28928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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=EERE-2011-BTSTD-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 AirConditioning & 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28929 

1Although 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. 

Conditioners,’’ approved on June 28, 

2007 

Copies of ASHRAE 127–2007 can be 

obtained from American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning 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 AirConditioning 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 AirConditioning 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 morestringent 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 abovereferenced 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. 

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 evaporativelycooled 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 morestringent 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

Equipment class 

Current Federal 

energy 

conservation 

standard 

Amended or new Federal energy 

conservation standard 

Compliance date 

of amended/new 

Federal energy 

conservation 

standard 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Water-Cooled 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.5 EER .......... 12.1 EER ...................................... 6/1/2013 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, All 

Other Heating.

11.3 EER .......... 11.9 EER ...................................... 6/1/2013 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER .......... 12.5 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, 

All Other Heating.

11.0 EER .......... 12.3 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28931 

TABLE I.1—CURRENT AND AMENDED/NEW FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN ASHRAE 

EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Equipment class 

Current Federal 

energy 

conservation 

standard 

Amended or new Federal energy 

conservation standard 

Compliance date 

of amended/new 

Federal energy 

conservation 

standard 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER .......... 12.4 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, 

All Other Heating.

10.8 EER .......... 12.2 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Evaporatively-Cooled 

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

Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.5 EER .......... 12.1 EER ...................................... 6/1/2013 

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

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

11.3 EER .......... 11.9 EER ...................................... 6/1/2013 

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

Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER .......... 12.0 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

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

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

11.0 EER .......... 11.8 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

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

Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.0 EER .......... 11.9 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

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

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER .......... 11.7 EER ...................................... 6/1/2014 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Water-Source Heat Pumps 

VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h, without 

heat recovery.

11.2 EER .......... 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP ...................... 10/29/2012 

VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h, with heat 

recovery.

11.2 EER .......... 11.8 EER, 4.2 COP ...................... 10/29/2012 

VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h, without heat recovery.

N/A .................... 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP ...................... 10/29/2013 

VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h, with heat recovery.

N/A .................... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ........................ 10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioners 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............... N/A ................... 2.20 SCOP (downflow), 2.09 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2012 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................... 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 1.99 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

N/A ................... 1.90 SCOP (downflow), 1.79 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .......... N/A ................... 2.60 SCOP (downflow), 2.49 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2012 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

N/A ................... 2.50 SCOP (downflow), 2.39 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................... 2.40 SCOP (downflow), 2.29 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled with fluid economizer, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A ................... 2.55 SCOP (downflow), 2.44 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2012 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled with fluid economizer, 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A ................... 2.45 SCOP (downflow), 2.34 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled with fluid economizer, 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.

N/A ................... 2.35 SCOP (downflow), 2.24 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ......... N/A ................... 2.50 SCOP (downflow), 2.39 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2012 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

N/A .................... 2.15 SCOP (downflow), 2.04 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

N/A ................... 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 1.99 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, <65,000 Btu/h.N/A ................... 2.45 SCOP (downflow), 2.34 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2012 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.N/A ................... 2.10 SCOP (downflow), 1.99 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h.N/A ................... 2.05 SCOP (downflow), 1.94 

SCOP (upflow).

10/29/2013 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

2At 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. 

3For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

4All 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. 

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 sevenyear 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). 

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 C3 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

6311–6317, as codified), added by 

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

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, which includes the 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water-heating equipment that is the 

subject of this rulemaking.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). 

EPCA contains mandatory energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating 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 singlepackage 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 morestringent 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28933 

5Once 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. 

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 singlepackage vertical air conditioners and 

heat pumps, even if the efficiency levels 

for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not 

changed since the last version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1.5 DOE is 

conducting a separate rulemaking to 

further evaluate the efficiency levels for 

this equipment class. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6A later edition of the ANSI Z21.10.3 standard, 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2011, was approved by ANSI on 

March 7, 2011. 

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 airconditioning and heating equipment); 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727– 

2006 (oil-fired commercial warm-air 

furnaces); ANSI Z21.47–2006 (gasfired 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). 

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 watercooled and evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners; 

variable refrigerant flow (VRF) watersource 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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

Equipment class 

Compliance with the 

amended/new test 

procedure is required 

on or after: 

All representations of 

energy use/efficiency 

must be made using 

the amended test procedures on or after: 

Compliance with the 

amended/new standard 

is required on or after: 

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 

Gas-fired and Oil-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnaces .................... May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

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

Air-cooled Air Conditioner and Heat Pump, <65,000 Btu/h ................ May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

Air-cooled Air Conditioner and Heat Pump, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

Air-cooled Air Conditioner and Heat Pump, ≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

Air-cooled Air Conditioner and Heat Pump, ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

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

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ..... May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 6/1/2013 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ... May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 6/1/2014 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ... May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 6/1/2014 

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

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

Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 6/1/2013 

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

Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 6/1/2014 

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

Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 6/1/2014 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps ....................... May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment * 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Air-Cooled, 

<760,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, <17,000 Btu/h ............... October 29, 2012 ...... May 13, 2013 ............ 10/29/2012 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥17,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 10/29/2013 

Computer Room Air Conditioners 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled/water-cooled/watercooled with fluid economizer/glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h.October 29, 2012 ...... May 13, 2013 ............ 10/29/2012 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled/water-cooled/watercooled with fluid economizer/glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 10/29/2013 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1—COMPLIANCE DATES FOR AMENDED/NEW FEDERAL TEST PROCEDURES, AMENDED/NEW FEDERAL ENERGY

CONSERVATION STANDARDS, AND REPRESENTATIONS FOR CERTAIN ASHRAE EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Equipment class 

Compliance with the 

amended/new test 

procedure is required 

on or after: 

All representations of 

energy use/efficiency 

must be made using 

the amended test procedures on or after: 

Compliance with the 

amended/new standard 

is required on or after: 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled/water-cooled/watercooled with fluid economizer/glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ 10/29/2013 

Single Package Vertical Units 

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps ............... July 16, 2012 ............. May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers 

Gas-fired Storage and 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.

May 13, 2013 ............ May 13, 2013 ............ N/A 

* 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 warmair 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 warmair 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28938 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 watercooled 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 threephase 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 watersource 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 aircooled VRF heat pumps with heat 

recovery are equivalent to the Federal 

minimum energy conservation 

standards defined for air-cooled heat 

pumps with ‘‘all other heating system 

types that are integrated into the 

equipment,’’ and the efficiency 

requirements for air-cooled VRF heat 

pumps without heat recovery are 

equivalent to the Federal minimum 

standards for air-cooled heat pumps 

with electric 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 aircooled 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 aircooled 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 watersource heat pumps less than 135,000 

Btu/h cooling capacity due to the ‘‘antibacksliding’’ 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 morestringent 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 aircooled CRACs ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240, 

000 Btu/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 morestringent 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 morestringent 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 AirConditioning 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28940 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 airconditioning 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28941 

refrigerant flow implies three or more steps 

of capacity control on common, interconnecting 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 multisplit 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28942 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 threephase 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 AirConditioning 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28943 

7EPCA 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) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h; (3) ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h; and (4) 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. Thus, ‘‘small’’ 

commercial package air conditioners, as defined by 

EPCA, are split into two size classes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010: (1) <65,000 Btu/h and (2) 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h. 

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 (<65,000 Btu/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 

<135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity), large, 

and very large commercial package airconditioning 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. 

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 aircooled 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 °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 °F specified in the 

test method. When the ambient air 

temperature is lower than 95 °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 breakin 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 °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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28944 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

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 warmair 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 setup 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 setup. 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 fluidcooled computer room air conditioners 

(SCOP omitted this electric power in its 

equations). 

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 breakin 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 AirConditioning 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28946 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 airconditioning 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 airconditioning 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 ‘‘purposespecific 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28948 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

9A ‘‘fluid economizer’’ is a system configuration 

potentially available where an external fluid-cooler 

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 airconditioning 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 airconditioning 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 § 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 airconditioning 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., 

<65,000 Btu/h; ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h; or ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h), orientation of airflow 

(i.e., upflow or downflow), heat 

rejection method (i.e., air-cooled, watercooled, glycol-cooled), and the presence 

of a fluid economizer.9 DOE generally 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28949 

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. 

10For more information see: http:// 

www.ahrinet.org/ahri+members.aspx. 

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

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). 

TABLE V.1—COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS EQUIPMENT CLASSES AND EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum SCOP efficiency 

Downflow 

units Upflow units 

Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled ......................................... <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.20 2.09 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.10 1.99 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 1.90 1.79 

Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled .................................... <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.60 2.49 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.50 2.39 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.40 2.29 

Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer.<65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.55 2.44 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.45 2.34 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.35 2.24 

Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled ................................... <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.50 2.39 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.15 2.04 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.10 1.99 

Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer.<65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.45 2.34 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.10 1.99 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.05 1.94 

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) 

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. 

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., 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28950 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

average sensible cooling capacity, 

average SCOP) for each equipment class. 

DOE used the market data as a 

foundation for developing priceefficiency 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 higherefficiency 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28951 

12 ‘‘Sensible heat ratio’’ is the ratio of a unit’s 

sensible cooling capacity to its total (i.e., sensible 

and latent) cooling capacity. 

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

Equipment class Size category Representative sensible cooling capacity 

Downflow 

orientation baseline 

SCOP 

Air-Cooled .......................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................................................... 36,000 Btu/h ................ 2 .2 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................... 132,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .1 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................. 288,000 Btu/h .............. 1 .9 

Water-Cooled ..................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................................................... 36,000 Btu/h ................ 2 .6 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................... 132,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .5 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................. 288,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .4 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ............. <65,000 Btu/h .................................................... 36,000 Btu/h ................ 2 .55 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................... 132,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .45 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................. 288,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .35 

Glycol-Cooled .................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................................................... 36,000 Btu/h ................ 2 .5 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................... 132,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .15 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................. 288,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .1 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ............ <65,000 Btu/h .................................................... 36,000 Btu/h ................ 2 .45 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................... 132,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .1 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................. 288,000 Btu/h .............. 2 .05 

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 ‘‘ruleof-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. 

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

Equipment 

Efficiency levels (SCOP) 

Baseline level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................... 2.20 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 

Air-Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .................. 2.10 2.35 2.60 2.85 3.10 

Air-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................ 1.90 2.15 2.40 2.65 2.90 

Water-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 3.40 

Water-Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 

Water-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.40 2.60 2.80 3.00 3.20 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h ...... 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15 3.35 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h ................................................................. 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

13As 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. 

TABLE V.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued 

Equipment 

Efficiency levels (SCOP) 

Baseline level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 Btu/h .......................................................... 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15 

Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.50 2.70 2.90 3.10 3.30 

Glycol-Cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.15 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 

Glycol-Cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, <65,000 Btu/h ...... 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h ................................................................. 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 Btu/h .......................................................... 2.05 2.25 2.45 2.65 2.85 

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. 

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 priceefficiency 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 (<65,000 Btu/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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28953 

TABLE V.4—AIR-COOLED COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA

<65,000 Btu/h ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/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

<65,000 Btu/h ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/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 Representative 

(No Separate Markup) 

Distributor or Manufacturer Representative 

(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 higherefficiency equipment into the customer 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

14The 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). 

15The 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). 

16EnergyConsult 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). 

17U.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). 

18S. Wilcox and W. Marion, Users Manual for 

TMY3 Data Sets, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory: Golden, CO., Report No. NREL/TP–581– 

43156 (2008). 

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. 

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. 

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 aircooled equipment class, the spreadsheet 

calculates fan energy and condensing 

unit power consumption at each 5 °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 glycolcooled equipment, the spreadsheet first 

estimates the condensing water supply 

temperature from either an evaporative 

cooling tower or a dry cooler for watercooled 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. 

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 lifecycle 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28955 

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. 

20 Damodaran Online, The Data Page (Last 

Accessed Jan. 2012) (Available at: 

<www.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/New_Home_Page/ 

data.html>). 

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. 

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

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

21RS Means Company Inc., RS Means CostWorks 

2011 (2011) (Available at: 

<www.meanscostworks.com/>). 

22RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 

2012 (2012) (Available at: 

<www.meanscostworks.com/>). 

23U.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>). 

24U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (Available at: 

<http://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/data.cfm>). 

25U.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>). 

TABLE V.7—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Inputs NOPR Changes for the final rule 

Affecting Installed Costs 

Equipment Price .................. Equipment price was derived by multiplying manufacturer sales 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.

Sales taxes updates to 2012 rates. 

No other changes. 

Installation Cost .................. Installation cost includes installation labor, installer overhead, and any miscellaneous materials and parts, derived from RS Means CostWorks 

2011.21

Updated installation costs and relative regional cost multipliers from 

2011 to 2012 conditions using RS 

Means CostWorks 2012.22

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use ............. Annual unit energy 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.

No change. 

Electricity Prices .................. DOE developed average electricity prices based on EIA’s Form 861 data 

for 2010.23 Price projections based on AEO 2011.24

Updated from 2010 to 2011 using 

EIA Form 826 data for 2011.25

Price projections based on AEO 

2011. 

Maintenance Cost ............... DOE estimated annual maintenance costs based on RS Means 

CostWorks 2011 for CRAC equipment. Annual maintenance cost did not 

vary as a function of efficiency.

Updated maintenance using RS 

Means CostWorks 2012 and to reflect more frequent maintenance 

schedules for all CRAC equipment. 

Repair Cost ......................... DOE estimated the annualized repair cost for baseline efficiency CRAC 

equipment based on 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.

Updated repair costs using RS 

Means CostWorks 2012. 

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings 

Equipment Lifetime ............. DOE estimated CRAC equipment lifetime ranged between 10 and 25 

years, with an average lifespan of 15 years, based on estimates cited in 

available CRAC literature.

No change. 

Discount Rate ..................... Mean real discount rates for business types considered range from 2.68 

percent for education to 4.51 percent for offices. Health care was 4.10 

percent based on a limited sample.

Updated to early 2012 conditions. 

Additional business included in office category. Education was 2.98 

percent. Office was 4.46 percent. 

Health care was 4.98 percent, 

based on an expanded sample. 

Analysis Start Year ............. Start year for LCC 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.

No change. 

Analyzed Efficiency Levels 

Analyzed Efficiency Levels DOE analyzed the 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.

No change. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28957 

26Series ID PCU3334153334159; <http:// 

data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate> 

27R.S. Means Company, Inc., RS Means 

CostWorks 2011 (2011) (Available at: 

<www.meanscostworks.com/>). 

28RS Means Company, Inc., RS Means CostWorks 

2012 (2012) (Available at: 

<www.meanscostworks.com/>). 

29Not 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. 

30U.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>). 

31EIA’s 2003 CBECS is the most recent version 

of the data set. 

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 inflationadjusted 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. 

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. 

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). 

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 higherefficiency 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. 

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-byState 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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). 

33Federal 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>). 

34Calculated 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). 

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 highprice 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 heatexchanger 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 onetime 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 weightedaverage 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 publiclytraded 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. 

DOE received a comment on the 

January 2012 NOPR concerning the 

discount rates used in the LCC analysis. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28959 

35An overview of the NEMS model and 

documentation is found at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/ 

oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html. 

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 companyspecific 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. 

DOE believes that the first instance 

does not occur often because computer 

rooms are generally cooled to the level 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28960 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

36EnergyConsult 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). 

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. 

TABLE V.8—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

[Units] 

Year Units shipped 

(Australian data) 

Units shipped 

(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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28961 

37EIA 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.) 

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 commerciallyavailable 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 basecase 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. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28962 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

39National Research Council, ‘‘Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use,’’ National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

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

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 costbenefit 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28963 

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. 

41The models are described in appendix 15–A of 

the final rule TSD. 

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. 

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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28964 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

42Table 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. 

43For 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. 

44OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

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 higherthan-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] 

Year 

Discount rate (%) 

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. 

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

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28965 

45The 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. 

46The analysis only shows ten product classes for 

this equipment size for the same reasons mentioned 

for equipment <65,000 Btu/h. 

47Since 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. 

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 twoyear 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 

<65,000 Btu/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. 

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

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

Equipment class 

Compliance date for 

adopting the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 

Compliance date for 

adopting more-stringent efficiency levels 

than those in 

ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 

(no later than * * *) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... October 29, 2012 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h .............................................................. October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .................................................. October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................................ October 29, 2012 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ......................................................... October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................................. October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................... October 29, 2012 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h .................... October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........ October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................................ October 29, 2012 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ......................................................... October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................................. October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................... October 29, 2012 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h .................... October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........ October 29, 2013 ...... April 29, 2017. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

VI. Analytical Results 

A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Commercial Package AirConditioning 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

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

(tons) 

Efficiency levels 

analyzed 

(EER) 

Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric or No Heat, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ......... 8 Baseline—11.5 

ASHRAE—12.1 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.4 

Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other Heat, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...................... 8 Baseline—11.3 

ASHRAE—11.9 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.4 

Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric or No Heat, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ....... 15 Baseline—11.0 

ASHRAE—12.5 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.1 

Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other Heat, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .................... 15 Baseline—11.0 

ASHRAE—12.3 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.1 

Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric or No Heat, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ 

h.

35 Baseline—11.0 

ASHRAE—12.4 

13.0 

14.0 

Max-Tech—14.8 

Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Other Heat, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 35 Baseline—10.8 

ASHRAE—12.2 

13.0 

14.0 

Max-Tech—14.8 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioner, Electric or No Heat, ≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

40 Baseline—11.0 

ASHRAE—11.9 

12.5 

Max-Tech—13.1 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioner, Other Heat, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h .......... 40 Baseline—10.8 

ASHRAE—11.7 

12.5 

Max-Tech—13.1 

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

The methodology for VRF watersource 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 watersource 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28967 

TABLE VI.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency levels 

analyzed 

(EER) 

VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery ........... 242 Baseline—9.5 

ASHRAE—10 

11 

12 

13 

Max-Tech—14.5 

VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery ................ 215 Baseline—9.5 

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

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency levels 

analyzed 

(SCOP) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/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 and <240,000 Btu/h .......................................................... 132 Market Baseline— 

2.10 

ASHRAE—2.10 

2.35 

2.60 

2.85 

Max-Tech—3.10 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........................................................ 288 Market Baseline— 

1.90 

ASHRAE—1.90 

2.15 

2.40 

2.65 

Max-Tech—2.90 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/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 and <240,000 Btu/h ..................................................... 132 Market Baseline— 

2.30 

ASHRAE—2.50 

2.70 

2.90 

3.10 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued 

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency levels 

analyzed 

(SCOP) 

Max-Tech—3.30 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................................................... 288 Market Baseline— 

2.20 

ASHRAE—2.40 

2.60 

2.80 

3.00 

Max-Tech—3.20 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................. 36 Market Baseline— 

2.35 

ASHRAE—2.55 

2.75 

2.95 

3.15 

Max-Tech—3.35 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................ 132 Market Baseline— 

2.25 

ASHRAE—2.45 

2.65 

2.85 

3.05 

Max-Tech—3.25 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .............. 288 Market Baseline— 

2.15 

ASHRAE—2.35 

2.55 

2.75 

2.95 

Max-Tech—3.15 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/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 <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 132 Market Baseline— 

1.95 

ASHRAE—2.15 

2.35 

2.55 

2.75 

Max-Tech—2.95 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................................................... 288 Market Baseline— 

1.90 

ASHRAE—2.10 

2.30 

2.50 

2.70 

Max-Tech—2.90 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................. 36 Market Baseline— 

2.25 

ASHRAE—2.45 

2.65 

2.85 

3.05 

Max-Tech—3.25 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28969 

TABLE VI.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued 

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency levels 

analyzed 

(SCOP) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................ 132 Market Baseline— 

1.90 

ASHRAE—2.10 

2.30 

2.50 

2.70 

Max-Tech—2.90 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .............. 288 Market Baseline— 

1.85 

ASHRAE—2.05 

2.25 

2.45 

2.65 

Max-Tech—2.85 

B. Energy Savings and Economic 

Justification 

1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Commercial Package AirConditioning and Heating Equipment 

DOE estimated the potential primary 

energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 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] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE VI.5—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT

[2013–2042] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE VI.6—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO

HEAT

[2014–2043] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.6—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO

HEAT—Continued 

[2014–2043] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE VI.8—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC RESISTANCE

OR NO HEAT

[2014–2043] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE VI.9—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VERY LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT

[2014–2043] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE VI.10—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC

RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

[2014–2043] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28971 

48An LCC cost is shown as a negative savings in 

the results presented. 

TABLE VI.10—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC

RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT—Continued 

[2014–2043] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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] 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings * (quads) 

Historical shipment trend Shipments fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

DOE estimated the potential primary 

energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 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

<760,000 BTU/H, WITHOUT HEAT

RECOVERY

[2013–2042] 

Efficiency level Primary energy 

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 

TABLE VI.12—POTENTIAL ENERGY

SAVINGS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE

HEAT PUMPS, ≥135,000 BTU/H AND

<760,000 BTU/H, WITHOUT HEAT

RECOVERY—Continued 

[2013–2042] 

Efficiency level Primary energy 

savings * (quads) 

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

<760,000 BTU/H WITH HEAT RECOVERY

[2013–2042] 

Efficiency level Primary energy 

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. Moreefficient 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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, <65,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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

<240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <760,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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, <65,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28973 

TABLE VI.18—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED, ≥65,000 

BTU/H AND <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <760,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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, 

<65,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost 

(2011$) 

Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) 

Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.22—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED WITH

FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥240,000 AND <760,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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, <65,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average savings (2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <760,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average savings (2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28975 

TABLE VI.26—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED WITH FLUID ECONOMIZERS, 

<65,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years *) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC 

Average 

savings 

(2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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 <760,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

Life-cycle cost (2011$) Life-cycle cost savings Payback 

Period 

(years *) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average savings (2011$ *) 

% of Consumers that experience 

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] 

Equipment class 

National energy savings (quads) * 

ASHRAE level Efficiency 

level 1 

Efficiency 

level 2 

Efficiency 

level 3 

Efficiency 

level 4 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ......................... 0.00018 0.0006 0.0021 0.0052 0.0086 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h .. ** 0.006 0.059 0.196 0.364 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ** 0.004 0.034 0.112 0.206 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28976 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE VI.29—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS— 

Continued 

[2012–2041 or 2013–2042] 

Equipment class 

National energy savings (quads) * 

ASHRAE level Efficiency 

level 1 

Efficiency 

level 2 

Efficiency 

level 3 

Efficiency 

level 4 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .................... 0.00003 0.0001 0.0003 0.0007 0.0010 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/ 

h ........................................................................................ 0.0009 0.0088 0.0246 0.0435 0.0634 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h ................................................................................. 0.0008 0.0079 0.0220 0.0388 0.0565 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, 

<65,000 Btu/h ................................................................... 0.00001 0.00004 0.00011 0.00021 0.00031 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ........................................... 0.0004 0.0038 0.0106 0.0188 0.0273 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, 

≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ......................................... 0.0002 0.0016 0.0043 0.0076 0.0111 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .................... 0.00003 0.00013 0.00033 0.00063 0.00092 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/ 

h ........................................................................................ 0.001 0.011 0.031 0.054 0.078 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 

Btu/h ................................................................................. 0.0008 0.0080 0.0220 0.0384 0.0554 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, 

<65,000 Btu/h ................................................................... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0005 0.0007 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ........................................... 0.001 0.010 0.027 0.047 0.067 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, 

≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ......................................... 0.0005 0.0054 0.0147 0.0257 0.0370 

* 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] 

Equipment class 

Net present value (billion 2011$ *) 

Efficiency 

level 1 

Efficiency 

level 2 

Efficiency 

level 3 

Efficiency 

level 4 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............................................. $0.0004 $(0.0000 ) $(0.0048 ) $(0.0154 ) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ...................... 0.01 0.12 0.34 0.54 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h .................... 0.01 0.08 0.24 0.40 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................ 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.009 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ................. (0.004 ) (0.041 ) (0.140 ) (0.332 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ............... (0.001 ) (0.026 ) (0.102 ) (0.251 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ... 0.001 0.002 0.003 0.005 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.02 ) (0.07 ) (0.18 ) (0.38 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.005 ) (0.024 ) (0.064 ) (0.134 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................ 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ................. 0.002 (0.028 ) (0.123 ) (0.316 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ............... 0.002 (0.018 ) (0.083 ) (0.215 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ... 0.001 0.003 0.006 0.008 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.01 ) (0.07 ) (0.20 ) (0.46 ) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28977 

TABLE VI.30—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR POTENTIAL STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR

CONDITIONERS—Continued 

[Discounted at seven percent] 

Equipment class 

Net present value (billion 2011$ *) 

Efficiency 

level 1 

Efficiency 

level 2 

Efficiency 

level 3 

Efficiency 

level 4 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.004 ) (0.033 ) (0.106 ) (0.242 ) 

* 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] 

Equipment class 

Net present value (billion 2011$ *) 

Efficiency 

level 1 

Efficiency 

level 2 

Efficiency 

level 3 

Efficiency 

level 4 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............................................. $0.002 $0.003 $(0.002 ) $(0.017 ) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ...................... 0.03 0.29 0.88 1.48 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h .................... 0.02 0.19 0.58 1.00 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................ 0.003 0.007 0.012 0.018 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ................. 0.003 (0.051 ) (0.220 ) (0.566 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ............... 0.007 (0.029 ) (0.160 ) (0.435 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ... 0.001 0.004 0.006 0.009 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.02 ) (0.12 ) (0.33 ) (0.69 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.008 ) (0.042 ) (0.117 ) (0.251 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................ 0.003 0.006 0.012 0.017 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ................. 0.02 (0.02 ) (0.18 ) (0.53 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h ............... 0.01 (0.02 ) (0.13 ) (0.38 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ... 0.002 0.006 0.011 0.015 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.01 ) (0.10 ) (0.34 ) (0.82 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... (0.004 ) (0.052 ) (0.187 ) (0.447 ) 

* 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-Cooled Products ............. 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28978 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Efficiency level 5% discount rate, 

average 

3% discount rate, 

average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount rate, 

95th 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28979 

TABLE VI.34—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER CONSIDERED EFFICIENCY

LEVELS—Continued 

Efficiency level 5% discount rate, 

average 

3% discount rate, 

average 

2.5% discount 

rate, average 

3% discount rate, 

95th percentile 

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-perton 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

Efficiency level 

Million 2011$ 

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 EvaporativelyCooled Commercial Package AirConditioning 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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28980 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

49For 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.36—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT

Equipment type Subcategory Size category 

(Input) 

Efficiency level 

(EER) 

Compliance 

date 

Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners .. Electric or No Heat ............. ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...... 12.1 June 1, 2013. 

Small Water-Cooled Air Conditioners .. Other Heat .......................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...... 11.9 June 1, 2013. 

Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners .. Electric or No Heat ............. ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .... 12.5 June 1, 2014. 

Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners .. Other Heat .......................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .... 12.3 June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners.Electric or No Heat ............. ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .... 12.4 June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners.Other Heat .......................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .... 12.2 June 1, 2014. 

Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.Electric or No Heat ............. ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...... 12.1 June 1, 2013. 

Small Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.Other Heat .......................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...... 11.9 June 1, 2013. 

Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.Electric or No Heat ............. ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .... 12.0 June 1, 2014. 

Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners.Other Heat .......................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .... 11.8 June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air 

Conditioners.

Electric or No Heat ............. ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .... 11.9 June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air 

Conditioners.

Other Heat .......................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .... † 11.7 June 1, 2014. 

†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. 

TABLE VI.37—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Subcategory Size category 

(Input) Efficiency level Compliance date ** 

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

Without Heat Recovery ........ <17,000 Btu/h ....................... 12.0 EER 4.2 COP * ............ October 29, 2012. 

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

With Heat Recovery ............. <17,000 Btu/h ....................... 11.8 EER 4.2 COP * ............ October 29, 2012. 

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

Without Heat Recovery ........ ≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

10.0 EER 3.9 COP .............. October 29, 2013. 

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

With Heat Recovery ............. ≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

9.8 EER 3.9 COP ................ October 29, 2013. 

* 4.2 COP is the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standard for water-source heat pumps <17,000 Btu/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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 morestringent 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 morestringent 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 watercooled 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28982 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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

Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) Efficiency level 

(SCOP–127) 

Compliance 

date 

Air conditioners, air-cooled .......................... Downflow ..... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.20 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled .......................... Upflow .......... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.09 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled .......................... Downflow ..... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.10 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled .......................... Upflow .......... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled .......................... Downflow ..... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 1.90 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, air-cooled .......................... Upflow .......... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 1.79 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled ..................... Downflow ..... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.60 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled ..................... Upflow .......... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.49 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled ..................... Downflow ..... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.50 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled ..................... Upflow .......... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.39 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled ..................... Downflow ..... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.40 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled ..................... Upflow .......... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.29 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Downflow ..... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.55 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Upflow .......... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.44 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Downflow ..... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.45 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Upflow .......... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.34 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Downflow ..... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.35 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Upflow .......... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.24 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled ..................... Downflow ..... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.50 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled ..................... Upflow .......... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.39 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled ..................... Downflow ..... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.15 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled ..................... Upflow .......... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.04 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled ..................... Downflow ..... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.10 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled ..................... Upflow .......... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Downflow ..... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.45 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Upflow .......... <65,000 Btu/h .............................................. 2.34 October 29, 2012. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Downflow ..... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.10 October 29, 2013. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28983 

TABLE VI.38—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued 

Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) Efficiency level 

(SCOP–127) 

Compliance 

date 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Upflow .......... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Downflow ..... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.05 October 29, 2013. 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid 

economizer.

Upflow .......... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 1.94 October 29, 2013. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28984 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

50For more information, see http:// 

www.hoovers.com/. 

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, ‘‘AirConditioning 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 publiclyavailable 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. 

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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 collectionof-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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28986 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

■ 2. Section 431.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Commercial 

HVAC & WH product’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 431.75 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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_federal

regulations/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 § 431.76. 

(2) ANSI Z21.47–2006, (‘‘ANSI 

Z21.47–2006’’), ‘‘Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces,’’ approved on July 27, 2006, 

IBR approved for § 431.76. 

(3) Reserved. 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning 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 § 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 

§ 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 § 431.76. 

(2) UL 727 (UL 727–2006), ‘‘Standard 

for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,’’ 

approved April 7, 2006, IBR approved 

for § 431.76. 

(3) [Reserved]. 

■ 4. Section 431.76 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 steadystate 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 

§ 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 gasfired 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 

§ 431.75)), and 4.2.1 (Basic Test 

Arrangements for Direct Vent Control 

Furnaces) of ANSI Z21.47–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 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), 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28988 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 

46 (Air Flow, Downflow or Horizontal 

Furnace Test), of UL 727–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 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 

§ 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 °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 § 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 § 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 

§ 431.75). (Note, this is section 2.38 in 

ANSI Z21.47–1998 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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 °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 § 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. 

■ 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: 

§ 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 variablespeed 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, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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. 

* * * * * 

■ 6. Section 431.95 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ published in 2003 (AHRI 

210/240–2003), IBR approved for 

§ 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 

§ 431.96. 

(3) ARI Standard 310/380–2004, 

‘‘Standard for Packaged Terminal AirConditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ 

published September 2004 (AHRI 310/ 

380–2004), IBR approved for § 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 

§ 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 § 431.96. 

(6) ANSI/AHRI Standard 390–2003, 

‘‘2003 Standard for Performance Rating 

of Single Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ dated 

2003, (AHRI 390–2003), IBR approved 

for § 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 § 431.96. 

(8) [Reserved]. 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning 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 § 431.96. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

(d) ISO. International Organization for 

Standardization, 1, ch. De la VoieCreuse, 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, ‘‘Watersource heat pumps—Testing and rating 

for performance—Part 1: Water-to-air 

and brine-to-air heat pumps,’’ approved 

1998, IBR approved for § 431.96. 

(2) [Reserved]. 

■ 7. Section 431.96 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Category Cooling 

capacity 

Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Test procedure 

required for 

compliance until 

Use tests, conditions, and procedures 1

in 

Small Commercial Packaged 

Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC and HP .................

Air-Cooled AC and HP .................................

<65,000 Btu/h ..

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <135,000 

Btu/h.

SEER and HSPF 

EER and COP ....

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

ARI 210/240–2003. 

ARI 340/360–2004. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28990 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued 

Equipment type Category Cooling 

capacity 

Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Test procedure 

required for 

compliance until 

Use tests, conditions, and procedures 1

in 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC <65,000 Btu/h ..

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <135,000 

Btu/h.

EER ....................

EER ....................

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

ARI 210/240–2003. 

ARI 340/360–2004. 

Water-Source HP ......................................... <135,000 Btu/h EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). 

Large Commercial Packaged 

Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP .................................

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC 

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h.

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h.

EER and COP ....

EER ....................

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

ARI 340/360–2004. 

ARI 340/360–2004. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP .................................

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC 

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

EER and COP ....

EER ....................

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

ARI 340/360–2004. 

ARI 340/360–2004. 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps.

AC and HP ................................................... <760,000 Btu/h EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... AHRI 310/380–2004. 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 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 § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Compliance with 

test procedure 

required on or 

after 

Use tests, conditions, and 

procedures 1

in 

Small Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning 

and Heating 

Equipment.

Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, AC and HP ..........................

Air-Cooled AC and HP ..........................................

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

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <135,000 

Btu/h.

SEER and HSPF 

EER and COP ....

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

AHRI 210/240–2008 (omit section 6.5). 

AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC ........ <65,000 Btu/h .....

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <135,000 

Btu/h.

EER ....................

EER ....................

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

AHRI 210/240–2008 (omit section 6.5). 

AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Water-Source HP .................................................. <135,000 Btu/h ... EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). 

Large Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning 

and Heating 

Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP ..........................................

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC ........

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h.

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h.

EER and COP ....

EER ....................

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). 

AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment.

Air-Cooled AC and HP ..........................................

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC ........

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

EER and COP ....

EER ....................

May 13, 2013 .....

May 13, 2013 .....

AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). 

AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). 

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps.

AC and HP ............................................................ <760,000 Btu/h ... EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... AHRI 310/380–2004 (omit section 5.6). 

Computer Room 

Air Conditioners.

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

<65,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

SCOP .................

SCOP .................

October 29, 2012 

May 13, 2013 .....

ASHRAE 127–2007 (omit section 5.11). 

ASHRAE 127–2007 (omit section 5.11). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems.

AC .......................................................................... <760,000 Btu/h ... EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... AHRI 1230–2010 (omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems, Aircooled.

HP .......................................................................... <760,000 Btu/h ... EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... AHRI 1230–2010 (omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28991 

TABLE 2 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued 

Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Compliance with 

test procedure 

required on or 

after 

Use tests, conditions, and 

procedures 1

in 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems, Watersource.

HP .......................................................................... <17,000 Btu/h ..... EER and COP .... October 29, 2012 AHRI 1230–2010 (omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6). 

Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-split Systems, Watersource.

HP .......................................................................... ≥17,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

EER and COP .... May 13, 2013 ..... AHRI 1230–2010 (omit sections 

5.1.2 and 6.6). 

Single Package 

Vertical Air 

Conditioners 

and Single 

Package 

Vertical Heat 

Pumps.

AC and HP ............................................................ <760,000 Btu/h ... EER and COP .... July 16, 2012 ...... AHRI 390–2003 (omit section 

6.4). 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 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 

§ 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 

§ 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, X 

(ft) 

Piping length beyond minimum, Y 

(m) 

Cooling capacity 

correction 

% 

0> X ≤20 ................................................................................. 0> Y ≤6.1 ................................................................................ 1 

20> X ≤40 ............................................................................... 6.1> Y ≤12.2 ........................................................................... 2 

40> X ≤60 ............................................................................... 12.2> Y ≤18.3 ......................................................................... 3 

60> X ≤80 ............................................................................... 18.3> Y ≤24.4 ......................................................................... 4 

80> X ≤100 ............................................................................. 24.4> Y ≤30.5 ......................................................................... 5 

100 > X ≤120 .......................................................................... 30.5> Y ≤36.6 ......................................................................... 6 

(e) Additional provisions for 

equipment set-up. The only additional 

specifications that may be used in 

setting up the basic model for test are 

those set forth in the installation and 

operation manual shipped with the unit. 

Each unit should be set up for test in 

accordance with the manufacturer 

installation and operation manuals. 

Paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this 

section provide specifications for 

addressing key information typically 

found in the installation and operation 

manuals. 

(1) If a manufacturer specifies a range 

of superheat, sub-cooling, and/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. 

■ 8. Section 431.97 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 § 431.96, be compliant 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28992 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 § 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]

Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Heating type Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

products 

manufactured on 

and after . . . 

Small Commercial 

Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Air-Cooled, 3 

Phase) 

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

HP ..............

All ................................................................

All ................................................................

SEER = 13 ...........

SEER = 13 ...........

June 16, 2008. 

June 16, 2008. 

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 

All Other Types of Heating .........................

EER = 11.2 ..........

EER = 11.0 ...........

January 1, 2010. 

January 1, 2010. 

HP .............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating EER = 11.0 .......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating ......................... EER = 10.8 .......... January 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 

All Other Types of Heating .........................

EER = 11.0 ...........

EER = 10.8 ..........

January 1, 2010. 

January 1, 2010. 

Heating Equipment 

(Air-Cooled).

>240,000 Btu/h ..................................... HP .............. No Heating or Electric Resistance heating EER = 10.6 ........... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating ......................... EER = 10.4 .......... January 1, 2010. 

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 

All Other Types of Heating .........................

EER = 10.0 ..........

EER = 9.8 ............

January 1, 2010. 

January 1, 2010. 

HP .............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating EER = 9.5 ............ January 1, 2010. 

.................... All Other Types of Heating ......................... EER = 9.3 ............ January 1, 2010. 

Small Commercial 

Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Water-Cooled, 

EvaporativelyCooled, and 

Water-Source).

<17,000 Btu/h .......................................

≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ........

AC ..............

HP ..............

AC ..............

HP ..............

All ................................................................

All ................................................................

All ................................................................

All ................................................................

EER = 12.1 ..........

EER = 11.2 ..........

EER = 12.1 ...........

EER = 12.0 ..........

October 29, 2003. 

October 29, 2003. 

October 29, 2003. 

October 29, 2003. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ...... AC .............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating EER = 11.5 .......... October 29, 2003.1

All Other Types of Heating ......................... EER = 11.3 .......... October 29, 2003.1

HP .............. All ................................................................ EER = 12.0 ........... October 29, 2003.1

Large Commercial 

Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Water-Cooled, 

EvaporativelyCooled, and 

Water-Source).

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

Btu/h .....................................................

AC ..............

HP ..............

All ................................................................

All ................................................................

EER = 11.0 ..........

EER = 11.0 ...........

October 29, 2004.2

October 29, 2004.2

Very Large Commercial Packaged AirConditioning and 

Heating Equipment (WaterCooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, 

and Water-Source).

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .... AC .............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating 

All Other Types of Heating .........................

EER = 11.0 ...........

EER = 10.8 ..........

January 10, 2011.2

January 10, 2011.2

HP .............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating EER = 11.0 .......... January 10, 2011.2

All Other Types of Heating ......................... EER = 10.8 .......... January 10, 2011.2

1And manufactured before June 1, 2013. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards. 

2And manufactured before June 1, 2014. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28993 

TABLE 2 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM HEATING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

[Heat pumps] 

Equipment type Cooling capacity Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured on and after 

. . . 

Small Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).

<65,000 Btu/h ............................................... HSPF = 7.7 ........... June 16, 2008. 

Small Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥65,000 Btu/h and ........................................

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

COP = 3.3 ............. January 1, 2010. 

Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥135,000 Btu/h and ......................................

<240,000 Btu/h .............................................

COP = 3.2 ............. January 1, 2010. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h and ......................................

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

COP = 3.2 ............. January 1, 2010. 

Small Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Water-Source).

<135,000 Btu/h ............................................. COP = 4.2 ............. October 29, 2003. 

TABLE 3 TO § 431.97—UPDATES TO THE MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND

EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured on and after 

. . . 

Small Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning and 

Heating Equipment (WaterCooled).

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ................. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ....

All Other Types of Heating ..............................

EER = 12.1 ................

EER = 11.9 ................

June 1, 2013. 

June 1, 2013. 

Large Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning and 

Heating Equipment (WaterCooled).

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ....

All Other Types of Heating ..............................

EER = 12.5 ................

EER = 12.3 ................

June 1, 2014. 

June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Water-Cooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ....

All Other Types of Heating ..............................

EER = 12.4 ................

EER = 12.2 ................

June 1, 2014. 

June 1, 2014. 

Small Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ................. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ....

All Other Types of Heating ..............................

EER = 12.1 ................

EER = 11.9 ................

June 1, 2013. 

June 1, 2013. 

Large Commercial 

Packaged AirConditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ....

All Other Types of Heating ..............................

EER = 12.0 ................

EER = 11.8 ................

June 1, 2014. 

June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(EvaporativelyCooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ....

All Other Types of Heating ..............................

EER = 11.9 ................

EER = 11.7 ................

June 1, 2014. 

June 1, 2014. 

(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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28994 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 4 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC AND PTHP 

Equipment type Cooling capacity Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

products manufactured on and after 

. . . 

PTAC ..................................................... <7,000 Btu/h ......................................... EER = 8.88 ........................................... January 1, 1994. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h .......... EER = 10.0—(0.16 × Cap 1) ................. January 1, 1994. 

≥15,000 Btu/h ....................................... EER = 7.6 ............................................. January 1, 1994. 

PTHP ..................................................... <7,000 Btu/h ......................................... EER = 8.88 ...........................................

COP = 2.72 

January 1, 1994. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h .......... EER = 10.0—(0.16 × Cap 1) .................

COP = 1.3 + (0.16 × EER 2) 

January 1, 1994. 

≥15,000 Btu/h ....................................... EER = 7.6 .............................................

COP = 2.52 

January 1, 1994. 

1 ‘‘Cap’’ means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 2The applicable minimum cooling EER prescribed in this table. 

TABLE 5 TO § 431.97 UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC AND PTHP 

Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level Compliance date: products manufactured on and after . . . 

PTAC ....................... Standard Size ............... <7,000 Btu/h ..................................... EER = 11.7 ....................................... October 8, 2012. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h ...... EER = 13.8¥(0.3 × Cap1) ................ October 8, 2012. 

≥15,000 Btu/h ................................... EER = 9.3 ......................................... October 8, 2012. 

Non-Standard Size ........ <7,000 Btu/h ..................................... EER = 9.4 ......................................... October 7, 2010. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h ...... EER = 10.9¥(0.213 × Cap1) ............ October 7, 2010. 

≥15,000 Btu/h ................................... EER = 7.7 ......................................... October 7, 2010. 

PTHP ....................... Standard Size ............... <7,000 Btu/h ..................................... EER = 11.9 .......................................

COP = 3.3 .........................................

October 8, 2012. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h ...... EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap1) ................

COP = 3.7—(0.052 × Cap1) .............

October 8, 2012. 

≥15,000 Btu/h ................................... EER = 9.5 .........................................

COP = 2.9 .........................................

October 8, 2012. 

Non-Standard Size ........ <7,000 Btu/h ..................................... EER = 9.3 .........................................

COP = 2.7 .........................................

October 7, 2010. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and <15,000 Btu/h ...... EER = 10.8¥(0.213 × Cap1) ............

COP = 2.9¥(0.026 × Cap1) .............

October 7, 2010. 

≥15,000 Btu/h ................................... EER = 7.6 .........................................

COP = 2.5 .........................................

October 7, 2010. 

1 ‘‘Cap’’ means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °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 § 431.97 MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE

PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured on and after 

. . . 

Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, single-phase and threephase.<65,000 Btu/h ................................................. AC ...................

HP ...................

EER = 9.0 .......

EER = 9.0 .......

COP = 3.0 

January 1, 2010. 

January 1, 2010. 

Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps.≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ................ AC ...................

HP ...................

EER = 8.9 .......

EER = 8.9 .......

COP = 3.0 

January 1, 2010. 

January 1, 2010. 

Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps.≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............. AC ...................

HP ...................

EER = 8.6 .......

EER = 8.6 .......

COP = 2.9 

January 1, 2010. 

January 1, 2010. 

(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. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28995 

TABLE 7 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum SCOP efficiency Compliance date: 

Products 

manufactured on and 

after . . . Downflow unit Upflow unit 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled ...... <65,000 Btu/h .......................................................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......................

2.20 

2.10 

2.09 

1.99 

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..................... 1.90 1.79 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......................

2.60 

2.50 

2.49 

2.39 

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..................... 2.40 2.29 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled 

with a Fluid Economizer.

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

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......................

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .....................

2.55 

2.45 

2.35 

2.44 

2.34 

2.24 

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2013. 

October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......................

2.50 

2.15 

2.39 

2.04 

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..................... 2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled 

with a Fluid Economizer.

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

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......................

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .....................

2.45 

2.10 

2.05 

2.34 

1.99 

1.94 

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2013. 

October 29, 2013. 

(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 § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR

CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type1 Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products 

manufactured on and 

after . . . 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (Air-Cooled) ......... <65,000 Btu/h ..............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 

h.

All .................................................

No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.

13.0 SEER ......

11.2 EER .........

June 16, 2008. 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 11.0 EER ......... January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.11.0 EER ......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 10.8 EER ......... January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.10.0 EER ......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 9.8 EER ........... January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps ...................................

(Air-Cooled) .............................................................

<65,000 Btu/h .............................. All ................................................. 13.0 SEER ......

7.7 HSPF 

June 16, 2008. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 

h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.11.0 EER .........

3.3 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 10.8 EER .........

3.3 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.10.6 EER .........

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of Heating .......... 10.4 EER .........

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.9.5 EER ...........

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

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

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps ...................................

(Water-Source)* * * ................................................

<17,000 Btu/h .............................. Without heat recovery ................. 12.0 EER .........

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

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2003. 

With heat recovery ...................... 11.8 EER .........

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

October 29, 2012. 

October 29, 2003. 

≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h All ................................................. 12.0 EER .........

4.2 COP 

October 29, 2003. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/ 

h.

All ................................................. 12.0 EER .........

4.2 COP 

October 29, 2003. 

≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

Without heat recovery ................. 10.0 EER .........

3.9 COP 

October 29, 2013. 

With heat recovery ...................... 9.8 EER ...........

3.9 COP 

October 29, 2013 

1VRF 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.’’ 

■ 9. Add § 431.104 to read as follows: 

§ 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 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28996 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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.’’ 

■ 10. Section 431.105 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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_federal

regulations/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 

§ 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 § 431.106. 

(3) [Reserved]. 

■ 11. Section 431.106 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 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 § 431.106—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS AND HOT WATER SUPPLY BOILERS

[Other than commercial heat pump water heaters] 

Equipment type Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use test setup, equipment and procedures in subsection labeled ‘‘Method of 

Test’’ of 

Test procedure required for compliance until 

With these additional stipulations 

Gas-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters and Hot 

Water Supply Boilers *.

Thermal Efficiency .............

Standby Loss .....................

ANSI Z21.10.3–1998 **, § 2.9 ..................

ANSI Z21.10.3–1998 **, § 2.10 ................

May 13, 2013 .......

May 13, 2013 

A. For all products, the duration 

of the standby loss test shall be 

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) × 8.25 (Btu/gal-F) × 

Measured Volume (gal) × 70 

(degrees F). 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28997 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.106—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS AND HOT WATER SUPPLY BOILERS— 

Continued 

[Other than commercial heat pump water heaters] 

Equipment type Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use test setup, equipment and procedures in subsection labeled ‘‘Method of 

Test’’ of 

Test procedure required for compliance until 

With these additional stipulations 

C. For oil-fired products, apply the 

following in conducting the thermal efficiency and standby loss 

tests: (1) Venting Requirements—Connect 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 Watertube 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 § 431.105. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
28998 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

TABLE 2 TO § 431.106—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL WATER HEATERS AND HOT WATER SUPPLY BOILERS

[Other than commercial heat pump water heaters] 

Equipment type Energy 

efficiency descriptor 

Use test setup, equipment and procedures in subsection 

labeled ‘‘Method of Test’’ of 

Test procedure required for compliance on and after 

With these additional stipulations 

Gas-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters and Hot 

Water Supply Boilers *.

Oil-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters and Hot 

Water Supply Boilers *.

Electric Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters.

Thermal Efficiency .............

Standby Loss .....................

Thermal Efficiency .............

Standby Loss .....................

Standby Loss .....................

ANSI Z21.10.3–2011 **, Exhibit G1 ........

ANSI Z21.10.3–2011 **, Exhibit G2 ........

ANSI Z21.10.3–2011 **, Exhibit G1 ........

ANSI Z21.10.3–2011 **, Exhibit G2 ........

ANSI Z21.10.3–2011 **, Exhibit G2 ........

May 13, 2013 .......

May 13, 2013 

May 13, 2013 

May 13, 2013 

May 13, 2013 

A. For all products, the duration 

of the standby loss test shall be 

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) × 8.25 (Btu/gal-F) × 

Measured Volume (gal) × 70 

(degrees F). 

C. For oil-fired products, apply the 

following in conducting the thermal efficiency and standby loss 

tests: (1) Venting Requirements—Connect 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 Watertube 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 § 431.105. 

Note: The following will not appear in the 

Code of Federal Regulations. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 28999 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16MY12.000</GPH>
29000 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 16, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

[FR Doc. 2012–10650 Filed 5–15–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with RULES2ER16MY12.001</GPH>