7296 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

the draft language in Subchapter G— 

Audit Requirements will address many 

of them. 

One additional idea for reform 

suggested by many in the Federal 

agency and audit community was to 

reduce the amount of time for audit 

submission from the current nine 

months down to three months or six 

months. OMB supports this idea, but 

notes that it will require changes to 

legislation to accomplish. 

D. Additional Suggestions Outside of 

the Scope of This Proposed Guidance 

In addition to the ideas discussed 

above, OMB received many ideas for 

reforms to Federal grant policies which 

have merit but are not properly 

addressed through changes to 

governmentwide guidance. Some of 

these ideas include better coordination 

of regulations that are applicable or 

have an impact on Federal grant; use of 

the Federal rule-making process for 

agency grants policies; improvements in 

data quality across systems that support 

the Federal grants community; looking 

at regulations governing electronic 

imaging for documents for both grants 

and contracts; facilitating better 

coordination, consistency, and 

transparency between indirect cost rate 

setting agencies; and improving the 

training available to Federal grants 

professionals. OMB is committed to 

continuing improvements in the 

policies, practices, and systems that 

support the Federal grants community 

under the continuing leadership of the 

COFAR. OMB and the COFAR will 

continue to work together to reach out 

to stakeholders to continue these 

discussions and to evaluate where 

further improvements may continue to 

be made. 

Daniel I. Werfel, 

Controller. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02113 Filed 1–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007] 

RIN 1904–AC95 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Small, 

Large, and Very Large Commercial 

Package Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Request for information (RFI) 

and notice of document availability. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical 

Corrections Act, the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to 

determine whether to amend the current 

energy conservation standards for 

certain commercial air-conditioning and 

heating equipment. This notice seeks to 

solicit information from the public to 

help DOE determine whether national 

standards more stringent than those that 

are currently in place would result in a 

significant amount of additional energy 

savings and whether those national 

standards would be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

Separately, DOE also seeks information 

from the public on the merits of 

adopting the integrated energy 

efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy 

efficiency descriptor for small, large, 

and very large air-cooled commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

DATES: Written comments and 

information are requested on or before 

March 4, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: Interested parties are 

encouraged to submit comments 

electronically. However, comments may 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email to the following address: 

CommPkgACHP2013STD0007@ee.

doe.gov. Include docket number EERE– 

2013–BT–STD–0007 and/or RIN 1904– 

AC95 in the subject line of the message. 

All comments should clearly identify 

the name, address, and, if appropriate, 

organization of the commenter. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

Request for Information for Commercial 

Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 

Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007 

and/or RIN 1904–AC95, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

submit one signed paper original. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Please submit 

one signed paper original. 

Instructions: All submissions received 

must include the agency name and 

docket number and/or RIN for this 

rulemaking. No telefacsimilies (faxes) 

will be accepted. 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendees’ 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;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD0007. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov Web site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For information on how to submit a 

comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

email: Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Direct requests for additional 

information may be sent to Mr. Joshua 

Cocciardi, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: 202–287–1656. Email: 

Joshua.Cocciardi@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. 

Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov. 

For information on how to submit or 

review public comments, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2945. Email: 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors 

III. Request for Information and Comments 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

6311–6317, as codified), added by 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7297 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act of 

2012, Public Law 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3Subparagraph (A) and subparagraph (B) refer to 

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

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

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, which includes provisions 

covering the commercial heating and 

air-conditioning equipment that is the 

subject of this notice.2 In general, this 

program addresses the energy efficiency 

of certain types of commercial and 

industrial equipment. Relevant 

provisions of the Act 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). 

Section 342(a) of EPCA concerns 

energy conservation standards for small, 

large, and very large, air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment (also known 

generally as unitary air conditioning 

and heating equipment). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)) This category of equipment has 

a rated capacity between 64,000 Btu/h 

and 760,000 Btu/h. The equipment is 

designed to heat and cool commercial 

buildings and is typically located on the 

building’s rooftop. Section 5(b) of the 

American Energy Manufacturing 

Technical Corrections Act of 2012 (Pub. 

L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012) (AEMTCA)) 

amended Section 342(a)(6) of EPCA, 

which concerns the amendment of 

energy conservation standards for 

certain types of commercial and 

industrial equipment. At issue here is 

the inclusion of a requirement for DOE 

to consider amending the standards for 

‘‘any covered equipment as to which 

more than 6 years has elapsed since the 

issuance of the most recent final rule 

establishing or amending a standard for 

the product as of the date of AEMTCA’s 

enactment, December 18, 2012. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)) DOE must issue 

either a notice of determination that the 

current standards do not need to be 

amended or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking containing proposed 

standards by December 31, 2013. See 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i) and (vi) (as 

amended by AEMTCA).3

For small, large, and very large aircooled commercial package air 

conditioners (ACs) and heating pumps 

(HPs), the last final rule issued by DOE 

was on October 18, 2005, which 

codified both the amended standards for 

small and large equipment and the new 

standards for very large equipment set 

by the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public 

Law 109–58 (Aug. 8, 2005) (EPAct 

2005). 70 FR 60407. Consistent with the 

new requirements Congress enacted as 

part of AEMTCA, DOE is required to 

publish either a notice of determination 

that standards for these equipment types 

do not need to be amended, or a notice 

of proposed rulemaking proposing 

amended energy conservation standards 

for these equipment types. 

In order to meet the new requirements 

added by AEMTCA, DOE is reviewing 

the standards that are already in place 

affecting those products listed in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a) for which more than six 

years have elapsed since the issuance of 

the most recent final rule. Under 

Section 6313(a), DOE must either adopt 

those standards developed by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE)—or to adopt levels 

more stringent than the ASHRAE levels 

if there is clear and convincing evidence 

in support of doing so. AEMTCA added 

to this procedure a specified deadline 

within which DOE must act with 

respect to those standards for which 

more than six years have elapsed since 

the issuance of the relevant final rule. 

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

Today’s notice represents the initiation 

of the mandatory review process 

imposed by AEMTCA and seeks input 

from the public to assist DOE with its 

determination on whether to amend the 

current standards pertaining to small, 

large, and very large air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment ranging in 

cooling capacity from 65,000 Btu/h to 

760,000 Btu/h. In making this 

determination, DOE must evaluate 

whether there is clear and convincing 

evidence that more stringent national 

standards than the ones established 

pursuant to the ASHRAE-process 

described above would result in 

significant energy savings, be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. By statute, DOE 

may promulgate or amend existing 

energy conservation standards only if 

the resulting standards would (1) yield 

a significant savings in energy use and 

(2) be both technologically feasible and 

economically justified. The current 

Federal standards, for this equipment, 

are shown in Table 1. 

TABLE 1—MINIMUM COOLING AND HEATING EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND

HEAT PUMPS, ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <760,000 BTU/H

Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency 

level 

Compliance 

date 

Small Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Air-Cooled).

>=65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

AC ................... No Heating or Electric 

Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.2 1/1/2010 

All Other Types of Heating.EER = 11.0 1/1/2010 

HP ................... No Heating or Electric 

Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.0

COP = 3.3 

1/1/2010 

All Other Types of Heating.EER = 10.8

COP = 3.3 

1/1/2010 

Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Air-Cooled).

>=135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

AC ................... No Heating or Electric 

Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.0 1/1/2010 

All Other Types of Heating.EER = 10.8 1/1/2010 

HP ................... No Heating or Electric 

Resistance Heating.

EER = 10.6

COP = 3.2 

1/1/2010 

All Other Types of Heating.EER = 10.4

COP = 3.2 

1/1/2010 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7298 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—MINIMUM COOLING AND HEATING EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND

HEAT PUMPS, ≥65,000 BTU/H AND <760,000 BTU/H—Continued 

Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency 

level 

Compliance 

date 

Very Large Commercial Packaged AirConditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).>=240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

AC ................... No Heating or Electric 

Resistance Heating.

EER = 10.0 1/1/2010 

All Other Types of Heating.EER = 9.8 ... 1/1/2010 

HP ................... No Heating or Electric 

Resistance Heating.

EER = 9.5 ...

COP = 3.2 

1/1/2010 

All Other Types of Heating.EER = 9.3 ...

COP = 3.2 

1/1/2010 

A. Background 

On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE and 

the Illuminating Engineering Society of 

North America (IESNA) adopted 

Standard 90.1–1999, which included 

amended efficiency levels for 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. DOE evaluated these efficiency 

levels and subsequently adopted levels 

affecting 18 different equipment 

categories in a 2001 final rule. 66 FR 

3336 (Jan. 12, 2001). However, the final 

rule’s notice also indicated that DOE 

planned to further evaluate commercial 

air-cooled air conditioners and heat 

pumps with rated capacities between 

65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h because 

the initial analyses indicated that more 

stringent standards would be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Id. at 3349. On 

June 12, 2001, the Department 

published a Framework Document that 

described analytical approaches to 

evaluate energy conservation standards 

for these larger commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps (i.e. 

capacities between 65,000 Btu/h and 

240,000 Btu/h) and presented this 

analytical framework to stakeholders at 

a public workshop. On July 29, 2004, 

DOE issued an Advance Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (ANOPR) to 

solicit public comments on its 

preliminary analyses for this equipment. 

69 FR 45461. Subsequently, Congress 

enacted EPAct 2005, which, among 

other things, established amended 

standards for small and large 

commercial air-cooled air conditioners 

and heat pumps and new standards for 

very large air-cooled air conditioners 

and heat pumps. As a result, EPAct 

2005 displaced the rulemaking effort 

that DOE had already begun. DOE 

codified these new statutorilyprescribed standards on October 18, 

2005. 70 FR 60407. 

B. Rulemaking Process 

DOE generally follows specific criteria 

when prescribing amended standards 

for covered equipment. See generally 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)–(C). An amended 

standard for covered equipment must be 

designed to achieve the maximum 

improvement in energy efficiency that is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. Furthermore, 

DOE may not adopt any amended 

standard that would not result in the 

significant conservation of energy. 

Moreover, DOE may not prescribe a 

standard for certain equipment, if (1) no 

test procedure has been established for 

the equipment, or (2) if DOE determines 

by rule that, in cases where a standard 

has been proposed, the proposed 

standard is not technologically feasible 

or economically justified. In deciding 

whether a proposed amended standard 

is economically justified, DOE must 

determine whether the benefits of the 

standard exceed its burdens. DOE must 

make this determination after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

and by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

factors: 

1. The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the equipment subject to 

the standard; 

2. The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the covered equipment in the type (or 

class) compared to any increase in the 

price, initial charges, or maintenance 

expenses for the covered products that 

are likely to result from the imposition 

of the standard; 

3. The total projected amount of 

energy savings, or as applicable, water 

savings, likely to result directly from the 

imposition of the standard; 

4. Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the covered equipment 

likely to result from the imposition of 

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 imposition of the 

standard; 

6. The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

7. Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (Secretary) considers relevant. 

(See generally 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) 

As part of this decision-making 

process, there must also be clear and 

convincing evidence that the adoption 

of a national standard that is more 

stringent than the level set by ASHRAE 

would result in the significant 

additional conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. See generally 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). Accordingly, EPCA 

requires that there be clear and 

convincing evidence that the adoption 

of standards more stringent than those 

set by ASHRAE would lead to 

significant energy savings and that 

achieving those standards would be 

both technologically feasible and, 

separately, economically justified using 

the seven criteria listed above. 

In assessing the appropriateness of 

amending the standards that are 

currently in place for small, large, and 

very large commercial air-cooled air 

conditioners and heat pumps, DOE is 

planning to conduct in-depth technical 

analyses in the following areas to meet 

the statutory criteria for prescribing 

amended standards: (1) Engineering; (2) 

energy use; (3) markups; (4) life-cycle 

cost and payback period; (5) national 

impacts; (6) manufacturer impacts; (7) 

emission impacts; (8) utility impacts; (9) 

employment impacts; and (10) 

regulatory impacts. These analyses are 

the same ones DOE routinely applies 

when evaluating potential standards for 

a given type of product or equipment. 

DOE will also conduct several other 

analyses that support those previously 

listed, including the market and 

technology assessment, the screening 

analysis (which contributes to the 

engineering analysis), and the 

shipments analysis (which contributes 

to the national impact analysis). As 

detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is 

specifically publishing this notice as the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7299 

4ASHRAE. ASHRAE Addenda. 2008 

Supplement. http://www.ashrae.org/File%20

Library/docLib/Public/20090317_90_1_2007_

supplement.pdf. 

5ENERGY STAR. Re: EPA Proposed Draft Energy 

Star Specification for Light Commercial HVAC 

Equipment. http://www.energystar.gov/ia/partners/ 

prod_development/revisions/downloads/lhvac/ 

AHRI_Comments_D1.pdf. 

6Consortium for Energy Efficiency. CEE 

Commercial Unitary AC and HP Specification. 

http://www.cee1.org/files/CEE_CommHVAC_

UnitarySpec2012.pdf. 

7U.S. Department of Energy. Building 

Technologies Program. High Performance Rooftop 

Unit Challenge Fact Sheet. http://apps1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/publications/pdfs/alliances/

techspec_rtus.pdf. 

first step in the analysis process and is 

specifically requesting input and data 

from interested parties to aid in the 

development of the technical analyses. 

II. Energy Efficiency Descriptors 

As part of this analysis, DOE is giving 

very serious consideration to the 

possible replacement of the existing 

efficiency descriptor (i.e., energy 

efficiency ratio (EER)) with a new 

energy-efficiency descriptor (i.e., 

integrated energy efficiency ratio 

(IEER)). Unlike the EER metric, which 

utilizes only the efficiency of equipment 

operating at full load conditions, IEER 

factors in the equipment’s efficiency 

while operating at part-load conditions 

of 75%, 50%, and 25% of capacity as 

well as during full load. This is 

accomplished by weighting the full- and 

part-load efficiencies with the average 

amount of time operating at each 

loading point; IEER provides a more 

representative measure of the energy 

consumption in actual operation. 

Moreover, IEER incorporates variations 

of outside temperature from design 

temperatures for part-load operation 

that further increase the accuracy of the 

metric. 

Since 2007, ASHRAE has been 

specifying in its Standard 90.1 the use 

of an energy efficiency metric that 

captures part-load performance. 

ASHRAE first published specifications 

for part-load energy efficiency in their 

Standard 90.1–2007 based on the 

integrated part load value (IPLV). In 

Addendum’s from the 2008 Supplement 

to Standard 90.1–2007, ASHRAE 

replaced IPLV for commercial air 

conditioning and heat pump equipment 

with IEER, effective January 1, 2010. 

According to ASHRAE, that change was 

made to improve the accuracy when 

rating part-load performance of 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment.4

EPCA authorizes DOE to establish 

‘‘energy conservation standards’’ that set 

either a single performance standard or 

a single design requirement—not both. 

See 42 U.S.C. 6311(18). As such, DOE 

can choose to implement an energy 

conservation standard using one or the 

other. In the case of small, large, and 

very large commercial air-cooled ACs 

and HPs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

recommends two performance 

requirements; EER and IEER. Because 

EPCA does not specify a particular 

metric that DOE must use when 

measuring the efficiency of the 

equipment at issue in this notice, 

changing that metric from one type (e.g. 

EER) to another (e.g. IEER) is 

permissible. DOE also notes that in 

amending standards for a given type of 

product or equipment, DOE must ensure 

that a potential new standard would not 

result in reduced stringency when 

compared to the current Federal 

standards. See, e.g. 74 FR 36322 and 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I). 

As part of its consideration, DOE 

examined whether part-load 

performance is currently being used and 

accepted for rating commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps. On 

January 2, 2009, the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) issued a draft 

ENERGY STAR specification for Light 

Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps products, i.e., small and large 

air-cooled air conditioners and airsource heat pumps, which proposed to 

adopt IEER as part of the minimum 

energy efficiency criteria.5 In a January 

30, 2009 letter regarding EPA’s draft, 

AHRI expressed support for IEER as 

well as for the ENERGY STAR program 

to adopt IEER. Recently, the Consortium 

for Energy Efficiency (CEE), an 

organization for energy efficiency 

advocates, has adopted IEER for its Tier 

0, 1, and 2 efficiencies for unitary air 

conditioning and heat pump products, 

i.e., small, large, and very large air-, 

water-, and evaporatively-cooled air 

conditioners and air- and water-source 

heat pumps.6

IEER has also gained support through 

efforts such as DOE’s Commercial 

Building Energy Alliance (CBEA) 

technology transfer program, which 

sponsors the High Performance Rooftop 

Unit Challenge (RTU Challenge). This 

program provides a market mechanism 

that reduces barriers for manufacturers 

to procure greater than 18-IEER 10-ton 

equipment and encourages the private 

sector to commit to adopt energyefficient equipment. Carrier, Lennox, 

7AC Technologies, and Rheem are 

participating in the RTU Challenge, 

while participant McQuay has already 

produced certified equipment that 

meets or exceeds 18 IEER. In 

conjunction with manufacturer support, 

fourteen CBEA-member private 

entities,7 such as Target Corp., Macy’s, 

Inc., McDonald’s Corp., and others, have 

also signaled their support and 

indicated their strong interest in 

potentially purchasing high-efficiency 

rooftop units, a sign of their confidence 

in the RTU Challenge and its ability to 

use IEER to accurately portray the 

energy use of commercial air-cooler air 

conditioners and heat pumps in the 

field. 

Lastly, DOE conducted a market 

analysis to compare the two metrics 

based on publicly available ratings of 

equipment currently available in the 

market. DOE is making available for 

comment a document that provides the 

methodology and results of the 

investigation of the relationship 

between IEER and EER for commercial 

air-cooled air conditioners and heat 

pumps with cooling capacities between 

65,000 Btu/hr and 760,000 Btu/hr (i.e., 

5 and 63 tons). In addition, it looks at 

the variance of heating efficiency (i.e., 

coefficient of performance or COP) with 

IEER and EER. The document is 

available at: http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

product.aspx/productid/77. Ultimately, 

if DOE were to decide after considering 

the comments in response to this notice 

to migrate to the IEER metric, DOE 

would transition the existing Federal 

energy conservation standards to the 

new metric by identifying the 

appropriate baseline energy-efficiency 

levels to use in the analysis. From that 

point forward, all of the technical and 

economic analyses would be conducted 

using the new metric, IEER, in the 

evaluation of potential amended energy 

conservation standards for small, large, 

and very large air-cooled ACs and HPs. 

Consequently, DOE seeks comments and 

data regarding its consideration of 

transitioning metrics and the analysis 

conducted on the currently available 

models. 

III. Request for Information and 

Comments 

In the next section, DOE identifies a 

variety of issues on which it seeks input 

and data in order to aid its development 

of the technical and economic analyses 

to determine whether amended energy 

conservation standards may be 

warranted. In addition, DOE welcomes 

comments on other issues relevant to 

the conduct of this rulemaking that may 

not specifically be identified in this 

notice. 

A. Test Procedure 

DOE recently reviewed and adopted 

amended test procedures for small, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7300 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

large, and very large, air-cooled 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment in a final rule 

published on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 

28928. These test procedures 

incorporate by reference certain sections 

of the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute’s (AHRI) 2007 

Standard for Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment (AHRI 340/360–2007) along 

with the addition of a handful of other 

additional testing specifications. AHRI 

is an industry trade group representing 

air conditioning, heating and 

refrigeration manufacturers. 

In light of DOE’s consideration to 

switch from EER to IEER, DOE 

conducted a preliminary review of the 

current Federal test procedures for 

small, large, and very large air-cooled 

ACs and HPs. As part of its final rule 

issued on May 16, 2012, DOE adopted 

AHRI Test Standard 340/360–2007. 77 

FR 28928. DOE found that the methods 

and procedures for testing and rating 

equipment with an IEER already exist 

within its test procedure. However, DOE 

specifically seeks comment on any test 

procedure issues relating to IEER and 

the existing Federal procedures that 

DOE should consider as part of this 

rulemaking. 

(A1) DOE requests comment on the 

existing DOE test procedure for small, 

large, and very large air-conditioning 

equipment and its suitability for 

establishing a performance rating based 

on IEER. 

B. Market Assessment 

The market and technology 

assessment provides information about 

the commercial air conditioner and heat 

pump industry that will be used 

throughout the rulemaking process. For 

example, this information will be used 

to determine whether the existing 

equipment class structure requires 

modification based on the statutory 

criteria for setting such classes and to 

explore the potential for technological 

improvements in the design and 

manufacturing of such equipment. The 

Department uses qualitative and 

quantitative information to assess the 

past and present industry structure and 

market characteristics. DOE will use 

existing market materials and literature 

from a variety of sources, including 

industry publications, trade journals, 

government agencies, and trade 

organizations. Additionally, DOE will 

consider conducting interviews with 

manufacturers to assess the overall 

market for commercial air conditioners 

and heat pumps. 

The current equipment classes as 

established in EPAct 2005 for small, 

large, and very large, air-cooled ACs and 

HPs divide this equipment into twelve 

equipment classes characterized by 

rated cooling capacity, equipment type 

(air conditioner versus heat pump), and 

heating type. As a starting point, DOE 

plans to use the existing equipment 

class structure as shown in Table 1 of 

10 CFR 431.97. However, DOE will 

consider additional equipment classes 

for capacities or other performancerelated features that inherently effect 

efficiency and justify the establishment 

of a different energy conservation 

standard. For instance, additional 

equipment classes may be warranted to 

differentiate between split and packaged 

type units or to further segment the 

capacities of the equipment covered in 

this analysis. 

(B1) DOE requests feedback on the 

current equipment classes and seeks 

information regarding other equipment 

classes it should consider for inclusion 

in its analysis. 

C. Technology Options for 

Consideration 

DOE uses information about existing 

and past technology options and 

prototype designs to help identify 

technologies that manufacturers could 

use to meet and/or exceed energy 

conservation standards. In consultation 

with interested parties, DOE intends to 

develop a list of technologies to 

consider in its analysis. Initially, this 

list will include all those technologies 

considered to be technologically feasible 

and will serve to establish the maximum 

technologically feasible design. DOE is 

currently considering the specific 

technologies and design options listed 

below. 

• Electro-hydrodynamic enhanced 

heat transfer. 

• Copper rotor motor with improved 

efficiency. 

• Improved refrigerants. 

• Evaporator coil area (keeping the 

number of coil rows the same). 

• Condenser coil area (keeping the 

number of coil rows the same). 

• Coil rows (keeping face area the 

same). 

• Condenser fan diameters. 

• Evaporator fan. 

• Air leakage paths within the unit. 

• Coil row (keeping coil heat transfer 

the same). 

• Microchannel heat exchangers. 

• Deep coil heat exchangers. 

• Low-pressure-loss filters. 

• High efficiency fan motors. 

• High efficiency compressors. 

• Multiple compressors. 

• Thermal expansion valves. 

• Electronic expansion valves. 

• Air foil centrifugal fans. 

• Backward-curved centrifugal fans. 

• Synchronous (toothed) belts. 

• Direct-drive fans. 

• High efficiency propeller 

condenser. 

• High-side solenoid valve or 

discharge line check-valve to minimize 

pressure equalization. 

• Heat-pipes (for high latent loads). 

• Sub-coolers. 

• Demand-control ventilation 

strategy. 

(C1) DOE seeks information related to 

these or other unlisted, efficiency 

improving technologies as to their 

applicability to the current market and 

how these technologies improve 

efficiency of small, large, and very large 

commercial air-cooler ACs and HPs as 

rated by AHRI 340/360–2007. 

(C2) Additionally, DOE requests 

comment on which of the listed 

technologies and/or other technologies 

not mentioned that may preferentially 

improve the IEER more than the EER for 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

D. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis estimates 

the cost-efficiency relationship of 

equipment at different levels of 

increased energy efficiency. This 

relationship serves as the basis for the 

cost-benefit calculations for commercial 

customers, manufacturers, and the 

nation. In determining the costefficiency relationship, DOE will 

estimate the increase in manufacturer 

cost associated with increasing the 

efficiency of equipment above the 

baseline to the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

efficiency level for each equipment 

class. The baseline model is used as a 

reference point for each equipment class 

in the engineering analysis and the lifecycle cost and payback-period analyses. 

Typically, DOE would consider 

equipment that just meets the minimum 

energy conservation standard as 

baseline equipment. However, DOE is 

considering whether to replace the 

current cooling performance energy 

efficiency descriptor, EER, with IEER, 

and a single EER level can correspond 

to a range of IEERs. If DOE decides to 

transition to a new efficiency descriptor, 

DOE would have to establish a baseline 

IEER for each equipment class, and 

could consider the minimum, median, 

average, or maximum IEER in the 

applicable range. 

(D1) DOE requests comment on 

approaches that it should consider 

when determining a baseline IEER for 

each equipment class, including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7301 

8The document is available at: http://www1.eere.

energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.

aspx/productid/77. 

information regarding the merits and/or 

deficiencies of such approaches. 

(D2) DOE also seeks comment on an 

appropriate baseline IEER for each 

equipment class and analysis 

supporting such selected baseline 

efficiency levels. 

(D3) DOE requests information on 

max-tech efficiency levels achievable in 

the current market in terms of IEER, 

EER, and COP as applicable. 

In order to create the cost-efficiency 

relationship, DOE anticipates that it will 

structure its engineering analysis using 

the reverse-engineering (or costassessment) approach. A reverseengineering or cost-assessment 

approach relies on a teardown analysis 

of representative baseline efficient to 

highly efficient units that employ 

maximum technologically feasible 

designs. A teardown analysis (or 

physical teardown) determines the 

production cost of a piece of equipment 

by disassembling the equipment ‘‘pieceby-piece’’ and estimating the material 

and labor cost of each component. A 

supplementary method called a catalog 

teardown uses published manufacturer 

catalogs and supplementary component 

data to estimate the major physical 

differences between a piece of 

equipment that has been physically 

disassembled and another piece of 

similar equipment. These two methods 

would be used together to help DOE 

determine the cost effectiveness of any 

standards that it may consider as part of 

a standards rulemaking to amend the 

levels currently in place. 

(D4) DOE requests feedback on using 

a reverse engineering approach 

supplemented with catalog teardowns 

and requests comment on what the 

appropriate representative capacities 

would be for each equipment class. 

In the 2004 ANOPR, the Department 

proposed to address the energy 

efficiency of commercial air-cooled heat 

pumps by developing functions relating 

COP to EER. This method was also used 

by industry to establish minimum 

performance requirements for ASHRAE 

90.1–1999. AHRI supplied the ASHRAE 

90.1–1999 committee with curves 

relating the COP as a function of EER, 

and the committee then set the 

minimum COP levels based on EER. 69 

FR 45460, 45468. Due to the previous 

acceptance of this method, DOE is 

considering a similar approach for this 

rulemaking. If DOE transitions to use 

IEER as the energy efficiency descriptor, 

then DOE may establish minimum COP 

levels based on IEER. DOE has 

conducted a market analysis and 

evaluated the relationship between IEER 

and COP in a technical support 

document published to coincide with 

this notice.8 DOE recognizes that COP 

does not integrate part load efficiency 

and that a correlation between COP and 

IEER may not be robust for this reason. 

(D5) DOE seeks information about 

potential issues related to using IEER as 

the cooling performance efficiency 

metric when developing a correlation 

between COP and IEER. 

E. Markups Analysis 

To carry out the life-cycle cost (LCC) 

and payback period (PBP) calculations, 

DOE needs to determine the cost to the 

commercial customer of baseline 

equipment that satisfies the currently 

applicable standards, and the cost of the 

more-efficient unit the customer would 

purchase under potential amended 

standards. By applying a multiplier 

called a ‘‘markup’’ to the manufacturer’s 

selling price, DOE is able to estimate the 

commercial customer’s price. 

For DOE’s 2004 ANOPR, two types of 

distribution channels were defined to 

describe how the equipment passes 

from the manufacturer to the customer. 

In the first distribution channel, the 

manufacturer sells the equipment to a 

wholesaler. The wholesaler sells the 

equipment to a mechanical contractor, 

who then sells it to a general contractor. 

In the final step to this first channel, the 

general contractor sells the equipment 

to the customer/end user (and installs 

it). In the second distribution channel, 

the manufacturer sells the equipment 

directly to the customer through a 

national account. 69 FR 45460, 45476. 

For this rulemaking, DOE intends to 

characterize the distribution of 

equipment with the same channels 

developed for the 2004 ANOPR, with 

modifications to reflect the current 

status of equipment distribution. 

(E1) DOE seeks input from 

stakeholders on whether the 

distribution channels described above 

are still relevant for small and large aircooled commercial air conditioners and 

heat pumps, and whether they are also 

relevant for very large air-cooled 

equipment. 

Based on information that equipment 

manufacturers provided, commercial 

customers were estimated to purchase 

50 percent of equipment through small 

mechanical contractors, 32.5 percent 

through large mechanical contractors, 

and the remaining 17.5 percent through 

national accounts. In addition, 30 

percent of commercial air-conditioning 

equipment was estimated to be 

purchased for the new construction 

market while the remaining 70 percent 

was estimated to serve the replacement 

market. In the case of the replacement 

market, where equipment is purchased 

through a mechanical contractor, the 

mechanical contractor purchases 

equipment directly from the wholesaler 

(i.e., a general contractor is not 

involved). 69 FR 45460, 45476. 

(E2) DOE seeks input on the percent 

of equipment being distributed through 

the various types of distribution 

channels, and whether the share of 

equipment through each channel varies 

based on equipment capacity. 

To develop markups for the parties 

involved in the distribution of the 

equipment, DOE utilized several sources 

including: (1) The Air-conditioning & 

Refrigeration Wholesalers Association’s 

1998 Wholesaler PROFIT Survey Report 

to develop wholesaler markups, (2) the 

Air Conditioning Contractors of 

America’s (ACCA) financial analysis for 

the heating, ventilation, airconditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) 

contracting industry to develop 

mechanical contractor markups, and (3) 

U.S. Census Bureau economic data for 

the commercial and institutional 

building construction industry to 

develop general contractor markups. 

(D3) DOE seeks recent data to 

establish the markups for the parties 

involved with the distribution of the 

equipment addressed by today’s notice. 

F. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to assess the energy and peak 

demand savings potential of different 

equipment efficiencies in the building 

types that utilize the equipment. DOE 

intends to base the energy use analysis 

for the current effort on building 

simulation data compiled for the 2004 

ANOPR. The simulation database 

includes hourly profiles for over 1,000 

commercial buildings, which were 

based on building characteristics from 

the 1995 Commercial Building Energy 

Consumption Survey (CBECS) for the 

subset of buildings using the type of 

equipment covered by the standards. 

Each building was assigned to a specific 

location and a typical meteorological 

year hourly weather file (referred to as 

TMY2) was used to represent local 

weather. The simulations capture 

variability in cooling loads due to 

factors such as building activity, 

schedule, occupancy, local weather and 

shell characteristics. Because the 

building simulation data developed for 

the 2004 ANOPR are based on the 1995 

CBECS, DOE intends to take a number 

of steps to update the building 

simulation database for this analytical 

effort and with any subsequent 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7302 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

9The National Energy Modeling System (NEMS) 

is a computer-based, energy-economy modeling 

system of the U.S. designed and implemented by 

the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the 

U.S. DOE. 

proposed rulemaking that DOE may 

issue. 

DOE intends to adjust the 1995 

CBECS building weights to match the 

most recent CBECS (2003), and to 

account for changes to the distribution 

of total floor space by geographic region 

and building type. CBECS 2012 is 

currently in development but will not 

be available in time for DOE to use as 

part of its rulemaking effort. In addition, 

the 1995 CBECS sample may not 

include examples of recent innovations 

in building shell or window 

technologies that reduce cooling loads. 

DOE intends on reviewing other data 

sets, for example, the technology 

penetration curves used in the National 

Energy Modeling System (NEMS) 

commercial demand module,9 to 

determine whether a significant fraction 

of the current building population is not 

represented by the building simulation 

database used for the 2004 ANOPR. 

The TMY2 weather data set was 

updated in 2008 to TMY3. For each 

location in the building database, the 

two weather data sets will be compared 

to determine whether there has been a 

change to either the monthly maximum 

temperatures or monthly cooling degree 

days. DOE intends to adjust the 

estimated cooling loads and energy use 

accordingly. 

The range of capacities covered by the 

current effort that DOE may consider is 

likely to be broader than that considered 

in the 2004 ANOPR, and includes much 

larger capacity units. For the 2004 

ANOPR, a design day simulation was 

used to determine the total cooling 

capacity requirement for a building. The 

simulation assumed this would be met 

by a number of identical units of fixed 

capacity. The updated analysis will 

consider the possibility that a smaller 

number of larger capacity units may be 

used. Further, DOE intends to apply the 

building simulation database to very 

large equipment (i.e., equipment with 

capacities between 240,000 Btu/h and 

760,000 Btu/h.) 

DOE requests comment or seeks input 

from stakeholders on the following 

issues pertaining to the energy use 

analysis: 

(F1) For different cooling 

technologies, the relationship between 

efficiency and the instantaneous load 

level; 

(F2) The current distribution of 

equipment efficiencies in the building 

population; 

(F3) For a given cooling load shape, 

how equipment energy use scales as a 

function of capacity, i.e., whether two 

air-conditioning units of a certain 

capacity use the same total cooling 

energy as one air-conditioning unit of 

twice the capacity; and 

(F4) Whether the building simulations 

developed for small and large airconditioning equipment are applicable 

to very large equipment. 

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

The purpose of the LCC and PBP 

analysis is to analyze the effects of 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards on customers of commercial 

air-cooled air-conditioning and heating 

equipment by determining how a 

potential amended standard would 

affect their operating expenses (usually 

decreased) and their total installed costs 

(usually increased). 

DOE intends to analyze the potential 

for variability and uncertainty by 

performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations on a representative sample 

of individual commercial buildings. 

DOE plans to utilize the sample of 

buildings developed for the energy use 

analysis and the corresponding 

simulations results. Within a given 

building, one or more air-conditioning 

units may serve the building’s spaceconditioning needs, depending on the 

cooling load requirements of the 

building. As a result, the Department 

intends to express the LCC and PBP 

results as the number of ACs and HPs 

experiencing economic impacts of 

different magnitudes. DOE plans to 

model both the uncertainty and the 

variability in the inputs to the LCC and 

PBP analysis using Monte Carlo 

simulation and probability 

distributions. As a result, the LCC and 

PBP results will be displayed as 

distributions of impacts compared to the 

base case conditions. 

(G1) DOE requests comment from 

stakeholders on the overall method that 

it intends to use when conducting the 

LCC and PBP analysis. 

Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis 

are categorized as: (1) Inputs for 

establishing the purchase expense, 

otherwise known as the total installed 

cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the 

operating expense. 

The primary inputs for establishing 

the total installed cost are the baseline 

customer price, standard-level customer 

price increases, and installation costs. 

Baseline customer prices and standardlevel customer price increases will be 

determined by applying markups to 

manufacturer price estimates. The 

installation cost is added to the 

customer price to arrive at a total 

installed cost. For DOE’s 2004 ANOPR, 

DOE developed installation costs from 

RS Means Mechanical Cost Data. 69 FR 

45460, 45480. DOE intends to develop 

installation costs for any potential 

rulemaking it may conduct for the 

equipment addressed by today’s notice 

using the most recent RS Means data 

available. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE 

varied installation cost as a function of 

equipment weight. Because weight 

tends to increase with equipment 

efficiency, installation cost increased 

with equipment efficiency. 69 FR 45460, 

45481. DOE intends to develop similar 

relationships for this analysis and for 

any proposed rulemaking that may be 

issued. 

(G2) DOE seeks input on the approach 

and data sources it intends to use to 

develop installation costs, specifically, 

its intention to use the most recent RS 

Means Mechanical Cost Data and to 

vary installation cost based on 

equipment weight. 

The primary inputs for calculating the 

operating costs are equipment energy 

consumption and power demand, 

equipment efficiency, electricity prices 

and forecasts, maintenance and repair 

costs, equipment lifetime, and discount 

rates. Both equipment lifetime and 

discount rates are used to calculate the 

present value of future operating 

expenses. 

The equipment energy consumption 

is the site energy use associated with 

providing space-conditioning to the 

building. The power demand is the 

maximum power requirement of the 

equipment (i.e., the peak demand) for a 

specific period of time. DOE intends to 

utilize updated building simulation 

results from its 2004 ANOPR to 

establish equipment energy use and 

demand. 

For projecting equipment efficiency, 

DOE will use the most appropriate 

metric to characterize efficiency, 

whether it is EER or IEER. The building 

simulations conducted for the 2004 

ANOPR assigned specific baseline and 

standard level EERs to the equipment to 

determine its corresponding energy 

consumption and peak demand. 69 FR 

45460, 45482. If DOE utilizes an IEER as 

the metric for equipment efficiency, the 

updating of the building simulation 

results will address how equipment 

efficiency, expressed as IEER, will 

impact energy use and demand. 

Electricity prices are the price per 

kilowatt-hour paid by each customer for 

electricity. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE 

determined electricity prices based on 

tariffs from a representative sample of 

electric utilities. 69 FR 45460, 45481– 

82. This approach calculates energy 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 7303 

expenses based on actual electricity 

prices that customers are paying. DOE 

intends to retain the tariff-based 

approach for its analysis and plans to 

update its electricity prices based on 

recent or current tariffs. Future 

electricity prices will likely be 

forecasted using trends from the Energy 

Information Administration’s most 

recent Annual Energy Outlook. 

(G3) DOE seeks comment on its tariffbased approach for developing 

electricity prices. DOE seeks input on 

specific data sources available for 

collecting tariffs. 

Maintenance costs are costs 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the equipment. For DOE’s 

2004 ANOPR, DOE developed 

maintenance costs from RS Means 

Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost 

Data. 69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends 

to develop maintenance costs for its 

analysis using the most recent RS Means 

data available. For the 2004 ANOPR, 

DOE estimated that maintenance costs 

do not vary with equipment efficiency. 

69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to use 

the same assumption as part of its 

analysis in determining whether 

amending the current standards is 

appropriate under the statutory criteria. 

(G4) DOE seeks input on the approach 

and data sources it intends to use to 

develop maintenance costs, specifically, 

its intention to use the most recent RS 

Means Facilities Maintenance & Repair 

Cost Data and in assuming that 

maintenance costs do not vary with 

equipment efficiency. 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing components that 

have failed. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE 

estimated that repair costs varied as 

function of customer equipment price. 

69 FR 45460, 45485. DOE intends to 

determine whether repair costs continue 

to vary with equipment prices as part of 

its determination analysis. 

(G5) DOE seeks comment as to 

whether repair costs vary as a function 

of equipment price. DOE also requests 

any data or information on developing 

repair costs. 

Equipment lifetime is the age at 

which the equipment is retired from 

service. For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE 

based equipment lifetime on a 

retirement function, which was based 

on the use of a Weibull probability 

distribution, with a resulting median 

lifetime of 15 years. 69 FR 45460, 45486. 

DOE intends to use the same retirement 

function for its analysis. 

(G6) DOE seeks comment on its 

approach of using a Weibull probability 

distribution to characterize equipment 

lifetime. DOE also requests any data or 

information that demonstrates whether 

equipment lifetime has a median value 

of 15 years and whether equipment 

lifetime varies based on equipment 

class. 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

establish their present value. For the 

2004 ANOPR, DOE derived the discount 

rates by estimating the cost of capital of 

companies that purchase air-cooled airconditioning equipment. 69 FR 45460, 

45486–87. DOE intends to apply this 

approach for its analysis and to update 

its data sources for calculating the cost 

of capital of companies that purchase 

air-cooled air-conditioning equipment. 

DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts 

of potential standard levels relative to a 

base case that reflects the likely market 

in the absence of amended standards. 

DOE plans to develop market-share 

efficiency data (i.e., the distribution of 

equipment shipments by efficiency) for 

the equipment classes DOE is 

considering, for the year in which 

compliance with any amended 

standards would be required. 

(G7) DOE requests data on current 

efficiency market shares (of shipments) 

by equipment class, and also similar 

historic data. In particular, DOE needs 

efficiency data for very large equipment. 

(G8) DOE also requests information on 

expected trends in efficiency over the 

next five years. 

H. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses shipment projections by 

equipment class to calculate the 

national impacts of standards on energy 

consumption, net present value (NPV), 

and future manufacturer cash flows. 

For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE developed 

a shipments model for small and large 

air-cooled air-conditioning and heating 

equipment driven by historical 

shipments data. 69 FR 45492. The 

accuracy of the shipments model is 

highly dependent on historical 

shipments data as the data is used not 

only to build up an equipment stock but 

also to calibrate the shipments model. 

(H1) DOE seeks recent historical 

shipments data for small, large, and very 

large air conditioners and heat pumps. 

Because very large equipment were not 

considered in the 2004 ANOPR, DOE is 

especially in need of shipments data for 

this class of equipment. 

The shipments model for the 2004 

ANOPR considered three market 

segments: (1) New commercial buildings 

acquiring equipment, (2) existing 

buildings replacing broken equipment, 

and (3) existing buildings acquiring new 

equipment for the first time. It 

considered two stock categories: (1) 

Equipment that has received only 

normal maintenance repairs, and (2) 

equipment that has had its useful life 

extended through additional repairs. To 

determine whether a customer would 

choose to repair rather than replace 

their air-conditioning equipment, the 

shipments model explicitly accounted 

for the combined effects of changes in 

purchase price, annual operating cost, 

and the value of commercial floor space 

on the purchase versus repair decision. 

Changes to the purchase price and 

operating costs due to standards were 

the drivers for shipment estimates for 

the standards cases relative to the base 

case (the case without standards). 

Because purchase price had more of an 

effect on shipments than operating 

costs, standards case shipments 

estimated for the 2004 ANOPR were 0.2- 

percent to 5-percent lower than the base 

case, depending on the increased price 

associated with the standard level. 

Extended repairs, i.e., repairing the 

equipment rather than purchasing a new 

unit, accounted for 80-percent of the 

shipments decrease with the remaining 

20-percent due to forgone shipments to 

new construction. DOE intends to 

utilize the same approach to develop the 

shipments model for this rulemaking 

(H2) DOE requests comment on the 

approach it intends on using to develop 

the shipments model and shipments 

forecasts for this rulemaking. 

For the 2004 ANOPR, DOE utilized 

U.S. Census Bureau data to establish 

historical new construction floor space 

as well as historical stock floor space. 

The Annual Energy Outlook was used to 

forecast both new construction and 

stock floor space. Together with 

historical equipment saturation data 

from CBECS, DOE was able to estimate 

shipments to the three market segments 

identified above. The utility function to 

estimate the repair versus replacement 

decision was based on income per 

square foot data from the Building 

Owners and Managers Association 

(BOMA) Commercial Building Survey 

reports, purchase price data estimated 

from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and 

operating cost data derived from the 

LCC and PBP analysis. 69 FR 45493. 

DOE intends to update all of the above 

data sources for the development of the 

shipments model for its analysis. 

(H3) DOE seeks input on the approach 

and data sources it intends to use in 

developing the shipments model and 

shipments forecasts for this analysis. 

I. National Impact Analysis 

The purpose of the national impact 

analysis (NIA) is to estimate aggregate 

impacts of potential efficiency standards 

at the national level. Impacts that DOE 

reports include the national energy 

savings (NES) from potential standards 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

7304 Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 22 / Friday, February 1, 2013 / Proposed Rules 

and the national NPV of the total 

customer benefits. 

To develop the NES, DOE calculates 

annual energy consumption for the base 

case and the standards cases. DOE 

calculates the annual energy 

consumption using per-unit annual 

energy use data multiplied by projected 

shipments. 

To develop the national NPV of 

customer benefits from potential 

standards, DOE calculates annual 

energy expenditures and annual 

equipment expenditures for the base 

case and the standards cases. DOE 

calculates annual energy expenditures 

from annual energy consumption by 

incorporating forecasted energy prices, 

using shipment projections and average 

energy efficiency projections. DOE 

calculates annual equipment 

expenditures by multiplying the price 

per unit times the projected shipments. 

The difference each year between 

energy bill savings and increased 

equipment expenditures is the net 

savings or net costs. 

A key component of DOE’s estimates 

of NES and NPV are the equipment 

energy efficiencies forecasted over time 

for the base case and for each of the 

standards cases. For the 2004 ANOPR, 

DOE used a combination of historical 

commercial and residential equipment 

efficiency data to forecast efficiencies 

for the base case. To estimate the impact 

that standards have in the year 

compliance becomes required, DOE 

used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario which 

assumes that equipment efficiencies in 

the base case that do not meet the 

standard level under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level and equipment 

shipments at efficiencies above the 

standard level under consideration are 

not affected. 69 FR 45460, 45489–90. 

DOE intends to use the same methods 

for conducting the NIA for this analysis. 

(I1) In addition to historical efficiency 

data (see section III.H), DOE also 

requests information on expected trends 

in efficiency over the long run. 

J. Submission of Comments 

DOE invites all interested parties to 

submit in writing by March 4, 2013, 

comments and information on matters 

addressed in this notice and on other 

matters relevant to DOE’s consideration 

of a new efficiency descriptor and 

amended energy conservations standard 

for commercial air-cooled air 

conditioners and heat pumps. After the 

close of the comment period, DOE will 

begin collecting data, conducting the 

analyses, and reviewing the public 

comments, as needed. These actions 

will be taken to aid in the development 

of a NOPR for commercial air-cooled air 

conditioners and heat pumps if DOE 

decides to replace EER with IEER and 

amend the standards for such 

equipment. 

DOE considers public participation to 

be a very important part of the process 

for developing test procedures. DOE 

actively encourages the participation 

and interaction of the public during the 

comment period in each stage of the 

rulemaking process. Interactions with 

and between members of the public 

provide a balanced discussion of the 

issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking 

process. Anyone who wishes to be 

added to the DOE mailing list to receive 

future notices and information about 

this rulemaking should contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945, or 

via email at 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on January 25, 

2013. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2013–02164 Filed 1–31–13; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0031] 

RIN 1904–AC54 

Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 

Public Meeting and Availability of the 

Framework Document for Commercial 

and Industrial Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of public meeting and 

availability of the Framework 

Document. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is considering energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

and industrial pumps. To inform 

interested parties and to facilitate this 

process, DOE has prepared a Framework 

Document that details the analytical 

approach and preliminary scope of the 

rulemaking, and identifies several issues 

on which DOE is particularly interested 

in receiving comments. DOE will hold 

a public meeting to discuss and receive 

comments on its planned analytical 

approach and issues it will address in 

this rulemaking proceeding. DOE 

welcomes written comments and 

relevant data from the public on any 

subject within the scope of this 

rulemaking. A copy of the Framework 

Document is available at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ 

ruleid/14. 

DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on February 20, 2013 from 9:00 

a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in Washington, DC. 

Additionally, DOE plans to conduct the 

public meeting via webinar. Registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants will be 

published on DOE’s Web site at: 

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

appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx/ 

ruleid/14. Participants are responsible 

for ensuring their systems are 

compatible with the webinar software. 

DOE must receive requests to speak at 

the public meeting before 4:00 p.m. 

February 13, 2013. DOE must receive an 

electronic copy of the statement with 

the name and, if appropriate, the 

organization of the presenter to be given 

at the public meeting before 4:00 p.m., 

February 15, 2013. 

Comments: DOE will accept written 

comments, data, and information 

regarding the Framework Document 

before and after the public meeting, but 

no later than March 18, 2013. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. Please 

note that foreign nationals planning to 

participate in the public meeting are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures. If a foreign national wishes 

to participate in the public meeting, 

please inform DOE of this fact as soon 

as possible by contacting Ms. Brenda 

Edwards at (202) 586–2945 so that the 

necessary procedures can be completed. 

Please note that any person wishing to 

bring a laptop computer into the 

Forrestal Building will be required to 

obtain a property pass. Visitors should 

avoid bringing laptops, or allow an extra 

45 minutes. As noted above, persons 

may also attend the public meeting via 

webinar. 

Interested parties are encouraged to 

submit comments electronically by the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email to the following address: 

Pumps2011STD0031@ee.doe.gov. 

Include docket number EERE–2011–BT– 

STD–0031 and/or RIN 1904–AC54 in 

the subject line of the message. All 

comments should clearly identify the 

name, address, and, if appropriate, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS