20114 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Marketable production that grades 

less than U.S. No. 1 due to uninsurable 

causes not covered by this endorsement 

will not be reduced. 

(d) Any adjustments that reduce your 

production to count under this option 

will not be applicable when 

determining production to count for 

Actual Production History purposes. 

Optional Coverage for Pear Quality 

Adjustment Example: You have a 100 percent 

share of a 20-acre pear orchard. You have a 

production guarantee of 15 tons/acre. You 

elect 100 percent of the $500/ton price 

election. You are only able to produce 10 

tons/acre and only 7.5 tons/acre grade a U. 

S. No. 1 or better. Assuming you do not sell 

any of your fresh pear production as U. S. 

No. 1 or better, your indemnity would be 

calculated as follows: 

(A) 20 acres × 15 tons per acre = 300 tons 

production guarantee; 

(B) 300 tons production guarantee × $500/ 

ton = $150,000 value of production 

guarantee; 

(C) The value of fresh pear production to 

count is determined as follows: 

(i) 200 tons harvested production minus 

150 tons that graded U.S. No. 1 or better = 

50 tons failing to make grade; 

(ii) 50 tons failing grade/200 tons of 

production = 25 percent of production failing 

to grade U.S. No. 1 or better; 

(iii) In accordance with section 13(b)(1): 25 

percent minus 10 percent = 15 percent in 

excess of 10 percent allowance failing to 

make grade; 

(iv) 15 percent × 2 = 30 percent total 

quality adjustment for pears failing to grade 

U.S. No. 1; 

(v) 200 tons production × 30 percent 

quality adjustment = 60 tons of pears failing 

to make grade; 

(vi) 200 tons production minus 60 tons 

failing to make grade = 140 tons of quality 

adjusted fresh pear production to count; 

(vii) 140 tons of quality adjusted fresh pear 

production to count × $500/ton price election 

= $70,000 value of fresh pear production to 

count; 

(D) $150,000 value of production guarantee 

minus $70,000 value of fresh pear production 

to count = $80,000 value of loss; 

(E) $80,000 value of loss × 100 percent 

share = $80,000 indemnity payment. 

[End of Example] 

Signed in Washington, DC, on March 25, 

2014. 

Brandon C. Willis, 

Manager, Federal Crop Insurance 

Corporation. 

[FR Doc. 2014–07155 Filed 4–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–08–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2014–BT–STD–0015] 

RIN 1904–AB23 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, 

and Water-Heating Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of data availability and 

request for public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA), as 

amended, directs the U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) to establish energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

equipment. Of particular relevance here, 

the statute also requires that each time 

the corresponding consensus standard— 

the American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers, Inc. (ASHRAE)/Illuminating 

Engineering Society (IES) Standard 

90.1—is amended by the industry, DOE 

must assess whether there is a need to 

update the uniform national energy 

conservation standards for the same 

equipment covered under EPCA. 

ASHRAE officially released an amended 

version of this industry standard 

(ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013), on 

October 9, 2013, thereby triggering 

DOE’s related obligations under EPCA. 

As a first step in meeting this statutory 

requirement, today’s notice of data 

availability (NODA) discusses the 

results of DOE’s analysis of the energy 

savings potential of amended energy 

conservation standards for certain types 

of commercial equipment covered by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. The energy 

savings potentials are based upon either 

the efficiency levels specified in the 

amended industry standard (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013) or morestringent levels that would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and are technologically feasible 

and economically justified. DOE is 

publishing this NODA to: announce the 

results and preliminary conclusions of 

DOE’s analysis of potential energy 

savings associated with amended 

standards for this equipment, and 

request public comment on this 

analysis, as well as the submission of 

data and other relevant information. 

DATES: DOE will accept written 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this NODA no later than May 

12, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted 

must identify the NODA for ASHRAE 

Equipment and provide the docket 

number EERE–2014–BT–STD–0015 

and/or Regulatory Information Number 

(RIN) 1904–AB23. Interested parties are 

encouraged to submit comments 

electronically. However, comments may 

be submitted by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: ComHeatingACWHEquip

2014STD0015@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2014–BT–STD– 

0015 and/or RIN number 1904–AB23 in 

the subject line of the message. All 

comments should clearly identify the 

name, address, and, if appropriate, 

organization of the commenter. Submit 

electronic comments in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file 

format, and avoid the use of special 

characters or any form of encryption. 

• Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, 

U.S. Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

(Please note that comments sent by mail 

are often delayed and may be damaged 

by mail screening processes.) 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Office, Sixth 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section IV of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at http://www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials throughout the 

rulemaking process. 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/

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20115 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (Dec. 18, 2012). 

3Although EPCA does not explicitly define the 

term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of 

what would constitute an ‘‘amended standard’’ in 

a final rule published in the Federal Register on 

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

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

stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to 

adopt uniform national standards based on 

ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a 

standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA 

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

increasing the energy efficiency level for that 

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

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard 

level unchanged or lowers the standard, as 

compared to the level specified by the national 

standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not 

have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to 

consider a higher standard for that equipment 

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

subsequently reiterated this position in a final rule 

published in the Federal Register on July 22, 2009. 

74 FR 36312, 36313. 

However, in the AEMTCA amendments to EPCA 

in 2012, Congress modified several provisions 

related to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment. In 

relevant part, DOE is now triggered to act whenever 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1’s ‘‘standard levels or design 

requirements under that standard’’ are amended. 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Furthermore, DOE is 

now required to conduct an evaluation of each class 

of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

‘‘every 6 years.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) For any 

covered equipment for which more than 6 years has 

elapsed since issuance of the most recent final rule 

establishing or amending a standard for such 

equipment, DOE must publish either the required 

notice of determination that standards do not need 

Continued 

# !docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0015. This Web page contains a link to 

the docket for this notice on the 

www.regulations.gov site. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page contains 

simple instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section IV, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for information on how 

to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For information on how to submit a 

comment or review other public 

comments and the docket, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–6590. Email: 

Ashley.Armstrong@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: 

Table of Contents 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Purpose of the Notice of Data 

Availability 

C. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

D. Summary of DOE’s Preliminary 

Assessment of Equipment for Energy 

Savings Analysis 

II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 

A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment 

1. Air-Cooled Equipment 

2. Water-Source Equipment 

3. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

4. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and 

Through-The-Wall Equipment 

5. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps 

6. Consideration of a Space-Constrained 

Single-Package Vertical Unit Equipment 

Class 

B. Commercial Water Heaters 

C. Test Procedures 

1. Updates to the AHRI 210/240 Test 

Method 

2. Updates to the AHRI 340/360 Test 

Method 

3. Updates to the AHRI 1230 Test Method 

4. Updates to the ANSI Z21.47 Test 

Method 

5. Updates to the ANSI Z21.10.3 Test 

Method 

III. Analysis of Potential Energy Savings 

A. Annual Energy Use 

1. Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

2. Water-Source Heat Pumps 

3. Package Terminal Air Conditioners 

4. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

5. Commercial Water Heaters 

B. Shipments 

1. Small Commercial Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps 

2. Water-Source Heat Pumps 

3. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

4. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

5. Commercial Water Heaters 

C. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

D. Other Analytical Inputs 

1. Conversion of Site Energy Savings 

2. Equipment Lifetime 

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period 

E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Introduction 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C1 of the Energy Policy 

and Conservation Act of 1975 (EPCA or 

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

6311–6317, as codified), added by 

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

established the Energy Conservation 

Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment, which includes the 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water-heating equipment that is the 

subject of this rulemaking.2 In general, 

this program addresses the energy 

efficiency of certain types of commercial 

and industrial equipment. Relevant 

provisions of the Act specifically 

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

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

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

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

and the authority to require information 

and reports from manufacturers (42 

U.S.C. 6316). 

In relevant part here, EPCA contains 

mandatory energy conservation 

standards for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

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

Specifically, the statute sets standards 

for small, large, and very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, packaged 

terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), 

warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 

storage water heaters, instantaneous 

water heaters, and unfired hot water 

storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA 

established Federal energy conservation 

standards that generally correspond to 

the levels in the American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) 

Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for 

Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 

Buildings, as in effect on October 24, 

1992 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

1989), for each type of covered 

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

The Energy Independence and Security 

Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) further 

amended EPCA by adding definitions 

and setting minimum standards for 

single-package vertical air conditioners 

(SPVACs) and single-package vertical 

heat pumps (SPVHPs), which are 

collectively referred to as single-package 

vertical units (SPVUs). (42 U.S.C. 

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

SPVACs and SPVHPs established by 

EISA 2007 corresponded to the levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2004, which originated as addendum 

‘‘d’’ to Standard 90.1–2001. 

In acknowledgement of technological 

changes that yield energy efficiency 

benefits, Congress directed DOE through 

EPCA to consider amending the existing 

Federal energy efficiency standard for 

each type of equipment listed, each time 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended 

with respect to such equipment. (42 

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

equipment, EPCA directs that, if 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,3

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20116 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

to be amended or a NOPR with proposed standards 

by December 31, 2013. DOE has incorporated these 

new statutory mandates into its rulemaking process 

for covered ASHRAE 90.1 equipment. 

4This industry standard is developed with input 

from a number of organizations—most prominently 

ASHRAE, the American National Standards 

Institute (ANSI), and the Illuminating Engineering 

Society (IES). Therefore, this document may 

sometimes be referred to more formally as ANSI/

ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2013. See 

www.ashrae.org for more information. 

5EPCA contains what is commonly known as an 

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

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

Secretary not prescribe any amended standard that 

either increases the maximum allowable energy use 

or decreases the minimum required energy 

efficiency of covered equipment. The AEMTCA 

amendments to EPCA added this requirement to 

Part A–1 directly at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I). 

6 In deciding whether a more stringent standard 

is economically justified, DOE must review 

comments on the proposed standard, and then 

determine whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens by considering the following 

seven factors to the greatest extent practicable: 

(1) The economic impact on manufacturers and 

consumers subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the 

estimated average life of the product in the type (or 

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

charges, or maintenance expenses of the products 

likely to result from the standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of energy savings 

likely to result directly from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of product utility or 

performance likely to result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the Attorney General, 

likely to result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy conservation; 

and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant. 

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

The AEMTCA amendments to EPCA added this 

requirement to Part A–1 directly at 42 U.S.C. 

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

7The Secretary may not prescribe an amended 

standard if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of evidence that the amended 

standard would likely result in unavailability in the 

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

performance characteristics, such as reliability, 

features, capacities, sizes, and volumes that are 

substantially similar to those generally available in 

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

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

amendments to EPCA added this requirement to 

Part A–1 directly at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II). 

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 as a national standard 

would produce significant additional 

energy savings and be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. (42 

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

to adopt as a national standard the 

minimum efficiency levels specified in 

the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

DOE must establish such standard not 

later than 18 months after publication of 

the amended industry standard. (42 

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

DOE determines that a more-stringent 

standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 

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

establish such more-stringent standard 

not later than 30 months after 

publication of the amended ASHRAE 

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

As a preliminary step in the process 

of reviewing the changes to ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to 

publish in the Federal Register for 

public comment an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards within 180 

days after ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended with respect to any of the 

covered products specified under 42 

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

On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE 

officially released for distribution and 

made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013.4 This action by ASHRAE triggered 

DOE’s obligations under 42 U.S.C. 

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

notice of data availability (NODA) 

presents the analysis of the energy 

savings potential of amended energy 

efficiency standards, as required under 

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

B. Purpose of the Notice of Data 

Availability 

As explained previously, DOE is 

publishing today’s NODA as a 

preliminary step pursuant to EPCA’s 

requirements for DOE to consider 

amended energy conservation standards 

for certain types of commercial 

equipment covered by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, whenever ASHRAE 

amends its standard to increase the 

energy efficiency level for that 

equipment type. Specifically, this 

NODA presents for public comment 

DOE’s analysis of the potential energy 

savings for amended national energy 

conservation standards for these types 

of commercial equipment based on: (1) 

The amended efficiency levels 

contained within ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013, and (2) more-stringent 

efficiency levels. DOE describes these 

analyses and preliminary conclusions 

and seeks input from interested parties, 

including the submission of data and 

other relevant information. 

DOE is not required by EPCA to 

review additional changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 for those equipment 

types where ASHRAE did not increase 

the efficiency level or change the design 

requirements compared to the existing 

Federal energy conservation standards. 

For those types of equipment for which 

efficiency levels or design requirements 

clearly did not change, DOE has 

conducted no further analysis. 

Therefore, DOE carefully examined the 

changes for such equipment in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 in order to thoroughly 

evaluate the amendments in ASHRAE 

90.1–2013, thereby permitting DOE to 

determine what action, if any, is 

required under its statutory mandate. 

Section II of this notice contains a 

discussion of DOE’s evaluation of each 

ASHRAE equipment type for which 

energy conservation standards have 

been set pursuant to EPCA (‘‘covered 

equipment’’), in order for DOE to 

determine whether the amendments in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 have 

resulted in increased efficiency levels or 

changes in design requirements. For 

covered equipment types determined to 

have increased efficiency levels or 

changes in design requirements in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013, DOE 

subjected that equipment to further 

analysis as discussed in section III of 

this NODA. 

In summary, the energy savings 

analysis presented in this NODA is a 

preliminary step required under 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i). After review of 

the public comments on this NODA, if 

DOE determines that the amended 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 have the potential for 

additional energy savings for types of 

equipment currently covered by 

uniform national standards, DOE will 

commence a rulemaking to consider 

amended standards, based upon either 

the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 or more-stringent 

efficiency levels that would be expected 

to result in significant additional 

conservation of energy and are 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. In conducting 

such rulemaking, DOE will address the 

general rulemaking requirements for all 

energy conservation standards, such as 

the anti-backsliding provision 5 (42 

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

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

for making a determination that a 

standard is economically justified 6 (42 

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

6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)), and the prohibition on 

making unavailable existing products 

with performance characteristics 

generally available in the United 

States.7 (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 

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

6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)). 

C. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

As noted previously, ASHRAE 

released a new version of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 on October 9, 2013. The 

ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency 

levels for many types of commercial 

heating, ventilating, air-conditioning 

(HVAC), and water-heating equipment 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20117 

covered by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 revised the efficiency levels 

for certain commercial equipment, but 

for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE 

left in place the preexisting levels (i.e. 

the efficiency levels specified in EPCA 

or the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010). ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 did not change any 

of the design requirements for the 

commercial (HVAC) and water-heating 

equipment covered by EPCA. 

Table I.1 shows the equipment classes 

(and corresponding efficiency levels) for 

which efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 (for metrics 

included in Federal energy conservation 

standards) differed from the previous 

version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). Table I.1 

also displays the existing Federal energy 

conservation standards for those 

equipment classes. Section II of this 

document assesses each of these 

equipment types to determine whether 

the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 constitute increased energy 

efficiency levels, which would 

necessitate further analysis of the 

potential energy savings from amended 

Federal energy conservation standards; 

the conclusions of this assessment are 

presented in the final column of Table 

I.1. 

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

90.1–2013 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT * 

ASHRAE equipment class ** 

Energy 

efficiency 

levels in 

ASHRAE 

standard 90.1–2010 

Energy 

efficiency 

levels in 

ASHRAE 

standard 90.1–2013 

Federal 

energy 

conservation 

standards 

Energy-Savings 

potential analysis 

required? 

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

Air-Cooled Air Conditioner, 3-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.13.0 SEER .......................... 14.0 SEER ..........................

(as of 1/1/2015) 

13.0 SEER .......................... Yes. 

See section II.A.1. 

Air-Cooled Heat Pump, 3-Phase, SinglePackage, <65,000 Btu/h.13.0 SEER ..........................

7.7 HSPF 

14.0 SEER ..........................

8.0 HSPF 

(as of 1/1/2015) 

13.0 SEER ..........................

7.7 HSPF 

Yes. 

See section II.A.1. 

Air-Cooled Heat Pump, 3-Phase, Split System, <65,000 Btu/h.13.0 SEER ..........................

7.7 HSPF 

14.0 SEER ..........................

8.2 HSPF 

(as of 1/1/2015) 

13.0 SEER ..........................

7.7 HSPF 

Yes. 

See section II.A.1. 

Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Water Source 

Water-Source Heat Pump, <17,000 Btu/h ...... 11.2 EER .............................

4.2 COP 

12.2 EER .............................

4.3 COPH *** 

11.2 EER .............................

4.2 COP 

Yes. 

See section II.A.2. 

Water-Source Heat Pump, ≥17,000 and 

<65,000 Btu/h.

12.0 EER .............................

4.2 COP 

13.0 EER .............................

4.3 COPH *** 

12.0 EER .............................

4.2 COP 

Yes. 

See section II.A.2. 

Water-Source Heat Pump, ≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

12.0 EER .............................

4.2 COP 

13.0 EER .............................

4.3 COPH *** 

12.0 EER .............................

4.2 COP 

Yes. 

See section II.A.2. 

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

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, <7,000 

Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction) †.

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

(as of 10/8/12) 

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

(as of 1/1/2015) 

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

See section II.A.3. 

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, ≥7,000 

and ≤15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New 

Construction) †.

EER = 13.8 ¥ (0.300 × 

Cap ††).

(as of 10/8/12) 

EER = 14.0 ¥ (0.300 × 

Cap ††).

(as of 1/1/2015) 

EER = 13.8 ¥ (0.300 × 

Cap ††).

Yes. 

See section II.A.3. 

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, >15,000 

Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction) †.

EER = 9.3 ...........................

(as of 10/8/12) 

EER = 9.5 ...........................

(as of 1/1/2015) 

EER = 9.3 ........................... Yes. 

.See section II.A.3. 

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

Through-the-Wall (TTW), Air-Cooled Heat 

Pumps, ≤30,000 Btu/h.

13.0 SEER ..........................

7.4 HSPF 

12.0 SEER ..........................

7.4 HSPF 

13.0 SEER ..........................

7.7 HSPF 

No. 

See section II.A.4. 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air-Cooled (SDHV) 

Air Conditioners, <65,000 Btu/h.

10.0 SEER .......................... 11.0 SEER .......................... 13.0 SEER .......................... No. 

See section II.A.4. 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air-Cooled Heat 

Pumps, <65,000 Btu/h.

10.0 SEER ..........................

HSPF not listed †††

11.0 SEER ..........................

6.8 HSPF 

13.0 SEER ..........................

7.7 HSPF 

No. 

See section II.A.4. 

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

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

9.0 EER ............................... 10.0 EER ............................. 9.0 EER ............................... Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h.

8.9 EER ............................... 10.0 EER ............................. 8.9 EER ............................... Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

8.6 EER ............................... 10.0 EER ............................. 8.6 EER ............................... Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

9.0 EER ...............................

3.0 COP 

10.0 EER .............................

3.0 COPH *** 

9.0 EER ...............................

3.0 COP 

Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps, 

≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h.

8.9 EER ...............................

3.0 COP 

10.0 EER .............................

3.0 COPH *** 

8.9 EER ...............................

3.0 COP 

Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps, 

≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

8.6 EER ...............................

2.9 COP 

10.0 EER .............................

3.0 COPH *** 

8.6 EER ...............................

2.9 COP 

Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

Nonweatherized Space Constrained, 

≤30,000 Btu/h.

N/A ...................................... 9.2 EER ............................... N/A‡ .................................... No. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

Nonweatherized Space Constrained, 

>30,000 and ≤36,000 Btu/h.

N/A ...................................... 9.0 EER ............................... N/A‡ .................................... No. 

See section II.A.5. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20118 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

8ASHRAE 90.1–2013 also decreased the IEER 

levels for small, large, and very large air-cooled 

variable refrigerant flow equipment; however, on 

December 9, 2013, ASHRAE issued errata indicating 

that this was an error for air conditioners. See: 

https://www.ashrae.org/File%20Library/docLib/

StdsErrata/90-1-2013-IP_ErrataSheet_12-9- 

2013.pdf. DOE believes this was also an editorial 

error for heat pumps. 

9 In the case where there is no equipment on the 

market or insufficient data for analysis, DOE would 

adopt the ASHRAE level, as required by the statute, 

without further analysis. 

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

90.1–2013 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued 

ASHRAE equipment class ** 

Energy 

efficiency 

levels in 

ASHRAE 

standard 90.1–2010 

Energy 

efficiency 

levels in 

ASHRAE 

standard 90.1–2013 

Federal 

energy 

conservation 

standards 

Energy-Savings 

potential analysis 

required? 

Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps Nonweatherized Space Constrained, ≤30,000 

Btu/h.

N/A ...................................... 9.2 EER ...............................

3.0 COPH

N/A‡ .................................... No. 

See section II.A.5. 

Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps Nonweatherized Space Constrained, >30,000 

and ≤36,000 Btu/h.

N/A ...................................... 9.0 EER ...............................

3.0 COPH

N/A‡ .................................... No. 

See section II.A.5. 

Commercial Water Heaters 

Electric Storage Water Heaters, >12 kW, ≥20 

gal.

20 + 35 V1/2 SL ‡‡, Btu/h .... 0.3 + 27/Vm ‡‡‡ %/h ............. 0.3 + 27/Vm ‡‡‡ %/h ............. No. 

See Section II.B. 

Gas Storage Water Heaters, >75,000 Btu/h, 

<4,000 Btu/h/gal.

80% Et; Q/800 + 110 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h.

80% Et; Q/799 + 16.6 V1/2

SL◊, Btu/h ◊◊.

80% Et; Q/800 + 110 Vr 1/2

Btu/hr.

No. 

See section II.A.5. 

Oil Storage Water Heaters, >105,000 Btu/h, 

<4,000 Btu/h/gal.

78% Et; Q/800 + 110 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h.

80% Et; Q/799 + 16.6 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h ◊◊.

78% Et; Q/800 + 110 Vr 1/2

Btu/hr.

Yes. 

See section II.A.5. 

Gas Instantaneous Water Heaters, ≥200,000 

Btu/h, ≥4,000 Btu/h/gal, ≥10 gal.

80% Et, Q/800 + 110 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h.

80% Et, Q/799 + 16.6 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h ◊◊.

80% Et, Q/800 + 110 Vr 1/2

Btu/hr.

No. 

See section II.A.5. 

Oil Instantaneous Water Heaters, >210,000 

Btu/h, ≥4,000 Btu/h/gal, ≥10 gal.

78% Et, Q/800 + 110 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h.

78% Et, Q/799 + 16.6 V1/2

SL ◊, Btu/h ◊◊.

78% Et, Q/800 + 110 Vr

1/2

Btu/hr.

No. 

See section II.A.5. 

* ‘‘Et’’ means thermal efficiency; ‘‘EER’’ means energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘SEER’’ means seasonal energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘HSPF’’ means heating seasonal performance factor; ‘‘COP’’ and ‘‘COPH’’ mean coefficient of performance; and ‘‘Btu/h’’ or ‘‘Btu/hr’’ means British thermal units per hour. 

** ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 equipment classes may differ from the equipment classes defined in DOE’s regulations, but no loss of coverage will occur (i.e., all 

previously covered DOE equipment classes remained covered equipment). 

*** While ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 added a subscript H to COP for all heat pumps, its definition for ‘‘coefficient of performance (COP), heat pump—heating’’ 

has not changed. As a result, DOE believes the subscript to be a clarifying change of nomenclature (to differentiate from the COP metric used for refrigeration) only, 

rather than a change to the metric itself. † ‘‘Standard size’’ refers to PTAC equipment with wall sleeve dimensions ≥16 inches high or ≥42 inches wide. For DOE’s purposes, this equipment class applies to 

standard-size equipment regardless of application (e.g., new construction or replacement). †† ‘‘Cap’’ means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95°F outdoor dry-bulb temperature. †††This may have been an editorial error in ASHRAE 90.1–2010. ‡While ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 added this equipment class, DOE believes that equipment falling into these classes is already covered by Federal standards, 

most commonly in the residential space-constrained central air conditioning equipment class with minimum standards of 12.0 SEER for air conditioners and heat 

pumps and 7.4 HSPF for heat pumps. See section II.A.5.1 of this NODA. ‡‡ ‘‘V’’ means rated volume in gallons; ‘‘SL’’ means standby loss. ‡‡‡ ‘‘Vm’’ means measured volume in tank. 

◊ ‘‘Q’’ means the nameplate input rate in Btu/hr; ‘‘V’’ means rated volume in gallons; ‘‘SL’’ means standby loss. DOE’s descriptor, ‘‘Vr,’’ also means rated volume in 

gallons and differs only in nomenclature. 

◊◊As explained in section II.A of this NODA, DOE believes this level was a mistake; the formula for SI units was included instead of that for IP units. 

DOE notes that ASHRAE 90.1–2013 

also increased integrated energy 

efficiency ratio (IEER) levels for 

additional equipment not listed in Table 

I.1, including small, large, and very 

large air-cooled and water-cooled air 

conditioners and heat pumps.8

However, because Federal energy 

conservation standards for this 

equipment do not use IEER as a rating 

metric, DOE is not triggered to review 

this equipment. In February 2013, DOE 

published a request for information 

(RFI) and notice of document 

availability for commercial air-cooled 

equipment. 78 FR 7296 (Feb. 1, 2013). 

In the RFI, DOE sought information on 

the merits of adopting IEER as the 

energy efficiency descriptor for small, 

large, and very large air-cooled 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. Should DOE adopt new 

standards using IEER as the metric, 

future increases in IEER levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 as 

compared to the Federal energy 

conservation standards would trigger 

DOE to review its efficiency levels for 

that equipment? 

D. Summary of DOE’s Preliminary 

Assessment of Equipment for Energy 

Savings Analysis 

DOE has reached a preliminary 

conclusion for each of the classes of 

commercial equipment in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 addressed in 

today’s NODA. For each class of 

commercial equipment addressed in 

this NODA, section II presents DOE’s 

initial determination as to whether 

ASHRAE increased the efficiency level 

for a given type of equipment (based on 

a rating metric used in the relevant 

Federal energy conservation standards), 

a change that would require an energysavings potential analysis. As DOE is 

not required by EPCA to review 

additional changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 for those equipment 

types where ASHRAE did not increase 

the efficiency level or change the design 

requirements, DOE has conducted no 

further analysis for those types of 

equipment where efficiency levels 

clearly did not change. Additionally, for 

equipment where ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 has increased the level in 

comparison to the previous version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but the level 

does not exceed the current Federal 

standard level, DOE does not have the 

authority to conduct a rulemaking to 

consider a higher standard for that 

equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A) and did not perform a 

potential energy-savings analysis. For 

those equipment classes where 

ASHRAE increased the efficiency level 

(in comparison to the Federal standard), 

DOE performed an analysis of the 

energy-savings potential, unless DOE 

found no equipment in the market in 

that equipment class (in which case 

there is no potential for energy 

savings).9

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20119 

10ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 did not change 

any of the design requirements for the commercial 

(HVAC) and water-heating equipment covered by 

EPCA, so this potential category of change is not 

discussed in this section. 

Based upon DOE’s analysis, as 

discussed in section II, DOE has 

determined that ASHRAE increased the 

efficiency level for the following 

equipment categories: 

• Small Three-Phase Commercial AirCooled Air Conditioners (Single Package 

Only) and Heat Pumps (Single Package 

and Split System) <65,000 Btu/h; 

• Water Source Heat Pumps; 

• Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners (Standard Size); 

• Single Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps; and 

• Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters. 

For most of those equipment classes, 

DOE found that equipment is available 

on the market and adequate information 

exists to reasonably estimate potential 

energy savings, and DOE performed an 

analysis of the energy-savings potential, 

which is described in section III. 

However, when DOE did not find 

equipment available on the market 

(such as for SPVACs and SPVHPs with 

capacities above 135,000 Btu/h), DOE 

did not perform a potential energy 

savings analysis. 

II. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 

Before beginning an analysis of the 

potential energy savings that would 

result from adopting the efficiency 

levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 or more-stringent efficiency 

levels, DOE first determined whether or 

not the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

efficiency levels actually represented an 

increase in efficiency above the current 

Federal standard levels or whether 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 adopted 

new design requirements, thereby 

triggering DOE action. This section 

contains a discussion of each equipment 

class where the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 efficiency level differs from 

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 level 

(based on a rating metric used in the 

relevant Federal energy conservation 

standards),10 along with DOE’s 

preliminary conclusion regarding the 

appropriate action to take with respect 

to that equipment. In addition, this 

section contains a discussion of DOE’s 

determination with regard to newly 

created equipment classes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 (i.e., 

nonweatherized, space-constrained 

SPVAC and SPVHP). Finally, this 

section provides a brief discussion of 

the test procedure updates contained in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. 

A. Commercial Package AirConditioning and Heating Equipment 

EPCA, as amended, defines 

‘‘commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ as air-cooled, 

evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled, or 

water source (not including ground 

water source) electrically operated, 

unitary central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps for 

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

10 CFR 431.92) EPCA also defines 

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

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment based on the 

equipment’s rated cooling capacity. (42 

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

‘‘Small commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated below 135,000 

Btu per hour (cooling capacity). (42 

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

‘‘Large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated (i) at or above 

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

240,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). 

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

‘‘Very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

means equipment rated (i) at or above 

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

760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity). 

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

1. Air-Cooled Equipment 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the three 

classes of air-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners and heat 

pumps for which ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 amended efficiency levels are 

shown in Table I.1 and can be found in 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. The 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for air-cooled air conditioners and heat 

pumps are differentiated based on the 

cooling capacity (i.e., small, large, or 

very large). For small equipment, there 

is an additional disaggregation into: (1) 

Equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h and 

(2) equipment greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/ 

h. Three-phase equipment less than 

65,000 Btu/h, although commercial 

equipment, is rated with the same 

metric as residential single-phase 

equipment (i.e., SEER). Unlike the 

current Federal energy conservation 

standards, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 also 

differentiates the equipment that is less 

than 65,000 Btu/h into split system and 

single package subcategories. 

Historically, ASHRAE has set equivalent 

efficiency levels for this equipment; 

however, effective January 1, 2015, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 increases 

the efficiency level for single package 

air conditioners but not split system air 

conditioners. The increased efficiency 

level for single package air conditioners 

surpasses the current Federal energy 

conservation standard level for the 

overall equipment class, while the 

efficiency level for split system air 

conditioners meets and does not exceed 

the Federal energy conservation 

standard for the overall equipment 

class. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 also 

increases the efficiency levels, effective 

January 1, 2015, for both single package 

and split system air-cooled heat pumps, 

for SEER and HSPF, to efficiency levels 

that surpass the current Federal energy 

conservation standard levels. ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 increases the HSPF 

level for split systems above that for 

single package heat pumps. 

In the past, DOE has separated the 

equipment classes for three-phase air 

conditioners and heat pumps less than 

65,000 Btu/h into single package and 

split system classes, for a total of four 

classes. However, when EISA 2007 

increased the efficiency levels to 

identical levels across single package 

and split system equipment, effective in 

2008, DOE combined the equipment 

classes in the Code of Federal 

Regulations (CFR), resulting in only two 

equipment classes, one for air 

conditioners and one for heat pumps. 

Because ASHRAE has increased the 

standard for only single package air 

conditioners, and has increased the 

HSPF level to a more-stringent level for 

split system heat pumps than for single 

package heat pumps, and DOE is 

obligated to adopt, at a minimum, the 

increased level in ASHRAE 90.1–2013 

for that equipment class, DOE proposes 

to re-create separate equipment classes 

for single package and split system 

equipment in the overall equipment 

classes of small commercial package air 

conditioners and heat pumps (aircooled, three-phase) less than 65,000 

Btu/h. DOE requests comment on 

whether it should re-create these 

separate equipment classes, which is 

identified as Issue 1 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

DOE conducted an analysis of the 

potential energy savings due to 

amended standards for single package 

air conditioners and single package and 

split system heat pumps (air-cooled, 

three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h), 

which is described in section III of this 

NODA. DOE did not conduct an 

analysis of the potential energy savings 

for split system air conditioners. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20120 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

11 2012 ASHRAE Handbook, Heating, Ventilating, 

and Air-Conditioning Systems and Equipment. 

ASHRAE, Atlanta, GA. Chapter 9 (Available at: 

https://www.ashrae.org/resources-publications/

description-of-the-2012-ashrae-handbook-hvacsystems-and-equipment). 

2. Water-Source Equipment 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the three 

classes of commercial water source heat 

pumps for which ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 amended efficiency levels are 

shown in Table I.1 and can be found in 

DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. The 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for water source equipment are 

differentiated based on the cooling 

capacity. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

increased the energy efficiency levels 

for all three equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standard 

levels. Therefore, DOE conducted an 

analysis of the potential energy savings 

due to amended standards for this 

equipment, which is described in 

section III of this NODA. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 also 

changed the name of this equipment 

class from ‘‘water source’’ to ‘‘water to 

air, water loop.’’ DOE believes this to be 

an editorial change only and that this 

new nomenclature refers to the same 

water source heat pump equipment 

covered by Federal energy conservation 

standards. ASHRAE also changed the 

descriptor for this equipment from COP 

to COPH. DOE believes this is also an 

editorial change to clarify the difference 

between COP for refrigeration and COP 

for heat pumps. DOE requests comment 

on whether these changes are other than 

editorial, which is identified as Issue 2 

in section IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

EPCA does not define ‘‘water source 

heat pump’’ other than to exclude 

ground-water-source units from the 

definition of ‘‘commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment.’’ 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)) However, DOE 

notes that there are several related types 

of water-source and ground-watersource heat pumps, as shown in Table 

II.1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

included new nomenclature for all such 

types of heat pumps. DOE further notes 

that the vast majority of water-source 

(water-to-air, water-loop) heat pump 

models are also rated for performance in 

ground-loop or ground-water heat pump 

applications. It is DOE’s understanding 

that design differences of the models 

used in the different applications are 

minimal, including potentially more 

corrosion-resistant metal in the water 

coil (for open-loop systems only) and/or 

added insulation for ground-water or 

ground-loop systems. Efficiency ratings 

are different across these three 

application types primarily because of 

the different test conditions (ground and 

ground-water-source are tested with 

cooler entering water). Because of the 

similarity in models across application, 

DOE believes that increased efficiency 

standards for water-loop applications 

may affect heat pumps for groundsource and ground-water applications, 

although they are excluded from 

coverage. DOE is not aware of any 

differences between water-source heat 

pumps for residential and commercial 

applications. 

TABLE II.1—NOMENCLATURE FOR TYPES OF WATER-LOOP, GROUND-LOOP, AND GROUND-WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 Test procedure 

Water-source (86° entering water) ...................................................... Water-to-air, water-loop ................................ ISO Standard 13256–1. 

Ground-water-source 59° entering water ............................................ Water-to-air, ground-water.

Ground-water source 77° entering water ............................................ Brine-to-air, ground-loop.

Water-source water-to-water 86° entering water ................................ Water-to-water, water-loop ........................... ISO Standard 13256–2. 

Water-source water-to-water 59° entering water ................................ Water-to-water, ground-water.

Ground-water-source brine-to-water 77° entering water .................... Brine-to-water, ground-loop.

As noted above, DOE views these 

changes in nomenclature as 

nonsubstantive in terms of the 

associated standard levels. 

Consequently, DOE is maintaining its 

current requirements for these 

equipment classes. 

However, DOE is considering adding 

a definition for ‘‘water-source heat 

pump’’ to the CFR that would include 

both single-phase and three-phase units 

of all capacities (up to 760,000 Btu/h) 

and would be applicable to water-to-air 

heat pumps. DOE is considering 

adapting the definition from that in the 

ASHRAE handbook: 11 ‘‘A water-source 

heat pump is a [single-phase or threephase] reverse-cycle heat pump that 

uses [a circulating water loop] as the 

heat source for heating and as the heat 

sink for cooling. The main components 

are a compressor, refrigerant-to-water 

heat exchanger, refrigerant-to-air heat 

exchanger, refrigerant expansion 

devices, and refrigerant reversing 

valve.’’ DOE requests comment on this 

definition, which is identified as Issue 

3 in section IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

3. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal 

air conditioner’’ as ‘‘a wall sleeve and a 

separate unencased combination of 

heating and cooling assemblies 

specified by the builder and intended 

for mounting through the wall. It 

includes a prime source of refrigeration, 

separable outdoor louvers, forced 

ventilation, and heating availability by 

builder’s choice of hot water, steam, or 

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

CFR 431.92) 

In February 2013, DOE published a 

notice of public meeting and availability 

of the Framework Document regarding 

energy conservation standards for 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

heat pumps standards. 78 FR 12252 

(Feb. 22, 2013). This framework was 

published as a first step toward meeting 

the six-year look back requirement 

specified in EISA 2007. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) As part of the six-year 

look back, DOE expects to issue a notice 

of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for 

PTAC and PTHP equipment that will 

include equipment classes for which 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 increased 

efficiency levels (i.e., standard-size 

PTACs), as well as those for which it 

did not. The PTACs/PTHPs NOPR will 

be issued along a timeline that meets the 

six-year look back requirements (for 

those equipment classes where DOE was 

not triggered), as well as either the 18 

or 30 month timeline noted previously 

(for those equipment classes where DOE 

was triggered). 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the three 

classes of PTACs for which ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 amended efficiency 

levels are shown in Table I.1 and are 

found in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.97. The Federal energy conservation 

standards for PTACs are differentiated 

based on the cooling capacity and 

physical dimensions (standard versus 

nonstandard size). ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 increased the energy 

efficiency levels for all three standardsize PTAC equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that meet those for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20121 

12 In the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, 

Congress renumbered several statutory definitions 

to accommodate new definitions. Consequently, the 

definition for ‘‘harvest rate’’ was moved from 42 

U.S.C. 6311(21) to 42 U.S.C. 6311(22). However, in 

a separate provision, EISA 2007 provided for a 

definition of ‘‘single package vertical air 

conditioner’’ at 42 U.S.C. 6311(22). Similarly, EISA 

2007 added a definition for ‘‘single package vertical 

heat pump’’ at 42 U.S.C. 6311(23), which given the 

other definitions present, probably should have 

been codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311(24). DOE has 

implemented these statutory provisions as if the 

drafting error had not occurred. 

PTHPs and surpass the current Federal 

energy conservation standard levels for 

PTACs. Therefore, DOE conducted an 

analysis of the potential energy savings 

due to amended standards for standardsize PTACs, which is described in 

section III of this NODA. 

4. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and 

Through-The-Wall Equipment 

EPCA does not separate small-duct 

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

types of small commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment in 

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

Therefore, EPCA’s definition of ‘‘small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ would include 

SDHV and TTW heat pumps. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

appeared to change some of the 

efficiency levels for these classes of 

equipment. Specifically, ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 had increased the 

cooling efficiency requirements for TTW 

heat pumps to 13.0 SEER in comparison 

to the efficiency levels of 12.0 SEER in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2007. However, 

in March 2011, ASHRAE issued 

Proposed Addendum h for public 

review that would correct the minimum 

SEER for this equipment to 12.0 SEER, 

and this addendum was approved and 

incorporated into ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013. Therefore, this change in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 was 

correcting an editorial error in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. 

For SDHV air conditioners and heat 

pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

increases the cooling efficiency 

requirement from 10.0 SEER to 11.0 

SEER. It also includes a heating 

efficiency requirement for SDHV heat 

pumps of 6.8 HSPF, which was present 

in ASHRAE 90.1–2007 but not ASHRAE 

90.1–2010 (which DOE also thought to 

be an editorial error). These changes 

were made through Addendum bj to 

ASHRAE 90.1–2010, which noted that 

the previously adopted Addendum j to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 had 

deleted the SDHV equipment class 

entirely because all SDHV models sold 

were single-phase residential products, 

but that Addendum bj was reestablishing the equipment class 

because manufacturers had expressed 

an intention to introduce three-phase 

equipment to the market. In addition, 

Addendum bj noted that it contained 

minimum efficiency levels identical to 

those established by DOE for singlephase residential SDHV products. 

The DOE standards for both 

commercial TTW and SDHV air 

conditioners, which are 13.0 SEER, and 

for heat pumps, which are 13.0 SEER 

and 7.7 HSPF, were established for the 

overall equipment category of small 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment by EISA 2007, 

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

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

Standard 90.1–2013 efficiency levels for 

TTW and SDHV equipment are less than 

those in the DOE standards, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that it is not 

required to take action on this 

equipment at this time. 

5. Single-Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Single-Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps 

EPCA, as amended, defines ‘‘single 

package vertical air conditioner’’ as aircooled commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

that: 

(1) is factory-assembled as a single 

package that: 

(i) has major components that are 

arranged vertically; 

(ii) is an encased combination of 

cooling and optional heating 

components; and 

(iii) is intended for exterior mounting 

on, adjacent interior to, or through an 

outside wall; 

(2) is powered by a single- or 3-phase 

current; 

(3) may contain one or more separate 

indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various 

ventilation options, indoor free air 

discharges, ductwork, wall plenum, or 

sleeves; and 

(4) has heating components that may 

include electrical resistance, steam, hot 

water, or gas, but may not include 

reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating 

means. (42 U.S.C. 6311(22);12 10 CFR 

431.92) 

EPCA, as amended, defines ‘‘single 

package vertical heat pump’’ as a singlepackage vertical air conditioner that 

(1) uses reverse cycle refrigeration as 

its primary heat source; and 

(2) may include secondary 

supplemental heating by means of 

electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or 

gas. (42 U.S.C. 6311(23); 10 CFR 431.92) 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the six 

classes of SPVUs for which ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 amended efficiency 

levels are shown in Table I.1 and can be 

found in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.97. The product classes for SPVACs 

and SPVHPs, as well as their attendant 

Federal energy conservation standards, 

are differentiated based on cooling 

capacity. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

increased the energy efficiency levels 

for all six equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standard 

levels. Therefore, DOE conducted an 

analysis of the potential energy savings 

due to amended standards for this 

equipment, which is described in 

section III of this NODA. 

DOE reviewed the SPVU market and 

identified several models of SPVUs in 

the 65,000 Btu/h or less equipment 

class. However, DOE did not identify 

any models of SPVUs in the large 

category ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h or any models of SPVHPs in the 

category ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 

Btu/h. As a result of the apparent lack 

of a market for large SPVUs and for 

SPVHPs ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 

Btu/h, DOE conducted complete 

preliminary energy saving estimates 

only for the equipment classes SPVAC 

and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h and SPVACs 

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

the equipment classes with no market, 

DOE would adopt the ASHRAE levels as 

the Federal standard, as required by the 

statute, without further analysis. 

6. Consideration of a Space-Constrained 

Single-Package Vertical Unit Equipment 

Class 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 created 

a new equipment class for SPVACs and 

SPVHPs used in space-constrained 

applications. Specifically, ASHRAE 

defined ‘‘nonweatherized space 

constrained single-package vertical 

unit’’ as a SPVAC or SPVHP that meets 

all of the following requirements: 

(1) is for indoor use only; 

(2) has rated cooling capacities no 

greater than 36,000 Btu/h; 

(3) is a single-package unit requiring 

opening in an exterior wall with overall 

exterior dimensions that require or use 

an existing sleeve that meets one of the 

following criteria: 

1. width of less than 32 inches and a 

height of less than 45 inches 

2. fits inside an existing 1,310 in2

opening; 

(4) is commonly installed in site-built 

commercial buildings; 

(5) is of a similar cooling capacity 

and, if a heat pump, similar heating 

capacity; 

(6) draws outdoor air for heat 

exchange directly through an existing 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20122 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

13AHRI Directory of Certified Product 

Performance can be accessed at: http:// 

www.ahridirectory.org/ahridirectory/pages/ 

home.aspx. 

14 DOE defined a product class for spaceconstrained central air conditioners, a consumer 

product type, in a January 22, 2001 final rule, 

which DOE stated would include through-the-wall 

products among several other types of spaceconstrained products. However, DOE did not set 

minimum standards for the space-constrained 

product class. 66 FR 7170, 7197. In a May 23, 2002 

final rule, DOE established a separate product class 

with minimum standards for through-the-wall 

products. 67 FR 36368, 36406. Upon establishing 

that product class, DOE also provided in its 

definition of ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioner’’ that 

the class would cease to exist on January 23, 2010. 

Id. In a June 27, 2011 direct final rule, DOE stated 

that products in the through-the-wall product class 

of central air conditioners would meet the 

definition of a ‘‘space constrained central air 

conditioner.’’ 76 FR 37408, 37446. The American 

Energy Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act 

(AEMTCA), Pub. L. 112–210 (enacted Dec. 18, 

2012), prescribed definitions for ‘‘through-the-wall 

central air conditioner’’ and ‘‘through-the-wall 

central air conditioning heat pump.’’ 42 U.S.C. 

6295(d)(4)(A)(ii). In a proposed rule published on 

December 20, 2013 78FR77019, DOE proposed to 

eliminate the previous definition for through-thewall products and adopted these statutory 

definitions. DOE noted that such products must be 

assigned to a product class based on the product’s 

characteristics and suggested that most would be 

assigned to one of the space-constrained product 

classes. 

opening, used for both inlet and outlet, 

in the exterior wall; 

(7) is restricted to applications where 

an existing air conditioner, heat pump, 

or gas/electric unit, installed in an 

existing exterior wall opening, is to be 

replaced; and 

(8) bears a permanent ‘‘Replacement’’ 

marking, conspicuously placed and 

clearly indicating that its application is 

limited to installations where an 

existing air conditioner or heat pump is 

to be replaced. 

DOE has carefully considered the 

possibility of establishing an equipment 

class for space-constrained SPVUs. After 

reviewing the SPVU market, DOE 

identified two distinct market segments: 

(1) Traditional SPVUs, which are 

typically wall hung or installed indoors 

and intended for use in schools, 

telecommunications shelters, office 

buildings, and similar applications; and 

(2) through-the-wall units that are being 

classified as SPVUs and are designed to 

be installed through-the-wall in hotels, 

apartments, dormitories, assisted living 

facilities, and other similar applications 

(i.e., ‘‘lodging’’ applications). Many of 

the units that are intended primarily for 

use in lodging applications would meet 

the definition of a space-constrained 

SPVU in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013, 

while conversely, none of the models 

that were intended primarily to serve 

traditional SPVU applications meet the 

criteria. 

In examining the models that would 

meet the definition of a ‘‘space 

constrained SPVU’’ under ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013, DOE discovered 

that certain models that are currently 

classified by manufacturers and in the 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and 

Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) 

Directory 13 as being an SPVU do not 

have major components arranged 

vertically, which is a key provision in 

the SPVAC and SPVHP definitions 

provided by EPCA (and discussed 

earlier in this section). For the purposes 

of determining the applicability of DOE 

energy conservation standards, the 

product classification is based on the 

applicable product and equipment 

definitions in EPCA and DOE’s 

regulations. DOE does not consider 

models without the major components 

arranged vertically to be SPVUs. 

Depending on the product 

characteristics (e.g., electrical power 

phase, capacity), these models should 

be classified, tested, and certified to 

DOE as compliant with the applicable 

standards for either central air 

conditioners or one of the other 

equipment types provided by DOE 

regulations. Accordingly, DOE did not 

consider these models in its analyses of 

SPVUs and did not evaluate them when 

making a determination regarding 

whether to establish a space-constrained 

equipment class within the SPVU 

equipment type. 

Furthermore, while reviewing the 

market to consider a potential spaceconstrained SPVU equipment class, 

DOE also discovered that many models 

characterized by industry as SPVUs, 

particularly those that are primarily 

used for lodging applications (which 

were also the models that met the 

ASHRAE definition for ‘‘spaceconstrained’’), are advertised for use in 

multiple applications including both 

commercial and residential 

applications. Many of the models 

characterized as SPVUs on the market 

are advertised to a significant extent for 

use in residential, multi-family 

applications; however, DOE notes that 

these products are currently classified 

and certified in the AHRI Directory as 

single-package vertical units, a type of 

commercial equipment. Further, DOE 

found that certain models of SPVUs in 

the AHRI Directory that would be 

categorized as ‘‘space-constrained’’ were 

previously classified as through-thewall central air conditioners.14

Upon discovering the dual-market 

applications of these units, DOE 

considered whether the classification of 

these products as SPVUs—a type of 

commercial equipment—is appropriate. 

SPVUs are classified as a type of 

commercial air conditioner under 42 

U.S.C. chapter 77, subchapter III, Part 

A–1, ‘‘Certain Industrial Equipment.’’ 

EPCA defines industrial equipment as 

any article of equipment of certain 

specified types that consumes, or is 

designed to consume, energy, which is 

distributed to any significant extent for 

industrial and commercial use, and 

which is not a covered product as 

defined in 42 U.S.C. 6291(2), without 

regard to whether such article is in fact 

distributed in commerce for industrial 

or commercial use. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(2)(A)) 

EPCA defines ‘‘consumer product’’ as 

any article of a type that consumes or 

is designed to consume energy, and, to 

any significant extent, is distributed in 

commerce for personal use or 

consumption by individuals without 

regard to whether such article of such 

type is in fact distributed in commerce 

for personal use or consumption by an 

individual. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) 

Thus, consumer products and 

industrial equipment are mutually 

exclusive categories. An appliance 

model can only be considered 

commercial/industrial equipment under 

EPCA if it does not fit the definition of 

‘‘consumer product.’’ Further, DOE 

must make a determination as to 

whether a model is a consumer product 

or commercial equipment, ‘‘without 

regard’’ to how the model is ‘‘in fact’’ 

distributed. DOE notes that many of the 

products that are currently classified by 

industry as a commercial SPVU and 

advertised for multi-family residential 

applications would meet EPCA’s 

definitions for ‘‘SPVUs’’ from a 

technical standpoint. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(22) and (23)) However, DOE 

reviewed the characteristics of these 

products and concluded that they 

would also meet the definition of a 

‘‘central air conditioner.’’ (42 U.S.C. 

6291(21)) EPCA defines ‘‘central air 

conditioner’’ as a product, other than a 

packaged terminal air conditioner, 

which: (1) Is powered by single phase 

electric current; (2) is air-cooled; (3) is 

rated below 65,000 Btu per hour; (4) is 

not contained within the same cabinet 

as a furnace with a rated capacity above 

225,000 Btu per hour; and (5) is a heat 

pump or a cooling only unit. (42 U.S.C. 

6291(21); 10 CFR 430.2) DOE has 

concluded that, because these products 

meet the definition of a ‘‘central air 

conditioner,’’ are similar to products 

used in residential applications, and are 

seemingly (based on product literature 

and advertising of known products and 

manufacturers) distributed for personal 

use or consumption by individuals, they 

are appropriately categorized as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20123 

15An air conditioner that cools a single apartment 

and is controlled by the residents of that apartment 

is for personal use, just like an air conditioner 

found in a single-family home, duplex, condo, or 

townhouse. 

16Through-the-wall air conditioners are typically 

not as wide or deep as standard air conditioning 

units and, in the case of units intended for 

replacement, must fit into a pre-existing hole in the 

wall. This size limitation affects the size of both the 

evaporator and condensing heat exchangers. 

Additionally, the airflow through the unit is 

restricted by this size limitation, which reduces the 

heat exchanger’s effectiveness. 

consumer products under the statute.15

Because such units meet the definition 

for a ‘‘consumer product’’ under 42 

U.S.C. 6291(1), they cannot meet the 

definition of commercial ‘‘industrial 

equipment’’ under 42 U.S.C. 6311(2). In 

fact, as noted above, certain products 

that are currently categorized by 

manufacturers as commercial SPVUs 

were at one time categorized as throughthe-wall central air conditioners by their 

manufacturers but have since been 

reclassified as commercial equipment. 

Through-the-wall models for 

commercial lodging applications that 

are not specifically advertised for the 

residential multi-family market (and 

that were not previously categorized as 

through-the-wall residential units) are 

appropriately classified as consumer 

products because they are for personal 

use or consumption by individuals. 

DOE examined the types of models that 

are currently characterized as SPVUs 

and are intended to serve the lodging 

market but have not been reclassified 

from the through-the-wall central air 

conditioner product class. It noted 

similarities in the design, construction, 

and applications for these products as 

compared to the products that were 

classified previously as through-thewall central air conditioners. Given the 

similarities between through-the-wall 

units intended for installation in multifamily residential applications and 

those intended primarily for installation 

in commercial lodging applications, 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

these products should be treated the 

same under its regulatory scheme. 

In examining the through-the-wall 

models on the market that are not 

advertised for residential applications or 

were not reclassified, DOE has 

determined that the available models 

would all meet the definition of a 

‘‘central air conditioner’’ and, more 

specifically, a ‘‘space constrained 

product.’’ 10 CFR 430.2. In the 

proceedings that led to the development 

of the space-constrained central air 

conditioner product class, DOE 

recognized that through-the-wall 

products have severe space constraints 

and, accordingly, established a product 

class with less-stringent energy 

conservation standards for such units.16

67 FR 36368, 36406 (May 23, 2002). 

Because the space-constrained central 

air conditioner product class has 

already been established to account for 

products whose outer dimensions are 

severely limited by their application 

and, given the similarities and overlap 

between models used in commercial 

lodging applications and models used in 

residential multi-family applications, 

DOE believes that any single-package 

vertical units that are ‘‘spaceconstrained’’ are appropriately 

categorized and regulated as central air 

conditioners. 

As a result, DOE has determined that, 

based on the available product 

literature, as well as the governing 

definitions in EPCA, certain units 

currently listed by manufacturers as 

SPVUs are being misclassified and are 

appropriately classified as central air 

conditioners (and in most cases as 

space-constrained central air 

conditioners). The majority of these 

products are models that would meet 

the ‘‘space constrained’’ definition in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. Because 

DOE has established a spaceconstrained product class to account for 

space-constrained through-the-wall 

units and because these units meet the 

existing definitions, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that there is no need to 

establish a separate space-constrained 

class for SPVUs. Therefore, DOE has not 

analyzed separate standards for spaceconstrained SPVU equipment in this 

NODA. DOE requests comment on this 

conclusion, which is identified as Issue 

4 in section IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ In making this 

determination, DOE was also mindful of 

the purposes underlying EPCA and the 

Department’s energy and water 

conservation standards regulations: To 

conserve energy and water supplies and 

to increase energy and cost savings for 

American businesses and consumers. 

Allowing a model of a product type that 

is sold for personal use to evade DOE’s 

energy conservation standards for 

consumer products, simply because it is 

sold in some instances to commercial or 

industrial users, would undermine this 

purpose. 

B. Commercial Water Heaters 

EPCA defines ‘‘storage water heater’’ 

as a water heater that heats and stores 

water within the appliance at a 

thermostatically controlled temperature 

for delivery on demand and that is 

industrial equipment. This term does 

not include units with an input rating 

of 4,000 Btu/h or more per gallon of 

stored water. (42 U.S.C. 6311(12)(A); 10 

CFR 431.102) EPCA defines 

‘‘instantaneous water heater’’ as a water 

heater that has an input rating of at least 

4,000 Btu/h per gallon of stored water 

and that is industrial equipment, 

including products meeting this 

description that are designed to heat 

water to temperatures of 180°F or 

higher. (42 U.S.C. 6311(12)(B); 10 CFR 

431.102) 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the five 

classes of storage and instantaneous 

water heaters for which ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 amended efficiency 

levels are shown in Table I.1 and set 

forth in DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.110. The product classes for 

commercial storage and instantaneous 

water heaters, and attendant Federal 

energy conservation standards, are 

differentiated based on fuel type. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 appeared 

to change the standby loss levels for 

four equipment classes (gas-fired storage 

water heaters, oil-fired storage water 

heaters, gas-fired instantaneous water 

heaters, and oil-fired instantaneous 

water heaters) to efficiency levels that 

surpass the current Federal energy 

conservation standard levels. However, 

upon review of the changes, DOE 

believes that all changes to standby loss 

levels for these equipment classes were 

editorial errors because they are 

identical to SI (International System of 

Units; metric system) formulas rather 

than I–P (Inch-Pound; English system) 

formulas. Therefore, DOE did not 

conduct an analysis of the potential 

energy savings for this equipment. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 also 

changed the standby loss level for 

electric storage water heaters, in this 

case in a purposeful manner to align 

with the current Federal energy 

conservation standard level. Because 

these levels meet and do not exceed the 

current Federal standards, DOE did not 

conduct an analysis of the potential 

energy savings for this equipment class. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 also 

increased the thermal efficiency levels 

for oil-fired storage water heaters to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standards. 

Therefore, DOE conducted an analysis 

of the potential energy savings due to 

amended thermal efficiency standards 

for oil-fired storage water heaters, which 

is described in section III of this NODA. 

C. Test Procedures 

EPCA requires the Secretary to amend 

the test procedures for ASHRAE 

equipment to the latest version 

generally accepted by industry or the 

rating procedures developed or 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20124 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17Specifically, the relevant provisions (42 U.S.C. 

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

reasonably designed to produce test results that 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs of a type (or class) of industrial 

equipment during a representative average use 

cycle and must not be unduly burdensome to 

conduct. Moreover, if the test procedure is for 

determining estimated annual operating costs, it 

must provide that such costs will be calculated 

from measurements of energy use in a 

representative average-use cycle, and from 

representative average unit costs of the energy 

needed to operate the equipment during such cycle. 

The Secretary must provide information to 

manufacturers of covered equipment regarding 

representative average unit costs of energy. 

18ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 technically cites 

‘‘AHRI 210/240–200 with Addendum 1 and 2.’’ 

However, DOE believes that this is an editorial error 

and that ASHRAE meant to cite AHRI 210/240– 

2008, which is the most recent published year of 

that test procedure. 

19The 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). 77 FR 28928, 

28943. 

20The addenda to AHRI 340/360–2007 expand 

the scope of the standard to include air-cooled 

package unitary air conditioners with cooling 

capacities from 250,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 

Btu/h, add a ¥0.00 inch H2O to a 0.05 inch H2O 

tolerance to the external static pressure test 

condition, and add an external static pressure 

equation and a tolerance to the leaving dry-bulb 

temperature to the IEER part-load test. 77 FR 28928, 

28943. 

recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as 

referenced by ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1, unless the Secretary determines by 

clear and convincing evidence that the 

latest version of the industry test 

procedure does not meet the 

requirements for test procedures 

described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of 42 

U.S.C. 6314(a).17 (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(4)(B)) ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013 updated several of its test 

procedures for ASHRAE equipment. 

Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013 updated to the most recent 

editions of test procedures for small 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment (AHRI 210/240– 

2008 18 with Addendum 1 and 2, 

Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 

Equipment), large and very large 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment (AHRI 340/360– 

2007 with Addenda 1 and 2, 

Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment), variable 

refrigerant flow equipment (AHRI 1230– 

2010 with Addendum 1, Performance 

Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow 

(VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment), commercial 

warm-air furnaces (ANSI (American 

National Standards Institute) Z21.47– 

2012, Standard for Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces), and commercial water 

heaters (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). 

DOE has preliminarily reviewed each 

of the test procedures that were updated 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 and 

discusses the changes to the test 

procedures below. 

1. Updates to the AHRI 210/240 Test 

Method 

In 2011 and 2012, AHRI published 

Addendum 1 and Addendum 2, 

updating AHRI Standard 210/240–2008. 

AHRI Standard 210/240, Performance 

Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & 

Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment, is 

incorporated by reference as the DOE 

test procedure for small commercial air 

conditioners and air-source heat pumps 

with a cooling capacity below 65,000 

Btu/h at 10 CFR 431.95. Although 

ASHRAE 90.1–2013 referenced the 

addenda to the 2008 version for the first 

time, the changes contained in the 

addenda 19 were previously evaluated 

by DOE and adopted as part of a seven 

year test procedure review (conducted 

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) in 

a final rule for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water heating 

equipment, published in the Federal 

Register on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 28928. 

In that test procedure amendment, DOE 

concluded that the addenda would not 

impact the Federal energy efficiency 

ratings for small commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps, and it 

proceeded to incorporate AHRI 

Standard 210/240–2008 with 

Addendum 1 and Addendum 2. 77 FR 

28928, 28943, 28989 (May 16, 2012). 

Because DOE has already incorporated 

by reference the most recent AHRI 210/ 

240 addenda referenced by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013, DOE does not need 

to take action at this time. 

2. Updates to the AHRI 340/360 Test 

Method 

In 2010 and 2011, AHRI published 

Addendum 1 and Addendum 2, 

respectively, updating AHRI 340/360– 

2007. AHRI Standard 340/360, 

Performance Rating of Commercial and 

Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment, is incorporated 

by reference as the DOE test procedure 

for small, large, and very large 

commercial air conditioners and airsource heat pumps with a cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h at 10 CFR 431.95. Although 

ASHRAE 90.1–2013 referenced the 

addenda to the 2007 version for the first 

time, the changes contained in the 

addenda 20 were previously evaluated 

by DOE and adopted as part of a sevenyear test procedure look back in a final 

rule for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water heating 

equipment, published in the Federal 

Register on May 16, 2012, 77 FR 28928. 

In that test procedure amendment, DOE 

concluded that the addenda would not 

impact the Federal energy efficiency 

ratings for small, large, and very large 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps, and it proceeded to incorporate 

AHRI 340/360 with Addendum 1 and 

Addendum 2. 77 FR 28928, 28943, 

28989 (May 16, 2012). Because DOE has 

already incorporated by reference the 

most recent AHRI 340/360 addenda 

referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013, DOE does not need to take action 

at this time. 

3. Updates to the AHRI 1230 Test 

Method 

In 2011, AHRI published Addendum 

1, updating AHRI Standard 1230–2010. 

AHRI Standard 1230, Performance 

Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow 

(VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment, is incorporated 

by reference into the DOE test procedure 

for variable refrigerant flow multi-split 

systems at 10 CFR 431.95. Although 

ASHRAE 90.1–2013 referenced the 

addenda to the 2010 version for the first 

time, DOE incorporated by reference 

AHRI 1230–2010 with Addendum 1 in 

a final rule for commercial heating, airconditioning, and water heating 

equipment, published in the Federal 

Register on May 16, 2012, 77 FR 28928, 

28989. Because DOE has already 

incorporated by reference the most 

recent AHRI 1230 edition and 

addendum referenced by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013, DOE does not need 

to take action at this time. 

4. Updates to the ANSI Z21.47 Test 

Method 

In 2012, ANSI updated ANSI Z21.47, 

Standard for Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces. DOE’s test procedure for 

measuring the energy efficiency of gasfired warm air furnaces incorporates by 

reference ANSI Z21.47–2006 at 10 CFR 

431.75, but the uniform test method set 

out at 10 CFR 431.76 only directs one 

to use those procedures contained in 

ANSI Z21.47–2006 that are relevant to 

the steady-state efficiency measurement 

(i.e., sections 1.1, 2.1 through 2.6, 2.39, 

and 4.2.1 of ANSI Z21.47). As a result, 

DOE focused its test procedure review 

on the relevant sections of ANSI Z21.47 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20125 

21 DOE also adopted a correction regarding 

Figures 2 and 3 in Exhibit G of ANSI Z21.10.3– 

2011. 

22As discussed in section II, when no products 

are available on the market or no reliable data exist 

for calculating potential energy savings, DOE did 

not perform an analysis. The products for which 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 increase the 

efficiency level, but for which DOE did not perform 

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

include: (1) SPVHP 65,000 to less than 135,000 

Btu/h; (2) SPVAC 135,000 to less than 240,000 

Btu/h; and (3) SPVHP 135,000 to less than 240,000 

Btu/h. (See section II.A.5.) 

23The ASHRAE NODA TSD is available on the 

Web page for ASHRAE Products at: http://

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_

standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=90 

that DOE’s test procedure references. In 

those sections referenced by DOE’s test 

procedures, ANSI did not make any 

updates. Therefore, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that the 

changes to ANSI Z21.47–2012 are not 

relevant to the DOE test procedure for 

gas-fired warm air furnaces and, 

therefore, do not impact the energy 

efficiency ratings for gas-fired furnaces. 

Consequently, no further action is 

required at this time. DOE seeks 

comments regarding this tentative 

conclusion. This is identified as Issue 5 

in section IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

5. Updates to the ANSI Z21.10.3 Test 

Method 

In 2011, ANSI updated ANSI 

Z21.10.3, Gas Water Heaters, Volume 

III, Storage Water Heaters with Input 

Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, 

Circulating and Instantaneous. DOE’s 

test procedure for gas-fired water 

heaters incorporates by reference ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2011 at 10 CFR 431.105, but 

the uniform test method set out at 10 

CFR 431.106 only directs one to use 

sections G1 (Method of Test for 

Measuring Thermal Efficiency) and G2 

(Method of Test for Measuring Standby 

Loss) of the ANSI Z21.10.3 test 

procedure. Although ASHRAE 90.1– 

2013 referenced the 2011 version for the 

first time, the version was previously 

evaluated by DOE and adopted 21 as part 

of a 7-year test procedure review 

(conducted pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(1)(A)) in a final rule for 

commercial heating, air-conditioning, 

and water heating equipment, published 

in the Federal Register on May 16, 

2012. 77 FR 28928. In that test 

procedure amendment, DOE concluded 

that the new version 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, and it proceeded to 

incorporate ANSI Z21.10.3–2011 by 

reference. 77 FR 28928, 28944, 28996 

(May 16, 2012). Because DOE has 

already incorporated by reference ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2011, the test procedure 

referenced by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013, DOE does not need to take action 

at this time. 

III. Analysis of Potential Energy 

Savings 

As required under 42 U.S.C. 

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

analysis to determine the energy-savings 

potential of amending Federal energy 

conservation standard levels to the 

efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013, as well as to morestringent efficiency levels than those 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013. As explained previously, DOE’s 

energy-savings analysis is limited to 

types of equipment covered by Federal 

energy conservation standards for which 

the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013 increase the efficiency levels and 

for which a market exists and sufficient 

data are available.22 Based upon the 

conclusions reached in section II, DOE 

is conducting the energy-savings 

analysis for: 

• Three equipment classes of small 

air-cooled, three-phase commercial 

packaged air-conditioning and heating 

equipment: (1) Single-package air 

conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h, (2) 

single-package heat pumps less than 

65,000 Btu/h, and (3) split system heat 

pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h; 

• Three equipment classes of small 

commercial water-source heat pumps: 

(1) Less than 17,000 Btu/h, (2) 17,000 to 

less than 65,000 Btu/h, and (3) 65,000 

to less than 135,000 Btu/h; 

• Three equipment classes of 

standard size PTACs: (1) Less than 7,000 

Btu/h, (2) 7,000 to 15,000 Btu/h, and (3) 

greater than 15,000 Btu/h; 

• Three equipment classes of SPVUs: 

(1) SPVACs less than 65,000 Btu/h, (2) 

SPVHPs less than 65,000 Btu/h, and (3) 

SPVACs 65,000 to less than 135,000 

Btu/h; and 

• One equipment class of commercial 

water-heating equipment: (1) Oil-fired 

storage water heaters greater than 

105,000 Btu/h and less than 4,000 Btu/ 

h/gal. 

The following discussion provides an 

overview of the energy-savings analysis 

conducted for these 13 classes of 

equipment, followed by summary 

results of that analysis. For each 

efficiency level analyzed, DOE 

calculated the potential energy savings 

to the Nation as the difference between 

a base-case projection (without 

amended standards) and the standardscase projection (with amended 

standards). The national energy savings 

(NES) refers to cumulative lifetime 

energy savings for equipment purchased 

in a 30-year period that differs by 

equipment (i.e., the compliance date 

differs by equipment class because of 

the ASHRAE trigger legal requirements). 

The analysis is based on a stock 

accounting method. In the standards 

case, equipment that is more efficient 

gradually replaces less-efficient 

equipment over time. This affects the 

calculation of the potential energy 

savings, which are a function of the total 

number of units in use and their 

efficiencies. Savings depend on annual 

shipments and equipment lifetime. 

Inputs to the energy-savings analysis are 

presented below, and details are 

available in the ASHRAE NODA 

technical support document (TSD) on 

DOE’s Web site.23

A. Annual Energy Use 

This section describes the energy use 

analysis performed for each type of 

equipment. The Federal standard and 

higher efficiency levels are expressed in 

terms of an efficiency metric or metrics. 

For each equipment class, this section 

describes how DOE developed estimates 

of annual energy consumption at the 

baseline efficiency level and at higher 

levels for each equipment type. These 

annual unit energy consumption (UEC) 

estimates form the basis of the national 

energy savings estimates discussed in 

section III.E. More detailed discussion is 

found in the ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

1. Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

To estimate the UEC for each class of 

small commercial packaged air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

less than 65,000 Btu/h (air-cooled, 

three-phase), DOE began with the 

cooling UECs for single-phase 

equipment installed in commercial 

buildings as presented in the national 

impact analysis associated with the 

2010 notice of public meeting and 

availability of preliminary technical 

support document for residential central 

air conditioners and heat pumps. 

(EERE–2008–BT–STD–0006–0003). DOE 

believes that three-phase commercial 

equipment would have similar energy 

usage to single-phase equipment, as it 

would tend to be used in similar 

locations and in a similar manner. DOE 

seeks comment on this assumption, 

which is identified as Issue 6 in section 

IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

In the 2010 analysis, the UECs for 

split and single-package systems were 

very similar (and therefore comparable), 

but UECs were available for higher 

efficiency levels for split systems than 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20126 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

24Available at: http://www.ahridirectory.org/ 

ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx. 

25For variable-capacity models listed at both 

minimum and maximum capacity, DOE analyzed 

the efficiency of the maximum capacity only. 

for single-package equipment. As a 

result, DOE used the 2010 UECs for split 

systems for all equipment classes 

analyzed for today’s NODA, including 

both split and single-package systems. 

Although ASHRAE 90.1–2013 

increased the HSPF levels for this 

equipment, DOE did not include heating 

UECs in this analysis. For commercial 

installations in the 2010 analysis, DOE 

determined that the heating UECs did 

not scale proportionally with HSPF. 

Based on these data, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that using 

available data to quantify energy savings 

related to increasing HSPF for small 

commercial heat pumps is not possible. 

DOE seeks data and information related 

to the heating energy use of commercial 

heat pumps, as related to HSPF, which 

is identified as Issue 7 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

Table III.1 shows the UEC estimates 

for the current Federal standards levels 

(baseline), the ASHRAE 90.1–2013 

levels, and the higher efficiency levels 

for the three small air-cooled 

commercial packaged air-conditioning 

and heating equipment classes 

analyzed. DOE derived the ‘‘max-tech’’ 

level from the market maximum in the 

AHRI Certified Directory 24 as of 

November 2013. However, the highest 

available efficiency level for split 

system heat pumps was only 16.2, 

whereas for single-package units it was 

18.05. DOE believes that split system 

heat pumps are capable of reaching the 

same efficiency level as single-package 

units because the same technologies to 

increase efficiency can be employed for 

each type of equipment and, therefore, 

analyzed a ‘‘max-tech’’ level of 18.05 for 

both single package and split system 

heat pumps. 

TABLE III.1—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR AIR-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Small threephase air-cooled 

single-package 

air conditioners 

<65,000 Btu/h 

Small threephase air-cooled 

single-package 

heat pumps 

<65,000 Btu/h 

Small threephase air-cooled 

split system heat 

pumps 

<65,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency Level (SEER) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 13 .0 13 .0 13 .0 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 14 .0 14 .0 14 .0 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 15 .0 15 .0 15 .0 

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 16 .0 16 .0 16 .0 

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 17 .5 — — 

Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 19 .15 18 .05 18 .05 

UEC (kwh/year) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 2,408 2,418 2,418 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 2,349 2,387 2,387 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 2,237 2,282 2,282 

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 2,125 2,177 2,177 

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 2,086 — — 

Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 2,047 2,123 2,123 

2. Water-Source Heat Pumps 

To estimate the UEC for each class of 

water-source heat pump, DOE began 

with the cooling UECs for water-source 

heat pumps published in Appendix D of 

the 2000 Screening Analysis for EPACTCovered Commercial HVAC and WaterHeating Equipment. (EERE–2006–STD– 

0098–0015) Where identical efficiency 

levels were available, DOE used the 

UEC directly from the screening 

analysis. For additional efficiency 

levels, DOE scaled the UECs based on 

the ratio of EER, as was done in the 

original analysis. DOE seeks comment 

on the appropriateness of the cooling 

UECs derived from the 2000 screening 

analysis, adjusted based on equipment 

EER to be inversely proportional to EER, 

including whether energy use for this 

equipment would have changed 

significantly since the last analysis. This 

is identified as Issue 8 in section IV.B, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

Although ASHRAE 90.1–2013 

increased the COP levels for this 

equipment, DOE did not include heating 

UEC in this analysis as a result of lack 

of information regarding the heatingmode energy use of this equipment. 

DOE seeks data and information related 

to water-source heat pump heating 

energy use. This is identified as Issue 9 

in section IV.B, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

Table III.2 shows the UEC estimates 

for the current Federal standard levels, 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2013 levels, and the 

higher efficiency levels for the three 

water-source heat pump classes 

analyzed. The ‘‘max-tech’’ levels 

represent the market maximum 

identified in the AHRI Certified 

Directory as of November 2013.25

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20127 

TABLE III.2—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS

Water-source 

heat pumps 

<17,000 Btu/h 

Water-source 

heat pumps 

≥17,000 and 

<65,000 Btu/h 

Water-source 

heat pumps 

≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency Level (EER) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 11.2 12.0 12.0 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 12.2 13.0 13.0 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 13.0 14.6 14.0 

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 14.0 16.6 15.0 

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 15.7 18.0 16.0 

Efficiency Level 5 ............................................................................................................. 16.5 19.2 — 

Efficiency Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 18.1 21.6 17.2 

UEC (kwh/year) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 1,738 4,868 11,528 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 1,595 4,493 10,641 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 1,497 4,001 9,881 

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 1,390 3,519 9,223 

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 1,240 3,245 8,646 

Efficiency Level 5 ............................................................................................................. 1,180 3,042 — 

Efficiency Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 1,075 2,704 8,043 

3. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

To estimate the UEC for each class of 

PTACs, DOE began with the cooling 

UECs for PTACs used in the 2008 

energy conservation standards final 

rule. 73 FR 58772 (Oct. 7, 2008). With 

the UECs given for each State, the 

population of each State was used to 

weight the UECs to obtain a nationally 

representative UEC. Where identical 

efficiency levels and cooling capacities 

were available, DOE used the UEC 

directly from the rulemaking. For 

additional efficiency levels, DOE scaled 

the UECs based on interpolations 

between EERs at a constant cooling 

capacity. Likewise, for additional 

cooling capacities, DOE scaled the UECs 

based on interpolations between cooling 

capacities at constant EER. 

Table III.3 shows the UEC estimates 

for the current Federal standard levels, 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2013 levels, and the 

higher efficiency levels for the three 

PTAC classes analyzed. The ‘‘max-tech’’ 

levels correspond to those in the PTAC 

Framework Document published in 

2013. 78 FR 12252 (Feb. 22, 2013) 

(EERE–2012–BT–STD–0029–0002). 

TABLE III.3—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR PTACS

PTAC 

<7,000 Btu/h 

PTAC 

≥7,000 and 

≤15,000 Btu/h 

PTAC 

>15,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency Level (EER) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 11.7 11.1 9.3 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 11.9 11.3 9.5 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 12.2 11.5 9.7 

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 12.6 12.0 10.0 

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 13.1 12.4 10.4 

Efficiency Level 5 ............................................................................................................. 13.6 12.9 10.8 

Efficiency Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’ – ................................................................................... 14.0 13.3 11.2 

UEC (kwh/year) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 849 1,026 1,607 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 838 1,014 1,591 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 824 1,000 1,577 

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 799 973 1,547 

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 773 946 1,517 

Efficiency Level 5 ............................................................................................................. 748 919 1,487 

Efficiency Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 723 892 1,458

4. Single-Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

Based on information received from 

manufacturer interviews conducted in 

preparation for the forthcoming SPVU 

NOPR, DOE has determined that 

approximately 35 percent of SPVAC 

shipments go to educational facilities, 

and the majority of those installations 

are for space conditioning of modular 

classroom buildings. Another 

approximately 35 percent of the 

shipments go to providing cooling for 

telecommunications and electronics 

enclosures. The remainder of the 

shipments (30 percent) is used in a wide 

variety of commercial buildings, 

including offices, temporary buildings, 

and some miscellaneous facilities. In 

almost all of these commercial building 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20128 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

26EnergyPlus Energy Simulation Software and 

documentation are available at: http://

apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/. 27The commercial prototype building models are 

available on DOE’s Web site as Energy Plus input 

files at: http://www.energycodes.gov/development/

commercial/90.1_models. Documentation of the 

initial model development is provided in: Deru, M., 

et al., U.S. Department of Energy Commercial 

Reference Building Models of the National Building 

Stock, NREL/TP–5500–46861 (2011). 

28EnergyConsult 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). 

29American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Energy 

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 

Buildings, ANSI/ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1– 

2004 (2005). 

30American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), Ventilation 

for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality, ANSI/ASHRAE/ 

IESNA Standard 62.1–2004 (2004). 

31An ‘‘outside air economizer’’ is a combination 

of ventilation and exhaust air dampers and controls 

that increase the amount of outside air brought in 

to a building when the outside air conditions (i.e., 

temperature and humidity) are low, such that 

increasing the amount of ventilation air reduces the 

equipment cooling loads. 

32Wilcox S. and W. Marion, User’s Manual for 

TMY3 Data Sets, National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory, Report No. NREL/TP–581–43156 

(2008). 

33EnergyPlus TMY3-based weather data files and 

design-day data files available at: http://

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

weatherdata_about.cfm. 

applications, the buildings served are 

expected to be of modular construction, 

because SPVUs, as packaged air 

conditioners installed on external 

building walls, do not impact site 

preparation costs for modular buildings, 

which may be relocated multiple times 

over the building’s life. The verticallyoriented configuration of SPVUs allows 

the building mounting to be unobtrusive 

and minimizes impacts on modular 

building transportation requirements. 

These advantages do not apply to a 

significant extent to site-constructed 

buildings. DOE further understands that 

shipments of SPVHP equipment would 

primarily be to educational facilities or 

office-type end uses but would be 

infrequently used for 

telecommunication or electronic 

enclosures for which the heating 

requirements are often minimal. 

DOE analyzed energy use in three 

different classes of commercial 

buildings that utilize SPVU equipment: 

(1) modular classrooms; (2) modular 

offices; and (3) telecommunication 

shelters. To estimate the energy use of 

SPVU equipment in these building 

types, DOE developed building 

simulation models for use with DOE’s 

EnergyPlus software.26 A prototypical 

building model was developed for each 

building type, described by the building 

footprint, general building size, and 

design. The building types were 

represented by a 1,568 ft2 wood-frame 

modular classroom, a 1,568 ft2 woodframe modular office, and a 240 ft2

concrete-wall telecommunications 

shelter. In each case, the building 

construction (footprint, window-wall 

ratio, general design) was developed to 

be representative of typical designs 

within the general class of building. 

Operating schedules, internal load 

profiles, internal electric receptacle 

(plug) loads, and occupancy for the 

modular classroom were based upon 

classroom-space-type data found in the 

DOE Primary School commercial 

prototype building model.27 Operating 

schedules, internal load profiles, 

internal plug loads, and occupancy for 

modular office buildings were those 

from office space in the DOE Small 

Office commercial prototype building 

model. Id. For the telecommunications 

shelter, DOE did not identify a source 

for typical representative internal 

electronic loads as a function of 

building size, nor did it find 

information on representative internal 

gain profiles. However, based on 

feedback from shelter manufacturers, 

DOE used a 36,000 Btu/h (10.55 kW) 

peak internal load to reflect internal 

design load in the shelter. DOE 

determined that, on average over the 

year, this load ran at a scheduled 65 

percent of peak value, reflecting 

estimates for computer server 

environments.28 Each of these three 

building models was used to establish 

the energy usage of SPVAC and SPVHP 

equipment in the same building class. 

Envelope performance (e.g., wall, 

window, and roof insulation, and 

window performance) and lighting 

power inputs were based on 

requirements in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2004.29 DOE believes that the 

requirements in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2004 are sufficiently representative 

of a mixture of both older and more 

recent construction and that resulting 

SPVU equipment loads will be 

representative of typical SPVU 

equipment loads in the building stock. 

Ventilation levels were based on 

ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2004.30

DOE simulated each building 

prototype in 237 U.S. climate locations, 

taking into account variation in building 

envelope performance for each climate 

as required by ASHRAE 90.1–2004. For 

simulations used to represent SPVU 

equipment of less than 65,000 Btu/h, no 

outside air economizers were assumed 

for the modular office and modular 

classroom buildings.31 However, for 

simulations used to represent 

equipment of greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h but less than 135,000 Btu/ 

h, economizer usage was presumed to 

be climate-dependent in these building 

types, based on ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2004 requirements for unitary 

equipment in that capacity range. For 

the telecommunications shelter, 

economizers were assumed for 45 

percent of buildings, based on 

manufacturer interviews. In addition, 

for the telecommunications shelter, 

redundant identical air conditioners 

with alternating usage were assumed 

when establishing average annual 

energy consumption per unit. 

Simulations were done for the 

buildings using SPVAC equipment and 

electric resistance heating, and then a 

separate set of simulations was done for 

buildings with SPVHP equipment. For 

each equipment type and building type 

combination, DOE simulated each 

efficiency level identified in the 

engineering analysis for each equipment 

class. Fan power at these efficiency 

levels was based on manufacturers’ 

literature and reported fan power 

consumption data as developed in the 

engineering analysis. Brushless 

permanent magnet (BPM) supply air 

blower motors were assumed at an EER 

of 10.0 and higher for all classes of 

equipment based on results from the 

engineering analysis. The supply air 

blower motors are assumed to run at 

constant speed and constant power 

while operating. 

DOE used typical meteorological 

weather data (TMY3) for each location 

in the simulations.32 DOE sized 

equipment for each building simulation 

using a design-day sizing method 

incorporating the design data found in 

the EnergyPlus design-day weather data 

files for each climate.33 DOE also 

incorporated an additional cooling 

sizing factor of 1.1 for the equipment 

used in the modular office and modular 

classroom simulations, reflective of the 

typical sizing adjustment needed to 

account for discrete available equipment 

capacities in SPVAC and SPVHP 

equipment. 

EER and heating COP were converted 

to corresponding simulation inputs for 

each efficiency level simulated. These 

inputs, along with the calculated fan 

power at each efficiency level, were 

used in the building simulations. 

Further details of the building model 

and the simulation inputs for the 

SPVAC and SPVHP equipment can be 

found in chapter 3 of the NODA TSD. 

From the annual simulation results 

for SPVAC equipment, DOE extracted 

the condenser energy use for cooling, 

the supply air blower energy use for 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20129 

both heating and cooling hours, the 

electric resistance heating energy, and 

the equipment capacity for each 

building type, climate, and efficiency 

level. From these, DOE developed 

corresponding normalized annual 

cooling energy per cooling ton and 

annual blower energy per ton for the 

efficiency levels simulated. DOE also 

developed the electrical heating energy 

per ton for the building. These per-ton 

cooling and blower energy values were 

added together and then multiplied by 

the average cooling capacity estimated 

for the equipment class simulated to 

arrive at an initial energy consumption 

estimate for SPVAC. In a deviation from 

the 2011 NODA analysis, DOE also 

noted that, where fan power was 

reduced for higher efficiency levels, 

there was a corresponding increase in 

the amount of heating required in each 

climate to make up for the loss of heat 

energy imparted into the supply air 

stream through the use of the moreefficient supply air blower during the 

heating season. This impact was climate 

dependent, with little heating impact in 

warm climates, and greater heating 

impact in cold climates where heating 

energy requirements dominate during 

the year. DOE calculated this heating 

‘‘take back’’ effect for higher efficiency 

levels as a deviation from the baseline 

heating energy use for each equipment 

capacity. The final SPVAC energy 

consumption estimates were then based 

on the calculated cooling and supply 

blower energy uses plus this heating 

take back, which allowed the resulting 

energy savings estimates to correctly 

account for the heating energy increase 

during the year. In addition, it was 

estimated that 5 percent of the market 

for the class of SPVAC less than 65,000 

Btu/h utilize gas furnace heating. The 

heating take back for these systems was 

estimated based on the heating load of 

the systems with electric resistance heat 

and assuming an average 81-percent 

furnace annual fuel utilization 

efficiency (AFUE). 

The analytical method for SPVHP was 

carried out in a similar fashion; 

however, for heat pumps, DOE included 

the heating energy (compressor heating 

and electric resistance backup) directly 

from the simulation results and, thus, 

did not separately calculate a heating 

take back effect. From these data, DOE 

developed per-ton energy consumption 

values for cooling, supply blower, and 

heating electric loads. These per-ton 

energy figures were summed and 

multiplied by the nominal capacity for 

the equipment class simulated to arrive 

at the annual per-ton energy 

consumption for SPVHP for each 

combination of building type, climate, 

and efficiency level. 

For each combination of equipment 

class, building type, climate, and 

efficiency level, DOE developed UEC 

values for each State using weighting 

factors to establish the contribution of 

each climate in each State. National 

average UEC estimates for each 

equipment class and efficiency level 

were also established based on 

population-based weighting across 

States and shipment weights to the 

different building types. With regard to 

the latter, while DOE established 

shipment weights for SPVAC equipment 

related to the three building types 

(educational, office, and 

telecommunications), DOE determined 

that SPVHP equipment was not used to 

a significant extent in 

telecommunications facilities and, thus, 

only allocated shipments of SPVHP 

equipment to two building types, 

educational and office. 

For details of this energy use analysis, 

see chapter 3 of the NODA TSD. 

Table III.4 shows the annual UEC 

estimates for SPVAC and SPVHP 

corresponding to the efficiency levels 

analyzed. For all levels above the 

baseline, SPVAC less than 65,000 Btu/ 

h also include a heating take-back UEC 

of 53 kBtu/year. 

TABLE III.4—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR SPVUS

SPVAC <65,000 

Btu/h 

SPVHP <65,000 

Btu/h 

SPVAC ≥65,000 

and <135,000 

Btu/h 

Efficiency Level (EER) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 9.0 9.0 8.9 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 10.0 10.0 10.0 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 10.5 10.5 ............................

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 11.0 11.0 ............................

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 11.8 11.8 ............................

Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 12.3 12.3 ............................

UEC (kwh/year) 

Baseline—Federal Standard ............................................................................................ 6,814 20,222 13,604 

ASHRAE Level (1) ........................................................................................................... 6,113 19,689 12,119 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................. 5,864 19,236 ............................

Efficiency Level 3 ............................................................................................................. 5,638 18,951 ............................

Efficiency Level 4 ............................................................................................................. 5,335 18,115 ............................

Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’— .................................................................................. 5,136 17,977 ............................

DOE seeks input on its analysis of 

UECs for these equipment classes and 

its use in establishing the energy savings 

potential for higher standards. Of 

particular interest to DOE is input on 

shipments of SPVHP equipment to 

telecommunications shelters and the 

frequency of use of economizers in 

equipment serving these shelters. DOE 

also recognizes that there may be 

regional differences between the 

shipments of heat pumps and air 

conditioners to warmer or cooler 

climates and requests stakeholder input 

on how, or if, such differences can be 

taken into account in the energy use 

characterization. DOE identified these 

topics as Issues 10 and 11 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section IV.B of this NODA. 

5. Commercial Water Heaters 

To provide an estimate of the UEC of 

commercial oil-fired storage water 

heaters (greater than 105,000 Btu/h and 

less than 4,000 Btu/h/gal), DOE 

calculated the shipment-weighted 

average UEC of gas-fired commercial 

storage water heaters using data in the 

2000 Screening Analysis for EPACTCovered Commercial HVAC and Watermstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20130 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

34U.S. Department of Energy: Energy Information 

Administration, Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey (2003) (Last accessed Jan. 

2014) (Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ 

cbecs/). 

35U.S. Census Bureau. Current Industrial Reports 

for Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air 

Heating Equipment, MA333M. Note that the current 

industrial reports were discontinued in 2010, so 

more recent data are not available. Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/ 

historical_data/ma333m/index.html. 

36 Id. 

37U.S. Energy Information Administration, 

Geothermal Heat Pump Manufacturing Activities 

2009 (2010) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/ 

renewable/renewables/geothermalrpt09.pdf). 

Heating Equipment. (EERE–2006–STD– 

0098–0015) DOE then calculated the 

ratio of UEC of oil-fired to gas-fired 

commercial water heaters based on the 

water heating information derived from 

the Energy Information Administration’s 

2003 Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey.34 DOE applied 

this ratio to the shipment-weighted 

average UEC of gas-fired commercial 

storage water heaters to arrive at the 

UEC of oil-fired commercial storage 

water heaters. DOE assumed this UEC 

corresponded to the baseline efficiency 

of 78 percent. For additional efficiency 

levels above 78 percent, DOE scaled the 

UECs based on the ratio of thermal 

efficiency at the baseline and each 

specific efficiency level. DOE seeks 

comment on its approach to estimating 

UECs for oil-fired commercial storage 

water heaters. DOE has identified this 

topic as Issue 12 under ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section 

IV.B of this NODA. 

Table III.5 shows the UEC estimates 

for the current Federal standard levels, 

the ASHRAE 90.1–2013 levels, and the 

higher efficiency levels for oil-fired 

commercial storage water heaters. 

TABLE III.5—NATIONAL UEC ESTIMATES FOR COMMERCIAL WATERHEATING EQUIPMENT

Oil-fired storage 

water-heating equipment (>105,000 Btu/h 

and <4,000 Btu/h/gal) 

Efficiency Level (Et) 

Baseline—Federal 

Standard ................ 78% 

ASHRAE Level (1) .... 80% 

Efficiency Level 2 ..... 81% 

Efficiency Level 3— 

‘‘Max-Tech’’— ....... 82% 

UEC (MMBtu/year) 

Baseline—Federal 

Standard ................ 131 

ASHRAE Level (1) .... 128 

Efficiency Level 2 ..... 126 

Efficiency Level 3— 

‘‘Max-Tech’’— ....... 125 

B. Shipments 

1. Small Commercial Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

DOE previously estimated shipments 

of air-cooled, three-phase equipment 

less than 65,000 Btu/h by equipment 

class for the year 1999 as part of the 

2000 Screening Analysis for EPACTCovered Commercial HVAC and WaterHeating Equipment. (EERE–2006–STD– 

0098–0015) Table III.6 shows these data. 

While the U.S. Census provides 

shipments data for air-cooled equipment 

less than 65,000 Btu/h, it does not 

disaggregate the shipments into singlephase and three-phase. Therefore, DOE 

used the Census data from 1999 to 

2010 35 as a trend from which to 

extrapolate DOE’s 1999 estimated 

shipments data (which is divided by 

equipment class) for three-phase 

equipment for the time period from 

2000 to 2010. DOE then used the 

estimated shipments from 1999 to 2010 

to establish a trend from which to 

project shipments beyond 2010. For 

heat pumps, DOE used a linear trend, 

which is slightly decreasing for singlepackage units and increasing for split 

systems. However, for single-package air 

conditioners, the trend was 

precipitously declining. As a result, for 

single-package air conditioners for the 

years after 2010, DOE used the average 

value from 1999 to 2010. The full time 

series of shipments can be found in the 

ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

TABLE III.6—DOE ESTIMATED SHIPMENTS OF SMALL THREE-PHASE

COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS

AND HEAT PUMPS <65,000 Btu/h 

Equipment Class 1999 

Single-Package AC ...................... 213,728 

Single-Package HP ...................... 27,773 

Split System HP ........................... 11,903 

2. Water-Source Heat Pumps 

The U.S. Census published historical 

(1980, 1983–1994, 1997–2006, and 

2008–2010) water-source heat pump 

shipment data.36 Table III.7 exhibits the 

shipment data provided for a selection 

of years. DOE analyzed data from the 

years 1990–2010 to establish a trend 

from which to project shipments beyond 

2010. DOE used a linear trend. Because 

the Census data do not distinguish 

between equipment capacities, DOE 

used the shipments data by equipment 

class provided by AHRI in 1999, and 

published in the 2000 Screening 

Analysis for EPACT-Covered 

Commercial HVAC and Water-Heating 

Equipment (EERE–2006–STD–0098– 

0015), to distribute the total watersource heat pump shipments to 

individual equipment classes. Table 

III.8 exhibits the shipment data 

provided for 1999. DOE assumed that 

this distribution of shipments across the 

various equipment classes remained 

constant and has used this same 

distribution in its projection of future 

shipments of water-source heat pumps. 

The complete historical data set and the 

projected shipments for each equipment 

class can be found in the ASHRAE 

NODA TSD. 

TABLE III.7—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF

WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS (CENSUS PRODUCT CODE: 333415E181) 

Equipment 

class 1989 1999 2009 

Total ............ 157,080 120,545 180,101 

TABLE III.8—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF

WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS (AHRI) 

Equipment class 1999 Percent 

WSHP <17000 Btu/h .... 41,000 31 

WSHP 17000–65000 

Btu/h .......................... 86,000 65 

WSHP 65000–135000 

Btu/h .......................... 5,000 4 

DOE notes that an EIA report on 

geothermal heat pump manufacturers 37

shows shipments of water-source units 

(defined by EIA as those tested to ARI– 

320) as only 22,009 in 2009 and 7,808 

in 2000, which is significantly less than 

that reported by the Census (product 

code 333415E181) and by AHRI. DOE 

notes that both the Census data and the 

EIA report show consistent shipments of 

separately-reported ground-source and 

ground-water-source heat pumps (listed 

as Census product code 333415G and 

defined by EIA as those tested to ARI– 

325/330) at approximately 87,000 

shipments in 2009; DOE is not counting 

these shipments in its estimates as 

reported in Table III.7. DOE believes 

that water-source heat pumps operate 

with a water loop using a boiler or 

chiller as the heat source or sink, and 

that, therefore, may not be considered 

‘‘geothermal’’; in this case, the EIA 

report may not include a comprehensive 

number of water-source heat pump 

shipments. 

DOE seeks comment on the market for 

water-source heat pumps, especially 

what magnitude of annual shipments is 

most accurate, and how shipments are 

expected to change over time. DOE also 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20131 

38AEO 2013 can be accessed at: http://

www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo13/index.cfm. 

39U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy. Energy 

Conservation Program for Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat Pump 

Energy Conservation Standards (Available at: http:// 

www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2007- 

BT-STD-0012). 

40U.S. Department of Energy—Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Technical 

Support Document: Energy Efficiency Program for 

Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency 

Standards for Commercial Heating, AirConditioning, and Water Heating Equipment 

Including Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, Small Commercial 

Packaged Boiler, Three-Phase Air-Conditioners and 

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

Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package 

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

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

buildings/appliance_standards/commercial/pdfs/

ashrae_products/ashrae_products_draft_tsd_

030206.pdf). This TSD was prepared for the 

rulemaking that resulted in the Final Rule: Energy 

Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and 

Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for 

Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and WaterHeating Equipment. 72 FR 10038 (March 7, 2007). 

41Manufacturers reported that in 2012, 50 percent 

of shipments were for new construction. DOE 

allocated a larger percentage of shipments to new 

construction in 2005 in order to arrive at 50 percent 

in 2012. 

42U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns 

for NAICS 237130 Power and Communication Line 

and Related Structures Construction (Available at: 

http://www.census.gov/econ/cbp/index.html) (Last 

accessed May 2, 2012). 

seeks comment on the share of the 

market for ground-source and groundwater-source heat pump applications 

that use models also rated for waterloop application. DOE identified these 

as Issues 13 and 14 under ‘‘Issues on 

Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in section 

IV.B of this NODA. 

3. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

To estimate yearly shipments of 

PTACs, DOE examined new 

construction and replacement 

shipments. New construction shipments 

were calculated using projected new 

construction floor space of healthcare, 

lodging, and small office buildings from 

the Annual Energy Outlook 2013 (AEO 

2013) 38 and historical saturation data, 

which were calculated from historical 

shipments data and historical new 

construction floor space as shown in 

Table III.9. Replacement shipments 

equaled the number of units that failed 

in a given year, based on a stock model 

and distribution of equipment lifetimes. 

DOE determined the distribution of 

shipments among the equipment classes 

using shipments data by equipment 

class provided by AHRI for the 2008 

PTAC and PTHP rulemaking, as shown 

in Table III.10.39

TABLE III.9—HISTORICAL PTAC AND PTHP SHIPMENTS WITH NEW CONSTRUCTION FLOOR SPACE VALUES USED TO

CALCULATE SATURATION

Year Health care (million 

s.f.) Lodging (million s.f.) Small Office (million s.f.) Total (million s.f.) New Construction Shipments 

Saturation (units/

million s.f.) 

2000 68 172 179 419 66,407 6,315 

TABLE III.10—SHIPMENTS OF PTACS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS (AHRI) 

PTAC PTHP 

<7,000 

Btu/h 

≥7,000— 

≤15,000 

Btu/h 

>15,000 

Btu/h 

<7,000 

Btu/h 

≥7,000— 

≤15,000 

Btu/h 

>15,000 

Btu/h 

1998–2004 Average Shipments .............................................................. 12,898 205,355 15,407 7,702 168,068 13,534 

Percent ..................................................................................................... 3% 48% 4% 2% 40% 3%

4. Single-Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Heat Pumps 

To develop the SPVU shipments 

model, DOE started with 2005 shipment 

estimates from the Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute (ARI, now AHRI) 

for units less than 65,000 Btu/h as 

published in a previous rulemaking 40

(more recent data are not available). 

Table III.11 shows these data. 

TABLE III.11—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF

SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL UNITS

Equipment class 2005 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, singlephase ........................................ 31,976 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h, threephase ........................................ 13,125 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, singlephase ........................................ 14,301 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h, threephase ........................................ 6,129 

DOE added additional shipments for 

SPVACs greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h, 

which make up 3 percent of the market, 

based on manufacturer interviews. As 

there are no models on the market for 

SPVHP greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h, or 

for any SPVUs greater than or equal to 

135,000 Btu/h, DOE did not develop 

shipments estimates (or generate NES) 

for these equipment classes. See chapter 

4 of the NODA TSD for more details on 

the initial shipment estimates by 

equipment class that were used as the 

basis for the shipments projections 

discussed subsequently. 

To project shipments of SPVUs for 

new construction (starting in 2006), 

DOE relied primarily on sector-based 

estimates of saturation and projections 

of floor space. Based on manufacturer 

interview information, DOE allocated 35 

percent of shipments to the education 

sector, 35 percent to telecom, and 30 

percent to offices. DOE used the 2005 

new construction shipments and 2005 

new construction floor space for offices 

and education (from AEO 2013) to 

estimate a saturation rate for each end 

use.41 DOE applied this saturation rate 

to AEO 2013 projections of new 

construction floor space to project 

shipments to new construction through 

2044. For shipments to telecom, DOE 

developed an index based on County 

Business Pattern data for 

establishments 42 and projected this 

trend forward. To allocate the total 

projected shipments for office, 

education, and telecom into the 

equipment classes, DOE used the 

fraction of shipments from 2005 for each 

equipment class. This fraction remained 

constant over time. The complete 

discussion of shipment allocation and 

projected shipments for the different 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20132 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

43Available at: http://www.modular.org/

HtmlPage.aspx?name=analysis (Last accessed May 

18, 2012). 

44Available at: http://www.ahridirectory.org/

ahridirectory/pages/home.aspx. 

45AEO 2013 can be accessed at: http:// 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/archive/aeo13/index.cfm. 

equipment classes can be found in 

chapter 4 of the NODA TSD. 

In order to model shipments for 

replacement SPVUs, DOE developed 

historical shipments for SPVUs back to 

1981 based on an index of square 

footage production data from the 

Modular Buildings Institute.43

Shipments prior to 1994 were 

extrapolated based on a trend from 2005 

to 1997. In the stock model, the lifetime 

of SPVUs follows a distribution with a 

minimum of 10 years and a maximum 

of 25 years (and an average of 15 years). 

All retired units are assumed to be 

replaced with new shipments. The 

complete discussion of the method for 

extrapolating historical shipments can 

be found in chapter 4 of the NODA TSD. 

5. Commercial Water Heaters 

DOE derived the shipments for 

commercial oil-fired storage water 

heaters (greater than 105,000 Btu/h and 

less than 4,000 Btu/h/gal) from the 2000 

Screening Analysis for EPACT-Covered 

Commercial HVAC and Water-Heating 

Equipment (EERE–2006–STD–0098– 

0015) and the AHRI model database.44

The PNNL study estimated the 

shipments of gas-fired storage water 

heaters in 1999. DOE estimated that the 

shipments in 2000 are the same as the 

shipments in 1999, and then applied a 

1% per year growth rate after 2000. To 

derive the shipments of oil-fired storage 

water heaters, DOE calculated the ratio 

of oil- versus gas-fired storage water 

heaters using the number of models in 

the AHRI model database, which was 

3.3 percent. DOE multiplied this ratio 

by the shipments of gas-fired storage 

water heaters to calculate the shipments 

of oil-fired storage water heaters. The 

complete series of shipments can be 

found in chapter 4 of the NODA TSD. 

DOE seeks input and data regarding 

its shipments methodologies and 

projections for all equipment analyzed 

in today’s NODA. DOE identified this as 

Issue 15 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section IV.B of this 

NODA. 

C. Base-Case Efficiency Distribution 

DOE reviewed manufacturer 

interview data (for SPVUs) or the AHRI 

certified products directory for relevant 

equipment classes (for all other 

equipment) to determine the 

distribution of efficiency levels for 

commercially-available models within 

each equipment class analyzed in 

today’s NODA. DOE bundled the 

efficiency levels into ‘‘efficiency ranges’’ 

and determined the percentage of 

models within each range. The 

distribution of efficiencies in the base 

case for each equipment class can be 

found in the ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

For the standards case for all 

equipment in today’s NODA, DOE 

assumed shipments at lower efficiencies 

were most likely to roll up into higher 

efficiency levels in response to morestringent energy conservation standards. 

For each efficiency level analyzed 

within a given equipment class, DOE 

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

the market shares by efficiency level for 

the year that standards would become 

effective (e.g., 2015, 2017, or 2020). DOE 

estimated that the efficiencies of 

equipment in the base case that did not 

meet the standard level under 

consideration would roll up to meet the 

standard level. Available information 

also suggests that all equipment 

efficiencies in the base case that were 

above the standard level under 

consideration would not be affected. 

Table III.12 shows an example of the 

distribution of efficiencies within the 

base-case and the roll-up scenarios to 

establish the distribution of efficiencies 

in the standards cases for oil-fired 

commercial storage water heaters. For 

all the tables of the distribution of 

efficiencies in the base case and 

standards cases by equipment class, see 

the ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

TABLE III.12—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES IN THE BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASES FOR OIL-FIRED COMMERCIAL

STORAGE WATER HEATERS

Thermal efficiency (%) 

78 80 81 82 

Base Case ....................................................................................................................................................... 52.6% 23.7% 10.5% 13.2% 

ASHRAE 90.1–2013 Standard ........................................................................................................................ ............ 76.3% 10.5% 13.2% 

Efficiency Level 2 ............................................................................................................................................. ............ ............ 86.8% 13.2% 

Max-Tech ......................................................................................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ 100.0% 

DOE seeks input on its determination 

of the base-case distribution of 

efficiencies and its projection of how 

amended energy conservation standards 

would affect the distribution of 

efficiencies in each standards case. DOE 

identified this as Issue 16 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section IV.B of this NODA. 

Using the distribution of efficiencies 

in the base case and in the standards 

cases for each equipment class analyzed 

in today’s NODA, as well as the UECs 

for each specified EER, SEER, or thermal 

efficiency (discussed previously), DOE 

calculated market-weighted average 

efficiency values. The market-weighted 

average efficiency value represents the 

average efficiency of the total units 

shipped at a specified amended 

standard level. The market-weighted 

average efficiency values for the base 

case and the standards cases for each 

efficiency level analyzed within the 

equipment classes is provided in the 

ASHRAE NODA TSD. 

D. Other Analytical Inputs 

1. Conversion of Site Energy Savings 

DOE converted the annual site energy 

savings into the annual amount of 

energy saved at the source of electric 

generation (i.e., primary energy) using 

annual multiplicative factors calculated 

from the AEO 2013 projections.45 For 

electricity, the conversion factors vary 

over time because of projected changes 

in generation sources (i.e., the types of 

power plants projected to provide 

electricity to the country). 

In response to the recommendations 

of a committee on ‘‘Point-of-Use and 

Full-Fuel-Cycle Measurement 

Approaches to Energy Efficiency 

Standards’’ appointed by the National 

Academy of Sciences, DOE announced 

its intention to use full-fuel-cycle (FFC) 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the national 

impact analyses and emissions analyses 

included in future energy conservation 

standards rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 

(August 18, 2011). After evaluating 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20133 

analytical models and the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that the National Energy 

Modeling System (NEMS) is the most 

appropriate tool for its FFC analysis and 

its intention to use NEMS for that 

purpose. 77 FR 49701 (August 17, 2012). 

The calculations in today’s notice use 

FFC multipliers derived from NEMS. 

2. Equipment Lifetime 

DOE defines ‘‘equipment lifetime’’ as 

the age when a unit is retired from 

service. DOE reviewed available 

literature to establish typical equipment 

lifetimes. For air-cooled equipment, 

water-source heat pumps, and 

commercial storage water heaters, DOE 

used the estimated product lifetimes 

from the 2000 screening analysis for 

EPACT-Covered Commercial HVAC and 

Water-Heating Equipment (EERE–2006– 

STD–0098–0015). The average lifetime 

for air-cooled equipment is 15 years, for 

water-source equipment 19 years, and 

for water heaters 7 years. 

For PTACs, DOE used the same 

average lifetime of 10 years as used in 

the 2008 final rule for PTACs. 73 FR 

58772, 58789 (Oct. 7, 2008). For SPVUs, 

DOE used an average of 15 years based 

on a review of a range of packaged 

cooling equipment lifetime estimates 

found in published studies and online 

documents. For further details on 

equipment lifetime, see the ASHRAE 

NODA TSD. 

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period 

If DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards at the efficiency levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013, EPCA states that any such 

standard shall become effective on or 

after a date that is two or three years 

(depending on equipment type or size) 

after the effective date of the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency requirement 

in the amended ASHRAE standard (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013). (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) All equipment for 

which analysis was performed in this 

NODA falls into the two-year category. 

For all PTACs and air-cooled equipment 

in this rulemaking, the effective date in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 is January 

1, 2015. Thus, if DOE decides to adopt 

the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013, the rule would apply to PTACs 

and air-cooled equipment manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2017, which is two 

years from the effective date specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. For all 

water-source heat pumps, SPVUs, and 

commercial water heaters in this 

rulemaking, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2013 did not specify an effective date, 

so the publication date of October 9, 

2013 is assumed. Thus, if DOE decides 

to adopt the levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013, the rule would apply to 

water-source heat pumps, SPVUs, and 

commercial water heaters manufactured 

on or after October 9, 2015, which is 

two years from the publication date of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. 

If DOE were to propose prescribing 

energy conservation standards higher 

than the efficiency levels contained in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013, under 

EPCA, any such standard will become 

effective for equipment manufactured 

four years after the date of publication 

of a final rule in the Federal Register. 

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

equipment for which DOE might adopt 

a level more stringent than the ASHRAE 

efficiency level, the rule would apply to 

equipment manufactured on and after a 

date which is four years from the date 

of publication of the final rule adopting 

standards higher than the ASHRAE 

efficiency levels (with a requirement to 

complete that final rule no later than 30 

months after publication of the revised 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, which occurred 

on October 9, 2013). Under this 

timeline, compliance with such more 

stringent standards would be required 

no later than April 9, 2020. 

For purposes of calculating the NES 

for water-source heat pumps, SPVUs, 

and commercial water heaters, DOE 

used an analysis period of 2015 (the 

assumed compliance date if DOE were 

to adopt the ASHRAE levels as Federal 

standards for this equipment) through 

2044. For PTACs and air-cooled 

equipment, DOE used an analysis 

period of 2017 (the assumed compliance 

date if DOE were to adopt the ASHRAE 

levels as Federal standards for this 

equipment) through 2046. This is the 

standard analysis period of 30 years that 

DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. 

While the analysis periods remain the 

same for assessing the energy savings of 

Federal standard levels higher than the 

ASHRAE levels, those energy savings 

would not begin accumulating until 

2020 (the assumed compliance date if 

DOE were to determine that standard 

levels more stringent than the ASHRAE 

levels are justified). 

For each equipment class for which 

DOE developed a potential energy 

savings analysis, Table III.13 exhibits 

the approximate compliance dates of an 

amended energy conservation standard. 

TABLE III.13—APPROXIMATE COMPLIANCE DATE OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR EACH

EQUIPMENT CLASS

Equipment class 

Approximate compliance 

date for adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 

Approximate compliance 

date for adopting morestringent efficiency levels 

than those in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 

Three-Phase Air-Cooled Single Package Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h ..................... 01/2017 04/2020 

Three-Phase Air-Cooled Single Package Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h ........................... 01/2017 04/2020 

Three-Phase Air-Cooled Split System Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h ................................ 01/2017 04/2020 

Water Source HP <17,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... 10/2015 04/2020 

Water Source HP ≥17,000 to <65,000 Btu/h .................................................................. 10/2015 04/2020 

Water Source HP ≥65,000 to 135,000 Btu/h .................................................................. 10/2015 04/2020 

PTAC <7,000 Btu/h ......................................................................................................... 01/2017 04/2020 

PTAC ≥7,000 to ≤15,000 Btu/h ....................................................................................... 01/2017 04/2020 

PTAC >15,000 Btu/h ....................................................................................................... 01/2017 04/2020 

SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................................... 10/2015 04/2020 

SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................................... 10/2015 04/2020 

SPVAC ≥65,000 to <135,000 Btu/h ................................................................................. 10/2015 04/2020 

Oil-Fired Storage Water Heaters >105,000 Btu/h and <4,000 Btu/h/gal ........................ 10/2015 04/2020 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20134 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings 

DOE estimated the potential primary 

energy savings in quads (i.e., 1015 Btu) 

for each efficiency level considered 

within each equipment class analyzed. 

The potential energy savings for 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

those specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2013 were calculated relative to 

the efficiency levels that would result if 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards 

were adopted. Table III.14 through 

Table III.26 show the potential energy 

savings resulting from the analyses 

conducted as part of this NODA. The 

reported energy savings are cumulative 

over the period in which equipment 

shipped in the 30-year analysis 

continues to operate. 

TABLE III.14—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE AIR-COOLED SINGLE-PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONERS

<65,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level Primary energy savings 

estimate* (quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—14 SEER ........................................................................................ 0.02 0.02 

Level 2—15 SEER ........................................................................................................... 0.04 0.04 

Level 3—16 SEER ........................................................................................................... 0.10 0.10 

Level 4—17.5 SEER ........................................................................................................ 0.12 0.12 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—19.15 SEER ............................................................................... 0.14 0.15 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.15—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE AIR-COOLED SINGLE-PACKAGE HEAT PUMPS

<65,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—14 SEER ........................................................................................ 0.001 0.001 

Level 2—15 SEER ........................................................................................................... 0.007 0.007 

Level 3—16 SEER ........................................................................................................... 0.014 0.014 

Level 4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—18.05 SEER ............................................................................... 0.018 0.019 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.16—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL THREE-PHASE AIR-COOLED SPLIT SYSTEM HEAT PUMPS <65,000 

Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—14 SEER ........................................................................................ 0.002 0.002 

Level 2—15 SEER ........................................................................................................... 0.012 0.012 

Level 3—16 SEER ........................................................................................................... 0.026 0.026 

Level 4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—18.05 SEER ............................................................................... 0.033 0.033 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.17—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS <17,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

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

Level 2—13 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.007 0.007 

Level 3—14 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.025 0.026 

Level 4—15.7 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.063 0.064 

Level 5—16.5 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.082 0.083 

Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’—18.1 EER ................................................................................... 0.116 0.118 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20135 

TABLE III.18—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS ≥17,000 AND <65,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—13 EER ........................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 

Level 2—14.6 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.064 0.065 

Level 3—16.6 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.280 0.284 

Level 4—18 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.451 0.459 

Level 5—19.2 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.591 0.601 

Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’—21.6 EER ................................................................................... 0.831 0.844 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.19—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS ≥65,000 AND <135,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—13 EER ........................................................................................... (**) (**) 

Level 2—14 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.004 0.004 

Level 3—15 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.013 0.014 

Level 4—16 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.032 0.033 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—17.2 EER ................................................................................... 0.057 0.058 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

** There are no potential savings for this Level because all models currently on the market exceed this efficiency level, and thus would not be 

affected by a standard set at this level. 

TABLE III.20—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PTAC <7,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings estimate * 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—11.9 EER ........................................................................................ (**) (**) 

Level 2—12.2 EER .......................................................................................................... (**) (**) 

Level 3—12.6 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 

Level 4—13.1 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 

Level 5—13.6 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.003 0.003 

Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.0 EER ................................................................................... 0.004 0.004 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

** There are no potential savings for this Level because all models currently on the market exceed this efficiency level, and thus would not be 

affected by a standard set at this level. 

TABLE III.21—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PTAC ≥7,000 AND ≤15,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings estimate * 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings estimate * 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—11.3 EER ........................................................................................ 0.001 0.001 

Level 2—11.5 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.005 0.005 

Level 3—12.0 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.022 0.023 

Level 4—12.4 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.040 0.040 

Level 5—12.9 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.058 0.058 

Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’—13.3 EER ................................................................................... 0.076 0.077 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.22—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PTAC >15,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—9.5 EER .......................................................................................... 0.0009 0.0009 

Level 2—9.7 EER ............................................................................................................ 0.0007 0.0007 

Level 3—10.0 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.0022 0.0023 

Level 4—10.4 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.0037 0.0038 

Level 5—10.8 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.0053 0.0053 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20136 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE III.22—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PTAC >15,000 Btu/h—Continued 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 6—‘‘Max-Tech’’—11.2 EER ................................................................................... 0.0068 0.0069 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.23—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—10 EER ........................................................................................... 0.21 0.21 

Level 2—10.5 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.07 0.07 

Level 3—11 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.14 0.14 

Level 4—11.8 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.22 0.23 

Level 4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.3 EER ................................................................................... 0.28 0.29 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

TABLE III.24—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SPVHP<65,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* ** 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* ** 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—10 EER ........................................................................................... 0.06 0.06 

Level 2—10.5 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.05 0.05 

Level 3—11 EER ............................................................................................................. 0.08 0.08 

Level 4—11.8 EER .......................................................................................................... 0.17 0.18 

Level 4—‘‘Max-Tech’’—12.3 EER ................................................................................... 0.19 0.19 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

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

TABLE III.25—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR SPVAC ≥65,000 AND <135,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings estimate 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings estimate 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—10.0 EER ........................................................................................ 0.02 0.02 

TABLE III.26—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR COMMERCIAL OIL-FIRED STORAGE WATER HEATERS

>105,000 Btu/h AND <4,000 Btu/h/GAL

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

FFC energy savings 

estimate* 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—80% Et .................................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 

Level 2—81% Et ...................................................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 

Level 3—‘‘Max-Tech’’—82% Et ............................................................................................... 0.002 0.002 

* The potential energy savings for efficiency levels more stringent than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 were calculated relative to the efficiency levels that would result if ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 standards were adopted. 

IV. Public Participation 

A. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this NODA no 

later than the date provided in the DATES

section at the beginning of this notice. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 20137 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

your comment or any accompanying 

documents. Instead, provide your 

contact information in a cover letter. 

Include your first and last names, email 

address, telephone number, and 

optional mailing address. The cover 

letter will not be publicly viewable as 

long as it does not include any 

comments. 

Include contact information each time 

you submit comments, data, documents, 

and other information to DOE. Email 

submissions are preferred. If you submit 

via mail or hand delivery/courier, 

please provide all items on a CD, if 

feasible, in which case, it is not 

necessary to submit printed copies. No 

telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. 

Comments, data, and other 

information submitted to DOE 

electronically should be provided in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format. Provide documents that are not 

secured, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential business information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email, postal mail, or hand 

delivery/courier two well-marked 

copies: One copy of the document 

marked ‘‘confidential’’ that includes all 

the information believed to be 

confidential, and one copy of the 

document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ 

with the information believed to be 

confidential deleted. Submit these 

documents via email or on a CD, if 

feasible. DOE will make its own 

determination about the confidential 

status of the information and treat it 

according to its determination. 

Factors of interest to DOE when 

evaluating requests to treat submitted 

information as confidential include: (1) 

A description of the items; (2) whether 

and why such items are customarily 

treated as confidential within the 

industry; (3) whether the information is 

generally known by or available from 

other sources; (4) whether the 

information has previously been made 

available to others without obligation 

concerning its confidentiality; (5) an 

explanation of the competitive injury to 

the submitting person which would 

result from public disclosure; (6) when 

such information might lose its 

confidential character due to the 

passage of time; and (7) why disclosure 

of the information would be contrary to 

the public interest. 

It is DOE’s policy that all comments 

may be included in the public docket, 

without change and as received, 

including any personal information 

provided in the comments (except 

information deemed to be exempt from 

public disclosure). 

B. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comments 

on any aspect of this notice, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

(1) DOE’s proposal to re-create 

separate equipment classes for singlepackage and split system equipment in 

the overall equipment classes of small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment (air-cooled, 

three-phase) less than 65,000 Btu/h; 

(2) The nomenclature changes in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2013 from ‘‘water 

source’’ to ‘‘water to air, water loop’’ 

and from ‘‘COP’’ to ‘‘COPH’’, and 

whether in fact they are editorial in 

nature; 

(3) The proposed definition for 

‘‘water-source heat pump;’’ 

(4) DOE’s tentative proposal to not 

establish a separate space-constrained 

class for SPVUs; 

(5) DOE’s preliminary conclusion that 

the updates to the most recent versions 

of ANSI Z21.47 do not have a 

substantive impact on the measurement 

of energy efficiency for gas-fired 

furnaces; 

(6) Whether energy usage for threephase commercial air-cooled equipment 

would be similar to that modeled for 

single-phase equipment in commercial 

buildings; 

(7) Whether increasing the HSPF for 

commercial air-cooled equipment less 

than 65,000 Btu/h will result in 

significant energy savings, and, if so, 

data to support such conclusion; 

(8) The appropriateness of using the 

cooling UECs for water-source heat 

pumps developed in the 2000 screening 

analysis, or other sources of data for this 

analysis; 

(9) Data and information related to 

water-source heat pump heating energy 

use; 

(10) DOE’s analysis of UEC for SPVUs 

and its use in establishing the energy 

savings potential for more-stringent 

standards. Of particular interest to DOE 

is input on shipments of SPVHP 

equipment to telecommunications 

shelters and the frequency of use of 

economizers in equipment serving these 

shelters; 

(11) Input on how or if regional 

differences between the shipments of 

heat pumps and air conditioners to 

warmer or cooler climates can be taken 

into account in the SPVU energy use 

characterization; 

(12) DOE’s derivation of UECs for oilfired storage water heaters; 

(13) Data and information related to 

the current shipments of water-source 

heat pumps and expected future trends; 

(14) The share of the market for 

ground-source and ground-water-source 

heat pump applications that use models 

also rated for water-loop application; 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

20138 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 70 / Friday, April 11, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

(15) DOE’s shipment methodologies 

and projections for all equipment 

analyzed in today’s NODA, and any 

shipments data related to these 

equipment; and 

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

prediction on how amended energy 

conservation standards would affect the 

distribution of efficiencies in the 

standards case for the thirteen classes of 

equipment for which analysis was 

performed. 

V. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notice of data 

availability. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on April 7, 

2014. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2014–08214 Filed 4–10–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2013–0981; Directorate 

Identifier 2013–NM–032–AD] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing 

Company Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Department of 

Transportation (DOT). 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM); reopening of comment period. 

SUMMARY: This document announces the 

reopening of the comment period for the 

above-referenced NPRM, which 

proposed the adoption of a new 

airworthiness directive (AD) that 

applies to all The Boeing Company 

Model MD–90–30 airplanes and that 

would supersede AD 97–11–07 and AD 

99–18–23. The NPRM proposed to 

continue to require revising the 

Airworthiness Limitations Section 

(ALS) of the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate certain 

compliance times for principal 

structural elements (PSE) inspections 

and replacement times for safe-life 

limited parts. The NPRM also proposed 

to require revising the maintenance or 

inspection program to incorporate a new 

PSE requirement for the rear spar caps 

of the horizontal stabilizer and its 

associated inspections. This reopening 

of the comment period is necessary to 

ensure that all interested persons have 

ample opportunity to submit any 

written relevant data, views, or 

arguments regarding the proposed 

requirements of the NPRM. 

DATES: We must receive comments on 

this NPRM (78 FR 73739, December 9, 

2013) by May 6, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: You may send comments, 

using the procedures found in 14 CFR 

11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following 

methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

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

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Fax: 202–493–2251. 

• Mail: U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, M– 

30, West Building Ground Floor, Room 

W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., 

Washington, DC 20590. 

• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail 

address above between 9 a.m. and 5 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

Federal holidays. 

Examining the AD Docket 

You may examine the AD docket on 

the Internet at http://

www.regulations.gov by searching for 

and locating Docket No. FAA–2013– 

0981; or in person at the Docket 

Management Facility between 9 a.m. 

and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. The AD docket 

contains this AD action, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The street address for 

the Docket Office (telephone 800–647– 

5527) is in the ADDRESSES section. 

Comments will be available in the AD 

docket shortly after receipt. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Roger Durbin, Airframe Branch, ANM– 

120L, FAA, Los Angeles Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), 3960 

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood, CA 

90712–4137; phone: (562) 627–5233; 

fax: (562) 627–5210; email: 

roger.durbin@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: We 

proposed to amend 14 CFR Part 39 by 

adding a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM) that would apply to all The 

Boeing Company Model MD–90–30 

airplanes. The NPRM was published in 

the Federal Register on December 9, 

2013 (78 FR 73739). The NPRM 

proposed to supersede AD 97–11–07, 

Amendment 39–10036 (62 FR 27941, 

May 22, 1997); and AD 99–18–23, 

Amendment 39–11289 (64 FR 48284, 

September 3, 1999). The NPRM 

proposed to continue to require revising 

the Airworthiness Limitations Section 

(ALS) of the Instructions for Continued 

Airworthiness to incorporate certain 

compliance times for principal 

structural elements (PSE) inspections 

and replacement times for safe-life 

limited parts. The NPRM also proposed 

to require revising the maintenance or 

inspection program to incorporate a new 

PSE requirement for the rear spar caps 

of the horizontal stabilizer and its 

associated inspections. The NPRM also 

invites comments on its overall 

regulatory, economic, environmental, 

and energy aspects. 

Events Leading to the Reopening of the 

Comment Period 

Since we issued the NPRM (78 FR 

73739, December 9, 2013), we have 

determined that the Relevant Service 

Information section in the preamble of 

the NPRM did not adequately describe 

the service information. We specified to 

see the service information, Boeing MD– 

90 Airworthiness Limitations 

Instructions (ALI) Report No. MDC– 

94K9000, Revision 6, dated September 

2011, at http://www.regulations.gov. 

However, we did not post the service 

information at http://

www.regulations.gov because we do not 

have clearance to post Boeing MD–90 

Airworthiness Limitations Instructions 

(ALI) Report No. MDC–94K9000, 

Revision 6, dated September 2011, at 

the NPRM stage of the AD process. 

Description of Service Information 

Boeing MD–90 Airworthiness 

Limitations Instructions (ALI) Report 

No. MDC–94K9000, Revision 6, dated 

September 2011, describes PSE 

inspections, compliance times, and 

replacement times for safe-life limited 

parts, which are required by AD 97–11– 

07, Amendment 39–10036 (62 FR 

27941, May 22, 1997); and AD 99–18– 

23, Amendment 39–11289 (64 FR 

48284, September 3, 1999). Boeing MD– 

90 Airworthiness Limitations 

Instructions (ALI) Report No. MDC– 

94K9000, Revision 6, dated September 

2011, also describes a new PSE 

requirement for the rear spar of the 

horizontal stabilizer and its associated 

inspections. 

FAA’s Determination 

We considered it necessary to 

adequately describe the service 

information and found it appropriate to 

reopen the comment period to give all 

interested persons additional time to 

examine the proposed requirements of 

the NPRM (78 FR 73739, December 9, 

2013) and submit comments. We have 

determined that reopening the comment 

period for 25 days will not compromise 

the safety of these airplanes. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS