testing requirements, which have only minor 
differences from those being adopted in this notice. Furthermore, the 
provisions that DOE is adopting from AHRI operations manuals, are 
already general practice within the industry when conducting testing, 
and DOE does not expect these changes to have an impact on how the DOE 
test procedure is conducted. DOE notes that this document also adopts 
new test procedures for VRF systems and computer room air conditioners. 
However, VRF systems currently must be tested using the DOE test 
procedures for commercial package air conditioners and heating 
equipment. The procedure being adopted in this final rule is tailored 
to VRF systems, and DOE does not believe this procedure is more 
burdensome than the currently applicable test procedures. For computer 
room air conditioners, this notice adopts the use of a new test 
procedure where none was previously required. However, for all 
equipment types (including computer room air conditioners) the test 
procedures are part of the prevailing industry standard to test and 
rate equipment. DOE believes that manufacturers generally already use 
the accepted industry test procedures when testing their equipment, and 
that given its inclusion in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, they would 
continue to use it in the future. Therefore, DOE has concluded that the 
additional burden imposed by today's rule will not have a significant 
adverse impact on a substantial number of small manufacturers.
    DOE reached similar conclusions to those discussed above in the 
January 2012 NOPR and requested comment on the impacts of this 
rulemaking on small manufacturers. 77 FR 2356, 2420 (Jan. 17, 2012). In 
responding to this request for comment, Carrier stated generally that 
significant energy efficiency increases and consequently higher pricing 
can lead to decreased sales, especially in an economic downturn. 
(Carrier, No. 28 at p. 4) Engineered Air commented that their company 
is a small business and stated that the cost for complying with DOE 
standards was not at issue since DOE and ASHRAE 90.1-2010 were going to 
be closely aligned. Engineered Air stated that once October 18, 2013 
passes, the building codes will require compliance to ASHRAE 90.1-2010, 
which would essentially force compliance with DOE regulations. 
(Engineered Air, No. 36 at pp. 3-4) DOE believes that Carrier's 
concerns about decreased sales are mitigated because the levels being 
adopted are part of the prevailing industry standard, which indicates 
that industry believes that these levels are both technologically 
achievable and economically justified, and that the impacts on 
manufacturers of complying with such standard levels would not be 
significant enough to warrant lower levels. Additionally, Engineered 
Air supports DOE's position that the impacts on small businesses will 
be minimal from the adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 
efficiency levels.
    For the reasons stated above, DOE reaffirms its certification that 
this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial 
number of small entities. Therefore, DOE did not prepare an initial 
regulatory flexibility analysis for the proposed rule or a final 
regulatory flexibility analysis for the final rule. DOE has transmitted 
its certification and a supporting statement of factual basis to the 
Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the SBA for review pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of ASHRAE equipment addressed in today's final rule 
must

[[Page 28985]]

certify to DOE that their equipment complies with any applicable energy 
conservation standards. In certifying compliance, manufacturers must 
test their equipment according to the DOE test procedures for ASHRAE 
equipment, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. 
DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping 
requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial 
equipment, including ASHRAE equipment. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011). The 
collection-of-information requirement for the certification and 
recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by 
OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the 
certification is estimated to average 20 hours per response, including 
the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, 
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing 
the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969 
(42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), DOE has determined that this rule fits within 
the category of actions included in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and 
otherwise meets the requirements for application of a CX. See 10 CFR 
Part 1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b), and Appendix B, B(1)-(5). The 
rule fits within the category of actions because it is a rulemaking 
that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer products or 
industrial equipment, and for which none of the exceptions identified 
in CX B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made a CX determination for 
this rulemaking, and DOE does not need to prepare an Environmental 
Assessment or Environmental Impact Statement for this rule. DOE's CX 
determination for this rule is available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism.'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
final rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial 
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs 
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy 
conservation for the equipment that is the subject of today's final 
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the 
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297 and 
6316(b)(2)(D)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform'' (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)), imposes on 
Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following 
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write 
regulations to minimize litigation; and (3) provide a clear legal 
standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard and 
promote simplification and burden reduction. With regard to the review 
required by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable 
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing 
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for 
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; 
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines 
key terms; and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity 
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney 
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive 
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in 
section 3(a) and section 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it 
is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the 
required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, 
this final rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year 
(adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, 
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for 
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy 
statement is also available at www.gc.doe.gov.
    DOE has concluded that this final rule contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate nor a mandate that would likely require 
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any year. 
Accordingly, no assessment or analysis is required under the UMRA.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule

[[Page 28986]]

that may affect family well-being. This rule would not have any impact 
on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. 
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a 
Family Policymaking Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental 
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property 
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this regulation would not 
result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth 
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) provides for Federal agencies to 
review most disseminations of information to the public under 
guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines 
issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 
2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 
2002). DOE has reviewed today's final rule under the OMB and DOE 
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any significant energy 
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an 
agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of a 
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any significant energy action, the 
agency must provide a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    DOE has concluded that today's regulatory action, which sets forth 
energy conservation standards for certain types of ASHRAE equipment, is 
not a significant energy action because the new and amended standards 
are not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866 and 
are not likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, 
distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by 
the Administrator at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 
Statement of Energy Effects on the final rule.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 
1974

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101 et seq.), DOE must comply with all laws 
applicable to the former Federal Energy Administration, including 
section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 (Pub. L. 
93-275), as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization 
Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95-70). (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 
essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule 
authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The modifications to the test procedures addressed by this action 
incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the 
following commercial standards: (1) AHRI 210-240-2008; (2) AHRI 340-
360-2007; (3) AHRI 390-2003; (4) AHRI 1230-2010; (5) UL 727-2006; (6) 
ANSI Z21.47-2006; (7) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011; (8) ASHRAE 127-2007. DOE has 
evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully 
comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., 
whether each was developed in a manner that fully provides for public 
participation, comment, and review). DOE has consulted with both the 
Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact on 
competition of requiring use of the methods contained in these 
standards, and neither recommended against incorporation of these 
standards.

M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 
2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as scientific information the 
agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear and 
substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions. Id. at 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal in-progress 
peer reviews of the energy conservation standards development process 
and analyses and has prepared a Peer Review Report pertaining to the 
energy conservation standards rulemaking analyses. Generation of this 
report involved a rigorous, formal, and documented evaluation using 
objective criteria and qualified and independent reviewers to make a 
judgment as to the technical/scientific/business merit, the actual or 
anticipated results, and the productivity and management effectiveness 
of programs and/or projects. The ``Energy Conservation Standards 
Rulemaking Peer Review Report'' dated February 2007 has been 
disseminated and is available at the following Web site: 
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/peer_review.html.

N. Congressional Notification

    As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the 
promulgation of this rule prior to its effective date. The report will 
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule'' 
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of today's final 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

[[Page 28987]]

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 27, 2012.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE amends part 431 of 
Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 431.2 is amended by revising the definition of ``Commercial 
HVAC & WH product'' to read as follows:

Sec.  431.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    Commercial HVAC & WH product means any small, large, or very large 
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged 
terminal air conditioner, packaged terminal heat pump, single package 
vertical air conditioner, single package vertical heat pump, computer 
room air conditioner, variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 
conditioner, variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump, 
commercial packaged boiler, hot water supply boiler, commercial warm 
air furnace, instantaneous water heater, storage water heater, or 
unfired hot water storage tank.
* * * * *

0
3. Section 431.75 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.75  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following test 
procedures into subpart D of part 431. The materials listed have been 
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any 
subsequent amendment to the listed materials by the standard-setting 
organization will not affect the DOE regulations unless and until such 
regulations are amended by DOE. Materials are incorporated as they 
exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any changes in the 
materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved 
materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030 or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, these materials are available for inspection at 
U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza 
SW., Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. The referenced 
test procedure standards are listed below by relevant standard-setting 
organization, along with information on how to obtain copies from those 
sources.
    (b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute. 25 W. 43rd Street, 
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to: http://www.ansi.org.
    (1) ANSI Z21.47-1998, (``ANSI Z21.47-1998''), ``Gas-Fired Central 
Furnaces,'' approved by ANSI on June 9, 1998, IBR approved for Sec.  
431.76.
    (2) ANSI Z21.47-2006, (``ANSI Z21.47-2006''), ``Gas-Fired Central 
Furnaces,'' approved on July 27, 2006, IBR approved for Sec.  431.76.
    (3) Reserved.
    (c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 
30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to: http://www.ashrae.org.
    (1) ASHRAE Standard 103-1993, sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and 
11.3.7, ``Method of Testing for Annual Fuel Utilization Efficiency of 
Residential Central Furnaces and Boilers,'' approved on June 26, 1993, 
IBR approved for Sec.  431.76.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (d) HI. Hydronics Institute Division of AHRI, 35 Russo Place, P.O. 
Box 218, Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922, (703) 600-0350, or go to: http://
www.ahrinet.org/hydronics+institute+section.aspx.
    (1) HI BTS-2000, sections 8.2.2, 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2, 
``Method to Determine Efficiency of Commercial Space Heating Boilers,'' 
published January 2001, IBR approved for Sec.  431.76.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (e) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, 
Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or go to: http://www.ul.com.
    (1) UL 727 (UL 727-1994), ``Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central 
Furnaces,'' published on August 1, 1994, IBR approved for Sec.  431.76.
    (2) UL 727 (UL 727-2006), ``Standard for Safety Oil-Fired Central 
Furnaces,'' approved April 7, 2006, IBR approved for Sec.  431.76.
    (3) [Reserved].

0
4. Section 431.76 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.76  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
efficiency of commercial warm air furnaces.

    (a) This section covers the test procedures you must follow if, 
pursuant to EPCA, you are measuring the steady-state thermal efficiency 
of a gas-fired or oil-fired commercial warm air furnace with a rated 
maximum input of 225,000 Btu per hour or more. Where this section 
prescribes use of ANSI Z21.47 or UL 727, (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.75), perform only the procedures pertinent to the 
measurement of the steady-state efficiency. Before May 13, 2013, where 
you see instructions to use ANSI Z21.47-2006 or UL 727-2006 in this 
section, you may use the relevant procedures in ANSI Z21.47-1998 or UL 
727-1994. On or after May 13, 2013, you must use the relevant 
procedures in ANSI Z21.47-2006 or UL 727-2006.
    (b) Test setup--(1) Test setup for gas-fired commercial warm air 
furnaces. The test setup, including flue requirement, instrumentation, 
test conditions, and measurements for determining thermal efficiency is 
as specified in sections 1.1 (Scope), 2.1 (General), 2.2 (Basic Test 
Arrangements), 2.3 (Test Ducts and Plenums), 2.4 (Test Gases), 2.5 
(Test Pressures and Burner Adjustments), 2.6 (Static Pressure and Air 
Flow Adjustments), 2.39 (Thermal Efficiency) (note, this is 2.38 in 
ANSI Z21.47-1998 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75)), and 
4.2.1 (Basic Test Arrangements for Direct Vent Control Furnaces) of 
ANSI Z21.47-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75). The 
thermal efficiency test must be conducted only at the normal inlet test 
pressure, as specified in section 2.5.1 of ANSI Z21.47-2006, and at the 
maximum hourly Btu input rating specified by the manufacturer for the 
product being tested.
    (2) Test setup for oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. The test 
setup, including flue requirement, instrumentation, test conditions, 
and measurement for measuring thermal efficiency is as specified in 
sections 1 (Scope), 2 (Units of Measurement), 3 (Glossary), 37 
(General), 38 and 39 (Test Installation), 40 (Instrumentation, except 
40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7, which are not required for the thermal 
efficiency test), 41 (Initial Test Conditions), 42 (Combustion Test--
Burner and Furnace), 43.2 (Operation Tests), 44 (Limit Control Cutout 
Test),

[[Page 28988]]

45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 46 (Air Flow, Downflow or 
Horizontal Furnace Test), of UL 727-2006 (incorporated by reference, 
see Sec.  431.75). You must conduct a fuel oil analysis for heating 
value, hydrogen content, carbon content, pounds per gallon, and 
American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity as specified in section 
8.2.2 of HI BTS-2000 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75). The 
steady-state combustion conditions, specified in Section 42.1 of UL 
727-2006, are attained when variations of not more than 5[emsp14][deg]F 
in the measured flue gas temperature occur for three consecutive 
readings taken 15 minutes apart.
    (c) Additional test measurements--(1) Measurement of flue 
CO2 (carbon dioxide) for oil-fired commercial warm air 
furnaces. In addition to the flue temperature measurement specified in 
section 40.6.8 of UL 727-2006, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.75) you must locate one or two sampling tubes within six inches 
downstream from the flue temperature probe (as indicated on Figure 40.3 
of UL 727-2006). If you use an open end tube, it must project into the 
flue one-third of the chimney connector diameter. If you use other 
methods of sampling CO2, you must place the sampling tube so 
as to obtain an average sample. There must be no air leak between the 
temperature probe and the sampling tube location. You must collect the 
flue gas sample at the same time the flue gas temperature is recorded. 
The CO2 concentration of the flue gas must be as specified 
by the manufacturer for the product being tested, with a tolerance of 
0.1 percent. You must determine the flue CO2 
using an instrument with a reading error no greater than 0.1 percent.
    (2) Procedure for the measurement of condensate for a gas-fired 
condensing commercial warm air furnace. The test procedure for the 
measurement of the condensate from the flue gas under steady state 
operation must be conducted as specified in sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, and 
9.2 of ASHRAE Standard 103-1993 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
431.75) under the maximum rated input conditions. You must conduct this 
condensate measurement for an additional 30 minutes of steady state 
operation after completion of the steady state thermal efficiency test 
specified in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (d) Calculation of thermal efficiency--(1) Gas-fired commercial 
warm air furnaces. You must use the calculation procedure specified in 
section 2.39, Thermal Efficiency, of ANSI Z21.47-2006 (incorporated by 
reference, see Sec.  431.75). (Note, this is section 2.38 in ANSI 
Z21.47-1998 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75))
    (2) Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. You must calculate the 
percent flue loss (in percent of heat input rate) by following the 
procedure specified in sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2 of the HI 
BTS-2000 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75). The thermal 
efficiency must be calculated as:

Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 percent - flue loss (in percent).

    (e) Procedure for the calculation of the additional heat gain and 
heat loss, and adjustment to the thermal efficiency, for a condensing 
commercial warm air furnace. (1) You must calculate the latent heat 
gain from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and 
calculate heat loss due to the flue condensate down the drain, as 
specified in sections 11.3.7.1 and 11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE Standard 103-
1993, (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75), with the exception 
that in the equation for the heat loss due to hot condensate flowing 
down the drain in section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor temperature of 
70 [deg]F and the temperature term TOA must be replaced by 
the measured room temperature as specified in section 2.2.8 of ANSI 
Z21.47-2006 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.75).
    (2) Adjustment to the Thermal Efficiency for Condensing Furnace. 
You must adjust the thermal efficiency as calculated in paragraph 
(d)(1) of this section by adding the latent gain, expressed in percent, 
from the condensation of the water vapor in the flue gas, and 
subtracting the heat loss (due to the flue condensate down the drain), 
also expressed in percent, both as calculated in paragraph (e)(1) of 
this section, to obtain the thermal efficiency of a condensing furnace.

0
5. Section 431.92, is amended by adding the definitions ``Computer Room 
Air Conditioner,'' ``Heat Recovery,'' ``Sensible Coefficient of 
Performance, or SCOP,'' ``Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air 
Conditioner'' and ``Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump,'' 
in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Sec.  431.92  Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and 
heat pumps.

* * * * *
    Computer Room Air Conditioner means a basic model of commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (packaged or split) that 
is: Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other information 
technology cooling applications; rated for sensible coefficient of 
performance (SCOP) and tested in accordance with 10 CFR 431.96, and is 
not a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292. A 
computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have as 
available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or 
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function.
* * * * *
    Heat Recovery (in the context of variable refrigerant flow multi-
split air conditioners or variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat 
pumps) means that the air conditioner or heat pump is also capable of 
providing simultaneous heating and cooling operation, where recovered 
energy from the indoor units operating in one mode can be transferred 
to one or more other indoor units operating in the other mode. A 
variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat recovery heat pump is a 
variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump with the addition of 
heat recovery capability.
* * * * *
    Sensible Coefficient of Performance, or SCOP means the net sensible 
cooling capacity in watts divided by the total power input in watts 
(excluding reheaters and humidifiers).
* * * * *
    Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner means a unit 
of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is 
configured as a split system air conditioner incorporating a single 
refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one 
variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination for 
varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and multiple 
indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually metered and 
individually controlled by an integral control device and common 
communications network and which can operate independently in response 
to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies three 
or more steps of capacity control on common, inter-connecting piping.
    Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump means a unit of 
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is 
configured as a split system heat pump that uses reverse cycle 
refrigeration as its primary heating source and which may include 
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, 
steam, hot water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a single 
refrigerant circuit,

[[Page 28989]]

with one or more outdoor units, at least one variable-speed compressor 
or an alternate compressor combination for varying the capacity of the 
system by three or more steps, and multiple indoor fan coil units, each 
of which is individually metered and individually controlled by a 
control device and common communications network and which can operate 
independently in response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable 
refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on 
common, inter-connecting piping.
* * * * *

0
6. Section 431.95 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.95  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following test 
procedures into subpart F of part 431. The materials listed have been 
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any 
subsequent amendment to the listed materials by the standard-setting 
organization will not affect the DOE regulations unless and until such 
regulations are amended by DOE. Materials are incorporated as they 
exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any changes in the 
materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved 
materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., 
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/. The referenced 
test procedure standards are listed below by relevant standard-setting 
organization, along with information on how to obtain copies from those 
sources.
    (b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or 
go to: http://www.ahrinet.org.
    (1) ARI Standard 210/240-2003, ``2003 Standard for Unitary Air-
Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,'' published in 2003 
(AHRI 210/240-2003), IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (2) ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008, ``2008 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by 
addendum 1 in June 2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012 (AHRI 210/240-
2008), IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (3) ARI Standard 310/380-2004, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal 
Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' published September 2004 (AHRI 310/
380-2004), IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (4) ARI Standard 340/360-2004, ``2004 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 
Pump Equipment,'' published in 2004 (AHRI 340/360-2004), IBR approved 
for Sec.  431.96.
    (5) ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 
2011 and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 
2011 (AHRI 340/360-2007), IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (6) ANSI/AHRI Standard 390-2003, ``2003 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' 
dated 2003, (AHRI 390-2003), IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (7) ANSI/AHRI Standard 1230-2010, ``2010 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning 
and Heat Pump Equipment,'' approved August 2, 2010 and updated by 
addendum 1 in March 2011 (AHRI 1230-2010), IBR approved for Sec.  
431.96.
    (8) [Reserved].
    (c) ASHRAE. American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 
30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to: http://www.ashrae.org.
    (1) ASHRAE Standard 127-2007, ``Method of Testing for Rating 
Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners,'' approved 
on June 28, 2007, (ASHRAE 127-2007), IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (2) [Reserved].
    (d) ISO. International Organization for Standardization, 1, ch. De 
la Voie-Creuse, Case Postale 56, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, +41 22 
749 01 11 or go to: http://www.iso.ch/.
    (1) ISO Standard 13256-1, ``Water-source heat pumps--Testing and 
rating for performance--Part 1: Water-to-air and brine-to-air heat 
pumps,'' approved 1998, IBR approved for Sec.  431.96.
    (2) [Reserved].

0
7. Section 431.96 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.96  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps.

    (a) Scope. This section contains test procedures for measuring, 
pursuant to EPCA, the energy efficiency of any small, large, or very 
large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, 
packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, 
computer room air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow systems, and 
single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical 
heat pumps.
    (b) Testing and calculations. (1) Determine the energy efficiency 
of each covered product by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in 
the rightmost column of Table 1 of this section, that apply to the 
energy efficiency descriptor for that product, category, and cooling 
capacity, until compliance with this test procedure version is no 
longer required per the date shown in the 5th most column from the left 
of Table 1 of this section.

                                Table 1 to Sec.   431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                              Test procedure
         Equipment type                    Category            Cooling  capacity     Energy efficiency         required for       Use tests, conditions,
                                                                                         descriptor          compliance until     and procedures \1\ in
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-    Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC     h......  SEER and HSPF........  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 210/240-2003.
 Conditioning and Heating          and HP.                    >=65,000 Btu/h and   EER and COP..........  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 340/360-2004.
 Equipment.                       Air-Cooled AC and HP......   h.

[[Page 28990]]

 
                                  Water-Cooled and            h......  EER..................  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 210/240-2003.
                                   Evaporatively-Cooled AC.   >=65,000 Btu/h and   EER..................  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 340/360-2004.
                                                               h.
                                  Water-Source HP...........  h.....  EER and COP..........  May 13, 2013.........  ISO Standard 13256-1
                                                                                                                                  (1998).
Large Commercial Packaged Air-    Air-Cooled AC and HP......  >=135,000 Btu/h and  EER and COP..........  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 340/360-2004.
 Conditioning and Heating         Water-Cooled and             h.     EER..................  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 340/360-2004.
 Equipment.                        Evaporatively-Cooled AC.   >=135,000 Btu/h and
                                                               h.
Very Large Commercial Packaged    Air-Cooled AC and HP......  >=240,000 Btu/h and  EER and COP..........  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 340/360-2004.
 Air-Conditioning and Heating     Water-Cooled and             h.     EER..................  May 13, 2013.........  ARI 340/360-2004.
 Equipment.                        Evaporatively-Cooled AC.   >=240,000 Btu/h and
                                                               h.
Packaged Terminal Air             AC and HP.................  h.....  EER and COP..........  May 13, 2013.........  AHRI 310/380-2004.
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.95.

    (2) On or after the compliance dates listed in Table 2 of this 
section, determine the energy efficiency of each type of covered 
equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in the rightmost 
column of Table 2 of this section along with any additional testing 
provisions set forth in paragraphs (c), (d), and (e) of this section, 
that apply to the energy efficiency descriptor for that equipment, 
category, and cooling capacity. Note, the omitted sections of the test 
procedures listed in the rightmost column of Table 1 of this section 
shall not be used.

                                Table 2 to Sec.   431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Compliance with
                                                                             Energy efficiency      test procedure        Use tests, conditions, and
        Equipment type                  Category          Cooling capacity       descriptor         required on or            procedures \1\  in
                                                                                                        after
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-  Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC   h...  SEER and HSPF......  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 210/240-2008 (omit section
 Conditioning and Heating        and HP.                  >=65,000 Btu/h    EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......   6.5).
 Equipment.                     Air-Cooled AC and HP....   and 360-2007 (omit section
                                                           Btu/h.                                                      6.3).
                                Water-Cooled and          h...  EER................  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 210/240-2008 (omit section
                                 Evaporatively-Cooled AC. >=65,000 Btu/h    EER................  May 13, 2013.......   6.5).
                                                           and 360-2007 (omit section
                                                           Btu/h.                                                      6.3).
                                Water-Source HP.........  h..  EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  ISO Standard 13256-1 (1998).
Large Commercial Packaged Air-  Air-Cooled AC and HP....  >=135,000 Btu/h   EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
 Conditioning and Heating       Water-Cooled and           and h.                                                     AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
                                                          >=135,000 Btu/h                                              6.3).
                                                           and h.
Very Large Commercial Packaged  Air-Cooled AC and HP....  >=240,000 Btu/h   EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
 Air-Conditioning and Heating   Water-Cooled and           and h.                                                     AHRI 340/360-2007 (omit section
                                                          >=240,000 Btu/h                                              6.3).
                                                           and h.
Packaged Terminal Air           AC and HP...............  h..  EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 310/380-2004 (omit section
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps.                                                                                          5.6).
Computer Room Air Conditioners  AC......................  h...  SCOP...............  October 29, 2012...  ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit section
                                                          h     SCOP...............  May 13, 2013.......   5.11).
                                                           and h.                                                      5.11).
Variable Refrigerant Flow       AC......................  h..  EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
 Multi-split Systems.                                                                                                  5.1.2 and 6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow       HP......................  h..  EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
 Multi-split Systems, Air-                                                                                             5.1.2 and 6.6).
 cooled.

[[Page 28991]]

 
Variable Refrigerant Flow       HP......................  h...  EER and COP........  October 29, 2012...  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
 Multi-split Systems, Water-                                                                                           5.1.2 and 6.6).
 source.
Variable Refrigerant Flow       HP......................  >=17,000 Btu/h    EER and COP........  May 13, 2013.......  AHRI 1230-2010 (omit sections
 Multi-split Systems, Water-                               and h.
Single Package Vertical Air     AC and HP...............  h..  EER and COP........  July 16, 2012......  AHRI 390-2003 (omit section 6.4).
 Conditioners and Single
 Package Vertical Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.95.

    (c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/
240-2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 1230-2010, and ASHRAE 
127-2007. Manufacturers may optionally specify a ``break-in'' period, 
not to exceed 20 hours, to operate the equipment under test prior to 
conducting the test method specified by AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 340/
360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 1230-2010, or ASHRAE 127-2007 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.95). A manufacturer who 
elects to use an optional compressor break-in period in its 
certification testing should record this information (including the 
duration) in the test data underlying the certified ratings that is 
required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
    (d) Refrigerant line length corrections for tests conducted using 
AHRI 1230-2010. For test setups where it is physically impossible for 
the laboratory to use the required line length listed in Table 3 of the 
AHRI 1230-2010 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  431.95), then the 
actual refrigerant line length used by the laboratory may exceed the 
required length and the following correction factors are applied:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Piping length beyond minimum,   Piping length beyond   Cooling capacity
           X  (ft)                minimum, Y  (m)        correction  %
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0> X  Y  X  Y  X  Y  X  Y  X  Y  X  Y or refrigerant pressure in its installation and operation manual 
for a given basic model, any value(s) within that range may be used to 
determine refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant, unless the 
manufacturer clearly specifies a rating value in its installation and 
operation manual, in which case the specified rating value shall be 
used.
    (2) The air flow rate used for testing must be that set forth in 
the installation and operation manuals being shipped to the commercial 
customer with the basic model and clearly identified as that used to 
generate the DOE performance ratings. If a rated air flow value for 
testing is not clearly identified, a value of 400 standard cubic feet 
per minute (scfm) per ton shall be used.
    (3) For VRF systems, the test set-up and the fixed compressor 
speeds (i.e., the maximum, minimum, and any intermediate speeds used 
for testing) should be recorded and maintained as part of the test data 
underlying the certified ratings that is required to be maintained 
under 10 CFR 429.71.
    (f) Manufacturer involvement in assessment or enforcement testing 
for variable refrigerant flow systems. A manufacturer's representative 
will be allowed to witness assessment and/or enforcement testing for 
VRF systems. The manufacturer's representative will be allowed to 
inspect and discuss set-up only with a DOE representative and adjust 
only the modulating components during testing in the presence of a DOE 
representative that are necessary to achieve steady-state operation. 
Only previously documented specifications for set-up as specified under 
paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section will be used.

0
8. Section 431.97 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.97  Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.

    (a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable 
DOE test procedure in Sec.  431.96, be compliant

[[Page 28992]]

with the applicable standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (f) 
of this section, and be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 
429.
    (b) Each commercial air conditioner or heat pump (not including 
single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical 
heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal 
heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant 
flow systems) manufactured on and after the compliance date listed in 
the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy 
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1, 2, and 3 of this 
section.

                        Table 1 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
[Not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal
                 heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                     Compliance date:
         Equipment type               Cooling capacity       Sub- category          Heating type            Efficiency level      products  manufactured
                                                                                                                                    on and after . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-    h..........  AC..............  All......................  SEER = 13..............  June 16, 2008.
 Conditioning and Heating                                  HP..............  All......................  SEER = 13..............  June 16, 2008.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase)
Small Commercial Packaged Air-    >=65,000 Btu/h and       AC..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 11.2.............  January 1, 2010.
 Conditioning and Heating          h.                            Resistance Heating.       EER = 11.0.............  January 1, 2010.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled)                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                              Heating.
                                                           HP..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 11.0.............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                              Resistance Heating.
                                                                             All Other Types of         EER = 10.8.............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                              Heating.
Large Commercial Packaged Air-    >=135,000 Btu/h and      AC..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 11.0.............  January 1, 2010.
 Conditioning and Heating          h.                            Resistance Heating.       EER = 10.8.............  January 1, 2010.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled)                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                              Heating.
Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled)..  >240,000 Btu/h.........  HP..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 10.6.............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                              Resistance heating.
                                                                             All Other Types of         EER = 10.4.............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                              Heating.
Very Large Commercial Packaged    >=240,000 Btu/h and      AC..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 10.0.............  January 1, 2010.
 Air-Conditioning and Heating      h.                            Resistance Heating.       EER = 9.8..............  January 1, 2010.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled)                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                              Heating.
                                                           HP..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 9.5..............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                              Resistance Heating.
                                                           ................  All Other Types of         EER = 9.3..............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                              Heating.
Small Commercial Packaged Air-    h..........  AC..............  All......................  EER = 12.1.............  October 29, 2003.
 Conditioning and Heating         >=17,000 Btu/h and       HP..............  All......................  EER = 11.2.............  October 29, 2003.
 Equipment (Water-Cooled,          h.          AC..............  All......................  EER = 12.1.............  October 29, 2003.
 Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-                          HP..............  All......................  EER = 12.0.............  October 29, 2003.
 Source).
                                  >=65,000 Btu/h and       AC..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 11.5.............  October 29, 2003.\1\
                                   h.                            Resistance Heating.
                                                                             All Other Types of         EER = 11.3.............  October 29, 2003.\1\
                                                                              Heating.
                                                           HP..............  All......................  EER = 12.0.............  October 29, 2003.\1\
Large Commercial Packaged Air-    >=135,000 Btu/h and      AC..............  All......................  EER = 11.0.............  October 29, 2004.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating          h..................
 Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-
 Source).
Very Large Commercial Packaged    >=240,000 Btu/h and      AC..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 11.0.............  January 10, 2011.\2\
 Air-Conditioning and Heating      h.                            Resistance Heating.       EER = 10.8.............  January 10, 2011.\2\
 Equipment (Water-Cooled,                                                    All Other Types of
 Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-                                             Heating.
 Source).
                                                           HP..............  No Heating or Electric     EER = 11.0.............  January 10, 2011.\2\
                                                                              Resistance Heating.
                                                                             All Other Types of         EER = 10.8.............  January 10, 2011.\2\
                                                                              Heating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before June 1, 2013. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
\2\ And manufactured before June 1, 2014. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.

[[Page 28993]]

    Table 2 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Heating Efficiency Standards for Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
                                                  [Heat pumps]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Compliance date: Products
          Equipment type             Cooling capacity         Efficiency level       manufactured on and after .
                                                                                                 . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-     h......  HSPF = 7.7.................  June 16, 2008.
 Conditioning and Heating
 Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).
Small Commercial Packaged Air-     >=65,000 Btu/h and.  COP = 3.3..................  January 1, 2010.
 Conditioning and Heating          h.....
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air-     >=135,000 Btu/h and  COP = 3.2..................  January 1, 2010.
 Conditioning and Heating          h.....
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Very Large Commercial Packaged     >=240,000 Btu/h and  COP = 3.2..................  January 1, 2010.
 Air-Conditioning and Heating      h.....
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).
Small Commercial Packaged Air-     h.....  COP = 4.2..................  October 29, 2003.
 Conditioning and Heating
 Equipment (Water-Source).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Table 3 to Sec.   431.97--Updates to the Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air-Conditioning and Heating
                                                                        Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                             Compliance date: Products
          Equipment type                 Cooling capacity              Heating type                Efficiency level        manufactured on and after . .
                                                                                                                                         .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-      >=65,000 Btu/h and          No Heating or Electric      EER = 12.1...................  June 1, 2013.
 Conditioning and Heating            h.             Resistance Heating.        EER = 11.9...................  June 1, 2013.
 Equipment (Water-Cooled).                                      All Other Types of Heating
Large Commercial Packaged Air-      >=135,000 Btu/h and         No Heating or Electric      EER = 12.5...................  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating            h.             Resistance Heating.        EER = 12.3...................  June 1, 2014.
 Equipment (Water-Cooled).                                      All Other Types of Heating
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=240,000 Btu/h and         No Heating or Electric      EER = 12.4...................  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating            h.             Resistance Heating.        EER = 12.2...................  June 1, 2014.
 Equipment (Water-Cooled).                                      All Other Types of Heating
Small Commercial Packaged Air-      >=65,000 Btu/h and          No Heating or Electric      EER = 12.1...................  June 1, 2013.
 Conditioning and Heating            h.             Resistance Heating.        EER = 11.9...................  June 1, 2013.
 Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).                              All Other Types of Heating
Large Commercial Packaged Air-      >=135,000 Btu/h and         No Heating or Electric      EER = 12.0...................  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating            h.             Resistance Heating.        EER = 11.8...................  June 1, 2014.
 Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).                              All Other Types of Heating
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air- >=240,000 Btu/h and         No Heating or Electric      EER = 11.9...................  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating            h.             Resistance Heating.        EER = 11.7...................  June 1, 2014.
 Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).                              All Other Types of Heating
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (c) Each packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and packaged 
terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured on or after January 1, 1994, and 
before October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and before 
October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the 
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 
Table 4 of this section. Each PTAC and PTHP manufactured on or after 
October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and on or after 
October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the 
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 
Table 5 of this section.

[[Page 28994]]

                    Table 4 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for PTAC and PTHP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Compliance date: products
           Equipment type               Cooling capacity       Efficiency level    manufactured on and after . .
                                                                                                 .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC...............................  h.........  EER = 8.88...........  January 1, 1994.
                                     >=7,000 Btu/h and      EER = 10.0--(0.16 x    January 1, 1994.
                                      h.         Cap \1\).
                                     >=15,000 Btu/h.......  EER = 7.6............  January 1, 1994.
PTHP...............................  h.........  EER = 8.88...........  January 1, 1994.
                                                            COP = 2.72...........
                                     >=7,000 Btu/h and      EER = 10.0--(0.16 x    January 1, 1994.
                                      h.         Cap \1\).
                                                            COP = 1.3 + (0.16 x
                                                             EER \2\).
                                     >=15,000 Btu/h.......  EER = 7.6............  January 1, 1994.
                                                            COP = 2.52...........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95[emsp14][deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
\2\ The applicable minimum cooling EER prescribed in this table.

                                     Table 5 to Sec.   431.97 Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for PTAC and PTHP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                          Compliance date:
                                                                                                              products
          Equipment type               Cooling capacity         Sub-category        Efficiency level     manufactured on and
                                                                                                             after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC..............................  Standard Size........  h.........  EER = 11.7..........  October 8, 2012.
                                                           >=7,000 Btu/h and      EER = 13.8-(0.3 x     October 8, 2012.
                                                            h.         Cap\1\).
                                                           >=15,000 Btu/h.......  EER = 9.3...........  October 8, 2012.
                                    Non-Standard Size....  h.........  EER = 9.4...........  October 7, 2010.
                                                           >=7,000 Btu/h and      EER = 10.9-(0.213 x   October 7, 2010.
                                                            h.         Cap\1\).
                                                           >=15,000 Btu/h.......  EER = 7.7...........  October 7, 2010.
PTHP..............................  Standard Size........  h.........  EER = 11.9..........  October 8, 2012.
                                                                                  COP = 3.3...........
                                                           >=7,000 Btu/h and      EER = 14.0-(0.3 x     October 8, 2012.
                                                            h.         Cap\1\).
                                                                                  COP = 3.7--(0.052 x
                                                                                   Cap\1\).
                                                           >=15,000 Btu/h.......  EER = 9.5...........  October 8, 2012.
                                                                                  COP = 2.9...........
                                    Non-Standard Size....  h.........  EER = 9.3...........  October 7, 2010.
                                                                                  COP = 2.7...........
                                                           >=7,000 Btu/h and      EER = 10.8-(0.213 x   October 7, 2010.
                                                            h.         Cap\1\).
                                                                                  COP = 2.9-(0.026 x
                                                                                   Cap\1\).
                                                           >=15,000 Btu/h.......  EER = 7.6...........  October 7, 2010.
                                                                                  COP = 2.5...........
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.

    (d) Each single package vertical air conditioner and heat pump 
manufactured on or after January 1, 2010, must meet the applicable 
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.

  Table 6 to Sec.   431.97 Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single
                                           Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Compliance date:
        Equipment type          Cooling capacity     Sub-category     Efficiency level  Products manufactured on
                                                                                             and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air     h...  AC...............  EER = 9.0........  January 1, 2010.
 conditioners and single                          HP...............  EER = 9.0........  January 1, 2010.
 package vertical heat pumps,                                        COP = 3.0........
 single-phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air     >=65,000 Btu/h    AC...............  EER = 8.9........  January 1, 2010.
 conditioners and single         and h.                              COP = 3.0........
Single package vertical air     >=135,000 Btu/h   AC...............  EER = 8.6........  January 1, 2010.
 conditioners and single         and h.                              COP = 2.9........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (e) Each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after October 29, 
2012, and each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible 
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on 
or after October 29, 2013, must meet the applicable minimum energy 
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this section.

[[Page 28995]]

            Table 7 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         Minimum SCOP efficiency       Compliance date: Products
        Equipment type             Net sensible   ------------------------------------     manufactured on and
                                 cooling capacity    Downflow unit      Upflow unit           after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Computer Room Air               h....              2.20              2.09  October 29, 2012.
 Conditioners, Air-Cooled.      >=65,000 Btu/h                 2.10              1.99  October 29, 2013.
                                 and 
                                 h.
                                >=240,000 Btu/h                1.90              1.79  October 29, 2013.
                                 and 
                                 h.
Computer Room Air               h....              2.60              2.49  October 29, 2012.
 Conditioners, Water-Cooled.    >=65,000 Btu/h                 2.50              2.39  October 29, 2013.
                                 and 
                                 h.
                                >=240,000 Btu/h                2.40              2.29  October 29, 2013.
                                 and 
                                 h.
Computer Room Air               h....              2.55              2.44  October 29, 2012.
 Conditioners, Water-Cooled     >=65,000 Btu/h                 2.45              2.34  October 29, 2013.
 with a Fluid Economizer.        and              2.35              2.24  October 29, 2013.
                                 h.
                                >=240,000 Btu/h
                                 and 
                                 h.
Computer Room Air               h....              2.50              2.39  October 29, 2012.
 Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled.   >=65,000 Btu/h                 2.15              2.04  October 29, 2013.
                                 and 
                                 h.
                                >=240,000 Btu/h                2.10              1.99  October 29, 2013.
                                 and 
                                 h.
Computer Room Air Conditioner,  h....              2.45              2.34  October 29, 2012.
 Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid     >=65,000 Btu/h                 2.10              1.99  October 29, 2013.
 Economizer.                     and              2.05              1.94  October 29, 2013.
                                 h.
                                >=240,000 Btu/h
                                 and 
                                 h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     (f) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump 
manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in this table must 
meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set 
forth in this section.

      Table 8 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
                                           Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Compliance date:
        Equipment type           Cooling capacity   Heating type\1\   Efficiency level   Products  manufactured
                                                                                           on and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air             h....  All.............  13.0 SEER........  June 16, 2008.
 Conditioners (Air-Cooled).     >=65,000 Btu/h     No Heating or     11.2 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                 and   Electric
                                 h.                 Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types   11.0 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                                    of Heating.
                                >=135,000 Btu/h    No Heating or     11.0 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                 and   Electric
                                 h.                 Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types   10.8 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                                    of Heating.
                                >=240,000 Btu/h    No Heating or     10.0 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                 and   Electric
                                 h.                 Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types   9.8 EER..........  January 1, 2010.
                                                    of Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps....  h....  All.............  13.0 SEER........  June 16, 2008.
(Air-Cooled)..................                                       7.7 HSPF.........
                                >=65,000 Btu/h     No Heating or     11.0 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                 and   Electric         3.3 COP..........
                                 h.                 Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types   10.8 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                                    of Heating.      3.3 COP..........
                                >=135,000 Btu/h    No Heating or     10.6 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                 and   Electric         3.2 COP..........
                                 h.                 Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types   10.4 EER.........  January 1, 2010.
                                                    of Heating.      3.2 COP..........
                                >=240,000 Btu/h    No Heating or     9.5 EER..........  January 1, 2010.
                                 and   Electric         3.2 COP..........
                                 h.                 Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types   9.3 EER..........  January 1, 2010.
                                                    of Heating.      3.2 COP..........
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps....  h....  Without heat      12.0 EER.........  October 29, 2012.
(Water-Source)* * *...........                      recovery.        4.2 COP..........  October 29, 2003.
                                                   With heat         11.8 EER.........  October 29, 2012.
                                                    recovery.        4.2 COP..........  October 29, 2003.
                                >=17,000 Btu/h     All.............  12.0 EER.........  October 29, 2003.
                                 and                     4.2 COP..........
                                 h.
                                >=65,000 Btu/h     All.............  12.0 EER.........  October 29, 2003.
                                 and                    4.2 COP..........
                                 h.
                                >=135,000 Btu/h    Without heat      10.0 EER.........  October 29, 2013.
                                 and   recovery.        3.9 COP..........
                                 h.
                                                   With heat         9.8 EER..........  October 29, 2013
                                                    recovery.        3.9 COP..........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ``All Other Types of
  Heating'' unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for
  ``No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.''

0
9. Add Sec.  431.104 to read as follows:

Sec.  431.104  Sources for information and guidance.

    (a) General. The standards listed in this paragraph are referred to 
in the DOE test procedures and elsewhere in this part but are not 
incorporated by reference. These sources are given here for information 
and guidance.
    (b) ASTM. American Society for Testing and Materials, 100 Barr 
Harbor Drive, PO Box C700, West Conshohocken, PA, 19438-2959, 1-(877) 
909-2786, or go to: http://www.astm.org/index.shtml.
    (1) ASTM Standard Test Method C177-97, ``Standard Test Method for

[[Page 28996]]

Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties 
by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus.''
    (2) ASTM Standard Test Method C518-91, ``Standard Test Method for 
Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties 
by Means of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.''
    (3) ASTM Standard Test Method D2156-80, ``Method for Smoke Density 
in Flue Gases from Burning Distillate Fuels.''

0
10. Section 431.105 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.105  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) General. DOE incorporates by reference the following test 
procedures into subpart G of part 431. The materials listed have been 
approved for incorporation by reference by the Director of the Federal 
Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. Any 
subsequent amendment to the listed materials by the standard-setting 
organization will not affect the DOE regulations unless and until such 
regulations are amended by DOE. Materials are incorporated as they 
exist on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in the 
materials will be published in the Federal Register. All approved 
materials are available for inspection at the National Archives and 
Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of 
this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/code_of_federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is available for inspection at U.S. 
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 
Building Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, SW., 
Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards The referenced test 
procedure standards are listed below by relevant standard-setting 
organization, along with information on how to obtain copies from those 
sources.
    (b) ANSI. American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 
4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to: http://www.ansi.org.
    (1) ANSI Z21.10.3-1998 (``ANSI Z21.10.3-1998''), ``Gas Water 
Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters With Input Ratings Above 
75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous, Z21.10.3-1998, CSA 
4.3-M98, and its Addenda, ANSI Z21.10.3a-2000, CSA 4.3a-M00,'' approved 
by ANSI on October 18, 1999, IBR approved for Sec.  431.106.
    (2) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 (``ANSI Z21.10.3-2011''), ``Gas Water 
Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters With Input Ratings Above 
75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous,'' approved on March 
7, 2011, IBR approved for Sec.  431.106.
    (3) [Reserved].

0
11. Section 431.106 is revised to read as follows:

Sec.  431.106  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
efficiency of commercial water heaters and hot water supply boilers 
(other than commercial heat pump water heaters).

    (a) Scope. This section covers the test procedures you must follow 
if, pursuant to EPCA, you are measuring the thermal efficiency or 
standby loss, or both, of a storage or instantaneous water heater or 
hot water supply boiler (other than a commercial heat pump water 
heater).
    (b) Testing and Calculations. Determine the energy efficiency of 
each covered product by conducting the test procedure(s), set forth in 
the two rightmost columns of the following table, that apply to the 
energy efficiency descriptor(s) for that product:

      Table 1 to Sec.   431.106--Test Procedures for Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers
                                 [Other than commercial heat pump water heaters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Use test setup,
                                                      equipment and
                                 Energy efficiency    procedures in        Test procedure          With these
         Equipment type              descriptor         subsection          required for           additional
                                                     labeled ``Method     compliance until        stipulations
                                                       of Test'' of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Storage and            Thermal            ANSI Z21.10.3-     May 13, 2013..........  A. For all
 Instantaneous Water Heaters      Efficiency.        1998 **, Sec.     May 13, 2013..........   products, the
 and Hot Water Supply Boilers *. Standby Loss.....   2.9.                                       duration of the
                                                    ANSI Z21.10.3-                              standby loss
                                                     1998 **, Sec.                              test shall be
                                                     2.10.                                      until whichever
                                                                                                of the following
                                                                                                occurs first
                                                                                                after you begin
                                                                                                to measure the
                                                                                                fuel and/or
                                                                                                electric
                                                                                                consumption: (1)
                                                                                                The first cutout
                                                                                                after 24 hours
                                                                                                or (2) 48 hours,
                                                                                                if the water
                                                                                                heater is not in
                                                                                                the heating mode
                                                                                                at that time.
                                                                                               B. For oil and
                                                                                                gas products,
                                                                                                the standby loss
                                                                                                in Btu per hour
                                                                                                must be
                                                                                                calculated as
                                                                                                follows: SL (Btu
                                                                                                per hour) = S (%
                                                                                                per hour) x 8.25
                                                                                                (Btu/gal-F) x
                                                                                                Measured Volume
                                                                                                (gal) x 70
                                                                                                (degrees F).

[[Page 28997]]

 
                                                                                               C. For oil-fired
                                                                                                products, apply
                                                                                                the following in
                                                                                                conducting the
                                                                                                thermal
                                                                                                efficiency and
                                                                                                standby loss
                                                                                                tests: (1)
                                                                                                Venting
                                                                                                Requirements--Co
                                                                                                nnect a vertical
                                                                                                length of flue
                                                                                                pipe to the flue
                                                                                                gas outlet of
                                                                                                sufficient
                                                                                                height so as to
                                                                                                meet the minimum
                                                                                                draft specified
                                                                                                by the
                                                                                                manufacturer.
                                                                                                (2) Oil Supply--
                                                                                                Adjust the
                                                                                                burner rate so
                                                                                                that: (a) The
                                                                                                hourly Btu input
                                                                                                rate lies within
                                                                                                2
                                                                                                percent of the
                                                                                                manufacturer's
                                                                                                specified input
                                                                                                rate, (b) the
                                                                                                CO2 reading
                                                                                                shows the value
                                                                                                specified by the
                                                                                                manufacturer,
                                                                                                (c) smoke in the
                                                                                                flue does not
                                                                                                exceed No. 1
                                                                                                smoke as
                                                                                                measured by the
                                                                                                procedure in
                                                                                                ASTM-D-2156-80,
                                                                                                and (d) fuel
                                                                                                pump pressure
                                                                                                lies within
                                                                                                10
                                                                                                percent of
                                                                                                manufacturer's
                                                                                                specifications.
                                                                                               D. For electric
                                                                                                products, apply
                                                                                                the following in
                                                                                                conducting the
                                                                                                standby loss
                                                                                                test: (1) Assume
                                                                                                that the thermal
                                                                                                efficiency (Et)
                                                                                                of electric
                                                                                                water heaters
                                                                                                with immersed
                                                                                                heating elements
                                                                                                is 98 percent.
                                                                                                (2) Maintain the
                                                                                                electrical
                                                                                                supply voltage
                                                                                                to within 5 percent
                                                                                                of the center of
                                                                                                the voltage
                                                                                                range specified
                                                                                                on the water
                                                                                                heater
                                                                                                nameplate. (3)
                                                                                                If the set up
                                                                                                includes
                                                                                                multiple
                                                                                                adjustable
                                                                                                thermostats, set
                                                                                                the highest one
                                                                                                first to yield a
                                                                                                maximum water
                                                                                                temperature in
                                                                                                the specified
                                                                                                range as
                                                                                                measured by the
                                                                                                topmost tank
                                                                                                thermocouple.
                                                                                                Then set the
                                                                                                lower
                                                                                                thermostat(s) to
                                                                                                yield a maximum
                                                                                                mean tank
                                                                                                temperature
                                                                                                within the
                                                                                                specified range.
                                                                                               E. Install water-
                                                                                                tube water
                                                                                                heaters as shown
                                                                                                in Figure 2,
                                                                                                ``Arrangement
                                                                                                for Testing
                                                                                                Water-tube Type
                                                                                                Instantaneous
                                                                                                and Circulating
                                                                                                Water Heaters.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As to hot water supply boilers with a capacity of less than 10 gallons, these test methods become mandatory on
  October 21, 2005. Prior to that time, you may use for these products either (1) these test methods if you rate
  the product for thermal efficiency, or (2) the test methods in Subpart E if you rate the product for
  combustion efficiency as a commercial packaged boiler.
** Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.105.

[[Page 28998]]

      Table 2 to Sec.   431.106--Test Procedures for Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers
                                 [Other than commercial heat pump water heaters]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Use test setup,
                                                      equipment and        Test procedure
                                       Energy         procedures in         required for           With these
         Equipment type              efficiency         subsection        compliance on and        additional
                                     descriptor      labeled ``Method           after             stipulations
                                                       of Test'' of
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Storage and            Thermal            ANSI Z21.10.3-     May 13, 2013..........  A. For all
 Instantaneous Water Heaters      Efficiency.        2011 **, Exhibit  May 13, 2013..........   products, the
 and Hot Water Supply Boilers *. Standby Loss.....   G1.               May 13, 2013..........   duration of the
Oil-fired Storage and            Thermal            ANSI Z21.10.3-     May 13, 2013..........   standby loss
 Instantaneous Water Heaters      Efficiency.        2011 **, Exhibit  May 13, 2013..........   test shall be
 and Hot Water Supply Boilers *. Standby Loss.....   G2.                                        until whichever
Electric Storage and             Standby Loss.....  ANSI Z21.10.3-                              of the following
 Instantaneous Water Heaters.                        2011 **, Exhibit                           occurs first
                                                     G1.                                        after you begin
                                                    ANSI Z21.10.3-                              to measure the
                                                     2011 **, Exhibit                           fuel and/or
                                                     G2.                                        electric
                                                    ANSI Z21.10.3-                              consumption: (1)
                                                     2011 **, Exhibit                           The first cutout
                                                     G2.                                        after 24 hours
                                                                                                or (2) 48 hours,
                                                                                                if the water
                                                                                                heater is not in
                                                                                                the heating mode
                                                                                                at that time.
                                                                                               B. For oil and
                                                                                                gas products,
                                                                                                the standby loss
                                                                                                in Btu per hour
                                                                                                must be
                                                                                                calculated as
                                                                                                follows: SL (Btu
                                                                                                per hour) = S (%
                                                                                                per hour) x 8.25
                                                                                                (Btu/gal-F) x
                                                                                                Measured Volume
                                                                                                (gal) x 70
                                                                                                (degrees F).
                                                                                               C. For oil-fired
                                                                                                products, apply
                                                                                                the following in
                                                                                                conducting the
                                                                                                thermal
                                                                                                efficiency and
                                                                                                standby loss
                                                                                                tests: (1)
                                                                                                Venting
                                                                                                Requirements--Co
                                                                                                nnect a vertical
                                                                                                length of flue
                                                                                                pipe to the flue
                                                                                                gas outlet of
                                                                                                sufficient
                                                                                                height so as to
                                                                                                meet the minimum
                                                                                                draft specified
                                                                                                by the
                                                                                                manufacturer.
                                                                                                (2) Oil Supply--
                                                                                                Adjust the
                                                                                                burner rate so
                                                                                                that: (a) The
                                                                                                hourly Btu input
                                                                                                rate lies within
                                                                                                2
                                                                                                percent of the
                                                                                                manufacturer's
                                                                                                specified input
                                                                                                rate, (b) the
                                                                                                CO2 reading
                                                                                                shows the value
                                                                                                specified by the
                                                                                                manufacturer,
                                                                                                (c) smoke in the
                                                                                                flue does not
                                                                                                exceed No. 1
                                                                                                smoke as
                                                                                                measured by the
                                                                                                procedure in
                                                                                                ASTM-D-2156-80,
                                                                                                and (d) fuel
                                                                                                pump pressure
                                                                                                lies within
                                                                                                10
                                                                                                percent of
                                                                                                manufacturer's
                                                                                                specifications.
                                                                                               D. For electric
                                                                                                products, apply
                                                                                                the following in
                                                                                                conducting the
                                                                                                standby loss
                                                                                                test: (1) Assume
                                                                                                that the thermal
                                                                                                efficiency (Et)
                                                                                                of electric
                                                                                                water heaters
                                                                                                with immersed
                                                                                                heating elements
                                                                                                is 98 percent.
                                                                                                (2) Maintain the
                                                                                                electrical
                                                                                                supply voltage
                                                                                                to within 5 percent
                                                                                                of the center of
                                                                                                the voltage
                                                                                                range specified
                                                                                                on the water
                                                                                                heater
                                                                                                nameplate. (3)
                                                                                                If the set up
                                                                                                includes
                                                                                                multiple
                                                                                                adjustable
                                                                                                thermostats, set
                                                                                                the highest one
                                                                                                first to yield a
                                                                                                maximum water
                                                                                                temperature in
                                                                                                the specified
                                                                                                range as
                                                                                                measured by the
                                                                                                topmost tank
                                                                                                thermocouple.
                                                                                                Then set the
                                                                                                lower
                                                                                                thermostat(s) to
                                                                                                yield a maximum
                                                                                                mean tank
                                                                                                temperature
                                                                                                within the
                                                                                                specified range.
                                                                                               E. Install water-
                                                                                                tube water
                                                                                                heaters as shown
                                                                                                in Figure 2,
                                                                                                ``Arrangement
                                                                                                for Testing
                                                                                                Water-tube Type
                                                                                               Instantaneous and
                                                                                                Circulating
                                                                                                Water Heaters.''
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As to hot water supply boilers with a capacity of less than 10 gallons, these test methods become mandatory on
  October 21, 2005. Prior to that time, you may use for these products either (1) these test methods if you rate
  the product for thermal efficiency, or (2) the test methods in Subpart E if you rate the product for
  combustion efficiency as a commercial packaged boiler.
** Incorporated by reference, see Sec.   431.105.

    Note:  The following will not appear in the Code of Federal 
Regulations.

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 28999]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY12.000

[[Page 29000]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR16MY12.001

[FR Doc. 2012-10650 Filed 5-15-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
```