2356 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029] 

RIN 1904–AC47 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment: Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Commercial Heating, 

Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating 

Equipment 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

and announcement of public meeting. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (DOE) is proposing to amend its 

energy conservation standards for 

several classes of commercial heating, 

air-conditioning, and water-heating 

equipment. Pursuant to the Energy 

Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 

(EPCA), as amended, DOE must assess 

whether the uniform national standards 

for these covered equipment need to be 

updated each time the corresponding 

industry standard—the American 

National Standards Institute (ANSI)/ 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating 

Engineering Society of North America 

(IESNA) Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1)—is amended, which 

most recently occurred on October 29, 

2010. Based upon its analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy conservation standards and the 

lack of clear and convincing evidence to 

support more-stringent standards, DOE 

is proposing to adopt the amended 

standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for 

small, large, and very large water-cooled 

and evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners; variable 

refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat 

pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF 

water-source heat pumps at or greater 

than 135,000 Btu/h; and computer room 

air conditioners. DOE is also proposing 

updates to the current Federal test 

procedures to incorporate by reference 

the most current versions of the 

following relevant industry test 

procedures specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1: Air-conditioning, 

Heating, and Refrigeration Institute 

(AHRI) 210/240 (small commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment); AHRI 340/360 (large and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment); 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727 and 

ANSI Z21.47 (commercial warm-air 

furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3 

(commercial water heaters). 

Furthermore, DOE is proposing to adopt 

AHRI 1230 for newly-created classes of 

variable refrigerant flow air conditioners 

and heat pumps, ASHRAE 127 for 

computer room air conditioners, and 

AHRI 390 for single package vertical air 

conditioners and single package vertical 

heat pumps. In addition, DOE is 

announcing a public meeting to receive 

comment on its proposal and related 

issues. 

DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting on February 14, 2012, from 9 

a.m. to 4 p.m., in Washington, DC. The 

meeting will also be broadcast as a 

webinar. See section X, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar information, 

participant instructions, and 

information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: DOE will accept 

comments, data, and information 

regarding this notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NOPR) before and after the 

public meeting, but no later than April 

2, 2012. For details, see section X, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this NOPR. 

ADDRESSES: The public meeting will be 

held at the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Forrestal Building, Room 8E–089, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585. To attend, 

please notify Ms. Brenda Edwards at 

(202) 586–2945. Please note that foreign 

nationals visiting DOE Headquarters are 

subject to advance security screening 

procedures. Any foreign national 

wishing to participate in the meeting, 

should advise DOE as soon as possible 

by contacting Ms. Edwards at the phone 

number above to initiate the necessary 

procedures. Please also note that any 

person wishing to bring a laptop 

computer into the Forrestal Building 

will be required to obtain a property 

pass. Visitors should avoid bringing 

laptops, or allow an extra 45 minutes. 

Persons may also attend the public 

meeting via webinar. For more 

information, refer to section X, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ of this NOPR. 

Any comments submitted must 

identify the NOPR on Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

Products, and provide docket number 

EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029 and/or 

Regulatory Information Number (RIN) 

1904–AC47. Comments may be 

submitted using any of the following 

methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: ASHRAE90.1-2011-STD0029@ee.doe.gov. Include docket 

number EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029 

and/or RIN 1904–AC47 in the subject 

line of the message. 

3. Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. 

Department of Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. If 

possible, please submit all items on a 

compact disc (CD), in which case it is 

not necessary to include printed copies. 

4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda 

Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 586–2945. If possible, please 

submit all items on a CD, in which case 

it is not necessary to include printed 

copies. 

No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on the rulemaking process, 

see section X of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Docket: The docket is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov, 

including Federal Register notices, 

public meeting attendee lists and 

transcripts, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

A link to the docket web page can be 

found at: www.regulations.gov. This 

web page contains a link to the docket 

for this notice, along with simple 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. See section X, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for further information 

on how to submit comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the public meeting, contact Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by 

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, Mailstop EE–2J, 

1000 Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7892. Email: 

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

Mailstop GC–71, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121. Telephone: (202) 586–9507. 

Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2357 

1Although EPCA does not explicitly define the 

term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of 

what would constitute an ‘‘amended standard’’ in 

a final rule published in the Federal Register on 

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

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

Continued 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

2. Notice of Data Availability 

III. General Discussion of Comments 

Regarding the ASHRAE Process and 

DOE’s Interpretation of EPCA’s 

Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE 

Equipment 

A. The ASHRAE Process 

B. The Definition of ‘‘Amendment’’ With 

Respect to the Efficiency Levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

C. DOE’s Review of ASHRAE Equipment 

Independent of the ASHRAE Standards 

Process 

IV. General Discussion of the Changes in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and 

Determination of Scope for Further 

Rulemaking Activity 

A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces 

B. Commercial Package Air-conditioning 

and Heating Equipment 

1. Water-Cooled Equipment 

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment 

3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment 

4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps 

5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and 

Through-The-Wall Equipment 

6. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps 

C. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units 

Serving Computer Rooms 

D. Coverage of Commercial Package Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

That Are Exclusively Used as Part of 

Industrial or Manufacturing Processes 

E. Test Procedures 

1. Small (<65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) 

Commercial Package Air Conditioners 

and Heating Equipment 

2. Small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity), Large (≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) and 

Very Large (≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/ 

h Cooling Capacity) Commercial Package 

Air Conditioners and Heating Equipment 

3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air 

Furnaces 

4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air 

Furnaces 

5. Commercial Water Heaters 

6. Air Conditioners and Condensing Units 

Serving Computer Rooms 

7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems 

8. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps 

9. Additional Specifications for Testing of 

Commercial Package Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment, Including VRF 

Systems 

10. Sampling Plans for Commercial 

Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Equipment 

F. Definitional Changes 

V. Methodology for VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps 

A. Definitions of ‘‘VRF Multi-Split Air 

Conditioners’’ and ‘‘VRF Multi-Split 

Heat Pumps’’ 

B. Annual Energy Use 

C. Shipments 

D. Other Analytical Inputs 

1. Site-to-Source Conversion 

2. Product Lifetime 

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period 

VI. Methodology for Computer Room Air 

Conditioners 

A. Market Assessment 

1. Definitions of ‘‘Computer Room Air 

Conditioners’’ 

2. Equipment Classes 

3. Review of Current Market for Computer 

Room Air Conditioners 

a. Trade Association Information 

b. Manufacturer Information 

c. Market Data 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Approach 

2. Representative Input Capacities for 

Analysis 

3. Baseline Equipment 

4. Identification of Efficiency Information 

and Efficiency Levels for Analysis 

5. Pricing Data 

6. Equipment Classes for Analysis and 

Extrapolation to Unanalyzed Equipment 

Classes 

7. Engineering Analysis Results 

C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price 

D. Energy Use Characterization 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

1. Approach 

2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs 

a. Equipment Prices 

b. Installation Costs 

c. Annual Energy Use 

d. Electricity Prices 

e. Maintenance Costs 

f. Repair Costs 

g. Equipment Lifetime 

h. Discount Rate 

3. Payback Period 

F. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

1. Approach 

2. Shipments Analysis 

3. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies 

4. National Energy Savings and Net Present 

Value 

G. Other Issues 

1. Compliance Date of the Proposed 

Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards 

VII. Methodology for Emissions Analysis and 

Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

A. Emissions Analysis 

B. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other 

Emissions Impacts 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

VIII. Analytical Results 

A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled 

Products 

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners 

B. Energy Savings and Economic 

Justification 

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled 

Equipment 

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners 

a. Economic Impacts on Commercial 

Customers 

b. National Impact Analysis 

C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy 

D. Proposed Standards 

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled 

Equipment 

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners 

IX. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

X. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

B. Procedure for Submitting Request To 

Speak and Prepared General Statements 

for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

D. Submission of Comments 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

XI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The Energy Policy and Conservation 

Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291 et seq.), as 

amended, requires DOE to consider 

amending the existing Federal energy 

conservation standard for certain types 

of listed commercial and industrial 

equipment (generally, commercial water 

heaters, commercial packaged boilers, 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment, and packaged 

terminal air conditioners and heat 

pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings 

Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, 

is amended with respect to such 

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

each type of equipment, EPCA directs 

that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended,1 DOE must adopt amended 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2358 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

2 If DOE found there were no models available on 

the market for any equipment class, DOE did not 

perform an analysis of the energy savings potential 

of that equipment class. 

3To obtain a copy of ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010, visit www.ashrae.org/technology/page/548 or 

contact the ASHRAE publications department by email at orders@ashrae.org or by telephone at (800) 

527–4723. 

energy conservation standards at the 

new efficiency level in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless clear and 

convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a morestringent efficiency level as a national 

standard would produce significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to 

adopt as a national standard the 

efficiency levels specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 

must establish such standard not later 

than 18 months after publication of the 

amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines 

that a more-stringent standard is 

appropriate under the statutory criteria, 

DOE must establish such more-stringent 

standard not later than 30 months after 

publication of the revised ASHRAE 

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

ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 on October 29, 

2010, thereby triggering DOE’s abovereferenced obligations pursuant to EPCA 

to determine for those equipment with 

efficiency level changes beyond the 

current Federal standard, whether: (1) 

the amended industry standard should 

be adopted; or (2) clear and convincing 

evidence exists to justify more-stringent 

standard levels. 

Accordingly, this NOPR sets forth 

DOE’s determination of scope for 

consideration of amended energy 

conservation standards with respect to 

certain heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and water-heating 

equipment addressed in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. Such inquiry is 

necessary to ascertain whether the 

revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have 

become more stringent, thereby 

ensuring that any new amended 

national standard would not result in 

prohibited ‘‘backsliding.’’ For those 

equipment classes for which ASHRAE 

set more-stringent or new efficiency 

levels (i.e., small, large, and very large 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

air conditioners; variable refrigerant 

flow water-source heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity either less than 17,000 

Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 

Btu/h with and without heat recovery; 

and computer room air conditioners), 

where possible,2 DOE analyzed the 

energy savings potential of amended 

national energy conservation standards 

(at both the new ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

efficiency levels and more-stringent 

efficiency levels). For the classes of 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

air conditioning and heating equipment, 

as well as the VRF equipment classes, 

DOE determined that the potential for 

energy savings from adopting more 

stringent levels than the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 levels was not significant, 

and, thus, DOE is proposing to adopt the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels without 

further analysis. (See section IV.B for 

further details.) For computer room air 

conditioners, DOE also analyzed the 

economic justification of amended 

national energy conservation standards 

at more-stringent efficiency levels, in 

addition to the energy savings potential. 

DOE did not identify any equipment on 

the market for evaporatively-cooled air 

conditioners with a capacity less than 

240,000 Btu/h (small and large product 

classes) or VRF water-source heat 

pumps with a cooling capacity less than 

17,000 Btu/h. As a result, DOE did not 

analyze the economic or energy savings 

potential of these amended national 

energy conservation standards, because 

there are currently no energy savings 

associated with these product classes, 

nor is there any available equipment 

information. 

In light of the above, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that for twelve 

classes of water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, 

four classes of VRF water-source heat 

pumps, and thirty classes of computer 

room air conditioners: (1) The revised 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1– 

2010 3 are more stringent than current 

national standards or represent new 

standards; and (2) their adoption as 

Federal energy conservation standards 

would result in energy savings where 

models exist below the revised 

efficiency levels. DOE has also 

tentatively concluded that there is not 

clear and convincing evidence as would 

justify adoption of more-stringent 

efficiency levels for this equipment. 

Thus, in accordance with the criteria 

discussed elsewhere in this notice, DOE 

is proposing to amend its existing 

energy conservation standards for 

twelve equipment classes of watercooled and evaporatively-cooled 

equipment and VRF water-source heat 

pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h (with and 

without heat recovery), and to establish 

new energy conservation standards for 

VRF water-source heat pumps at or 

greater than 135,000 Btu/h (with and 

without heat recovery) and thirty classes 

of computer room air conditioners by 

adopting the efficiency levels specified 

by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

The proposed standards for small 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners, 

VRF water-source heat pumps less than 

17,000 Btu/h, and computer room air 

conditioners less than 65,000 Btu/h 

would apply to equipment 

manufactured on or after the date two 

years after the effective date specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 (i.e., by 

June 1, 2013 for small water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners, and by 

October 29, 2012 for VRF water-source 

heat pump less than 17,000 Btu/h and 

computer room air conditioners less 

than 65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(D)(i)) The proposed standards 

for large and very large water-cooled 

and evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners, VRF watersource heat pumps equal to or greater 

than 135,000 Btu/h, and computer room 

air conditioners equal to or greater than 

65,000 Btu/h would apply to such 

equipment manufactured on or after the 

date three years after the effective date 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 (i.e., by June 1, 2014 for large and 

very large water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners, and by 

October 29, 2013 for VRF water-source 

heat pumps equal to or greater than 

135,000 Btu/h and computer room air 

conditioners equal to or greater than 

65,000 Btu/h). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(D)(ii)) 

In addition, when the test procedures 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

are updated, EPCA requires DOE to 

amend the test procedures for those 

ASHRAE equipment (which 

manufacturers are required to use in 

order to certify compliance with energy 

conservation standards mandated under 

EPCA) to be consistent with the 

amended industry test procedure. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) Specifically, these 

amendments would update the citations 

and incorporations by reference in 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2359 

4For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

5All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 

110–140. 

6Once DOE has completed its rulemaking 

obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B), SPVACs 

and SPVHPs will be treated similar to other 

ASHRAE equipment going forward. 

DOE’s regulations to the most recent 

version of the following industry 

standards: (1) AHRI 210/240–2008 

(Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 

Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360–2007 

(Performance Rating of Unitary 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment); (3) UL 727–2006 (Standard 

for Safety for Oil-Fired Central 

Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47–2006 

(Standard for Gas-Fried Central 

Furnaces); and (5) ANSI Z21.10.3–2006 

(Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage 

Water Heaters with Input Ratings Above 

75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and 

Instantaneous). DOE is also proposing to 

adopt three new test procedures for VRF 

equipment (AHRI 1230–2010), computer 

room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127– 

2007), and single package vertical units 

(AHRI 390–2003). In addition to 

harmonizing the test procedures with 

the latest versions in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, DOE also reviewed each of these 

test procedures in their totality as part 

of DOE’s seven-year review required by 

EPCA. 

DOE is also proposing to include an 

optional ‘‘break-in’’ provision in its test 

procedures for commercial air 

conditioning and heating equipment, in 

order to provide the manufacturer with 

the option of running the test unit for a 

set amount of time prior to testing the 

equipment. Such a provision could 

allow components within the unit to 

warm-up to conditions that are more 

characteristic of typical operation and 

more accurately reflect efficiencies 

achieved in the field. Lastly, DOE has 

identified a number of issues associated 

with its test procedures for which it is 

seeking comments from interested 

parties. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying today’s proposal, as well as 

some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, 

variable refrigerant flow water-source 

heat pump systems, and computer room 

air conditioners. 

A. Authority 

Title III, Part C4 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.5 In general, 

this program addresses the energy 

efficiency of certain types of commercial 

and industrial equipment. Relevant 

provisions of the Act specifically 

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

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 

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

6315), and the authority to require 

information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316). 

EPCA contains mandatory energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) 

Specifically, the statute sets standards 

for small, large, and very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, packaged 

terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and 

packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), 

warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 

storage water heaters, instantaneous 

water heaters, and unfired hot water 

storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA 

established Federal energy conservation 

standards that generally correspond to 

the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as 

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

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989), for each 

type of covered equipment listed in 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a). The Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007 

(EISA 2007) amended EPCA by adding 

definitions and setting minimum energy 

conservation standards for singlepackage vertical air conditioners 

(SPVACs) and single-package vertical 

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

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

for SPVACs and SPVHPs established by 

EISA 2007 correspond to the levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2004, which originated as addendum 

‘‘d’’ to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2001. 

In acknowledgement of technological 

changes that yield energy efficiency 

benefits, Congress further directed DOE 

through EPCA to consider amending the 

existing Federal energy conservation 

standard for each type of equipment 

listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 is amended with respect to such 

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

each type of equipment, EPCA directs 

that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended, DOE must publish in the 

Federal Register an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards within 180 

days of the amendment of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs 

that DOE must adopt amended 

standards at the new efficiency level in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear 

and convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a more 

stringent level would produce 

significant additional energy savings 

and be technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to 

adopt as a national standard the 

efficiency levels specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 

must establish such standard not later 

than 18 months after publication of the 

amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE 

determines that a more-stringent 

standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 

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

establish such more-stringent standard 

not later than 30 months after 

publication of the amended ASHRAE 

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

(In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to 

the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, 

under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the 

agency must periodically review its 

already-established energy conservation 

standards for ASHRAE products. Under 

this requirement, the next review that 

DOE would need to conduct must occur 

no later than six years from the issuance 

of a final rule establishing or amending 

a standard for a covered product.) 

EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to 

require that DOE review the most 

recently published ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010) 

with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in 

accordance with the procedures 

established for ASHRAE equipment 

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

6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes 

that this one-time requirement is 

separate and independent from the 

requirement described in the paragraph 

above for all ASHRAE products and that 

it requires DOE to evaluate potential 

standards higher than the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 level for singlepackage vertical air conditioners and 

heat pumps, even if the efficiency levels 

for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not 

changed since the last version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1.6 DOE is 

conducting a separate rulemaking to 

further evaluate the efficiency levels for 

this equipment class. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2360 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

EPCA also requires that if a test 

procedure referenced in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must 

update its test procedure to be 

consistent with the amended test 

procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

unless DOE determines that the 

amended test procedure is not 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results which reflect the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

operating costs of the ASHRAE product 

during a representative average use 

cycle. In addition, DOE must determine 

that the amended test procedure is not 

unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4)) 

Additionally, EISA 2007 amended 

EPCA to require that at least once every 

7 years, DOE must conduct an 

evaluation of the test procedures for all 

covered equipment and either amend 

test procedures (if the Secretary 

determines that amended test 

procedures would more accurately or 

fully comply with the requirements of 

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3)) or publish 

notice in the Federal Register of any 

determination not to amend a test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) 

Under this requirement, DOE must 

review the test procedures for the 

various types of ASHRAE equipment 

not later than December 19, 2014 (i.e., 

7 years after the enactment of EISA 

2007). Thus, the final rule resulting 

from this rulemaking will satisfy the 

requirement to review the test 

procedures for the certain types of 

ASHRAE equipment included in this 

rule (i.e., those equipment for which 

DOE has been triggered) within seven 

years. 

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE 

officially released and made public 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. This 

action triggered DOE’s obligations under 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above. 

When considering the possibility of a 

more-stringent standard, DOE’s more 

typical rulemaking requirements under 

EPCA apply (i.e., a determination of 

technological feasibility, economic 

justification, and significant energy 

savings). For example, EPCA provides 

that in deciding whether such a 

standard is economically justified, DOE 

must determine, after receiving 

comments on the proposed standard, 

whether the benefits of the standard 

exceed its burdens by considering, to 

the greatest extent practicable, the 

following seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on manufacturers and 

consumers of the products subject to the 

standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the product in the type (or class) 

compared to any increase in the price, 

initial charges, or maintenance expenses 

of the products likely to result from the 

standard; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy savings likely to result directly 

from the standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy 

conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary 

considers relevant. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)–(ii); 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a)) 

EPCA, as codified, also contains what 

is known as an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision, which prevents the Secretary 

from prescribing any amended standard 

that either increases the maximum 

allowable energy use or decreases the 

minimum required energy efficiency of 

a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not 

prescribe an amended or new standard 

if interested persons have established by 

a preponderance of the evidence that 

such standard would likely result in the 

unavailability in the United States of 

any covered product type (or class) of 

performance characteristics (including 

reliability), features, sizes, capacities, 

and volumes that are substantially the 

same as those generally available in the 

United States at the time of the 

Secretary’s finding. (42 U.S.C. 

6295(o)(4)) 

Further, EPCA, as codified, 

establishes a rebuttable presumption 

that a standard is economically justified 

if the Secretary finds that the additional 

cost to the consumer of purchasing a 

product complying with an energy 

conservation standard level will be less 

than three times the value of the energy 

(and, as applicable, water) savings 

during the first year that the consumer 

will receive as a result of the standard, 

as calculated under the applicable test 

procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) 

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

Additionally, when a type or class of 

covered equipment such as ASHRAE 

equipment, has two or more 

subcategories, DOE often specifies more 

than one standard level. DOE generally 

will adopt a different standard level 

than that which applies generally to 

such type or class of products for any 

group of covered products that have the 

same function or intended use if DOE 

determines that products within such 

group: (A) Consume a different kind of 

energy from that consumed by other 

covered products within such type (or 

class); or (B) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and which justifies a higher or 

lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 

U.S.C. 6316(a)) In determining whether 

a performance-related feature justifies a 

different standard for a group of 

products, DOE generally considers such 

factors as the utility to the consumer of 

the feature and other factors DOE deems 

appropriate. In a rule prescribing such 

a standard, DOE includes an 

explanation of the basis on which such 

higher or lower level was established. 

(42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE 

plans to follow a similar process in the 

context of today’s rulemaking. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2361 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s NOPR is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, benefits justify costs 

and that net benefits are maximized. 

Consistent with EO 13563, and the 

range of impacts analyzed in this 

rulemaking, the energy efficiency 

standard proposed herein by DOE 

achieves maximum net benefits. 

B. Background 

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

As noted above, ASHRAE released a 

new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE 

standard addresses efficiency levels for 

many types of commercial heating, 

ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), 

and water-heating equipment covered 

by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

revised its efficiency levels for certain 

commercial equipment and revised its 

scope to include additional equipment, 

but for the remaining equipment, 

ASHRAE left in place the preexisting 

levels (i.e., the efficiency levels 

specified in EPCA or the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2007). 

Table II.1 below presents the 

equipment classes for which ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels 

differed from those in the previous 

version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 2007). Table 

II.1 also presents the existing Federal 

energy conservation standards and the 

corresponding standard levels in both 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2007 and 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for those 

equipment classes. Section IV of this 

document assesses each of these 

equipment types to determine whether 

the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 constitute increased energy 

efficiency levels, as would necessitate 

further analysis of the potential energy 

savings from amended Federal energy 

conservation standards, the conclusions 

of which are presented in the final 

column of Table II.1. 

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

90.1–2007 AND ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT * 

ASHRAE equipment class** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards DOE review triggered? 

Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces 

Gas-Fired Commercial Warm-Air furnace .................. Ec = 80% Interrupted or 

intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not 

exceeding 0.75% of 

input rating, power vent 

or flue damper*** 

Et = 80% Interrupted or 

intermittent ignition device, jacket losses not 

exceeding 0.75% of 

input rating, power vent 

or flue damper*** 

Et = 80% No 

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

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

Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.

11.5 EER 12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.5 EER Yes 

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

Btu/h, All Other Heating.

11.3 EER 11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.3 EER Yes 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No 

Heating.

11.0 EER 12.5 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER Yes 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER 12.3 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER Yes 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating.11.0 EER 12.4 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER Yes 

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h, All 

Other Heating.

10.8 EER 12.2 EER (as of 6/1/11) 10.8 EER Yes 

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

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No 

Heating.

11.5 EER 12.1 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.5 EER Yes 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating.

11.3 EER 11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.3 EER Yes 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No 

Heating.

11.0 EER 12.0 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER Yes 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER 11.8 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER Yes 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No 

Heating.

11.0 EER 11.9 EER (as of 6/1/11) 11.0 EER Yes 

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h, All Other Heating.

10.8 EER 11.7 EER† (as of 6/1/11) 10.8 EER Yes 

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

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ...... N/A 13.0 SEER 13.0 SEER No 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 and 

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

N/A 11.2 EER 11.2 EER No 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 and 

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

N/A 11.0 EER 11.0 EER No 

VRF Air Conditioners, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, 

Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A 10.0 EER 10.0 EER No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............ N/A 13.0 SEER 

7.7 HSPF 

13.0 SEER 

7.7 HSPF 

No 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2362 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

90.1–2007 AND ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued 

ASHRAE equipment class** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards DOE review triggered? 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h, without heat recovery, Electric Resistance 

or No Heating.

N/A 11.0 EER 

3.3 COP 

11.0 EER 

3.3 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <135,000 

Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or 

No Heating.

N/A 10.8 EER 

3.3 COP 

11.0 EER (electric resistance heating) 

10.8 EER (no electric resistance heating)†††

3.3 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery, Electric 

Resistance or No Heating.

N/A 10.6 EER 

3.2 COP 

10.6 EER 

3.2 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A 10.4 EER 

3.2 COP 

10.6 EER (electric resistance heating) 

10.4 (no electric resistance heating)†††

3.2 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.N/A 9.5 EER 

3.2 COP 

9.5 EER 

3.2 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h, with 

heat recovery, Electric Resistance or No Heating.

N/A 9.3 EER 

3.2 COP 

9.5 EER (electric resistance heating) 

9.3 EER (no electric resistance heating)†††

3.2 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <65,000 Btu/h, 

without heat recovery.

N/A 12.0 EER 

4.2 COP 

11.2 EER (<17,000 Btu/ 

h)‡

12.0 EER (≥17,000 Btu/h 

and <65,000 Btu/h) 

4.2 COP 

Yes✧✧✧ 

for <17,000 Btu 

No 

for ≥17,000 Btu/h and 

<65,000 Btu/h 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, <65,000 Btu/h, 

with heat recovery.

N/A 11.8 EER 

4.2 COP 

11.2 EER (< 17,000 Btu/ 

h)‡

Yes✧✧✧ 

for <17,000 Btu 

12.0 EER (≥17,000 Btu/h 

and <65,000 Btu/h) 

4.2 COP 

No 

for ≥17,000 Btu/h and 

<65,000 Btu/h 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery.

N/A 12.0 EER 

4.2 COP 

12.0 EER 

4.2 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery.

N/A 11.8 EER 

4.2 COP 

12.0 EER 

4.2 COP 

No 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 Btu/h, 

without heat recovery.

N/A 10.0 EER 

3.9 COP 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

VRF Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 Btu/h, 

with heat recovery.

N/A 9.8 EER 

3.9 COP 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

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

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

Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 11.0 EER = 11.7 

(as of 10/8/12) 

EER = 11.7 No 

Package Terminal Air Conditioner, ≥7,000 and 

<15,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 12.5—(0.213 x 

Cap✧) 

EER = 13.8—(0.300 x 

Cap✧) 

(as of 10/8/12) 

EER = 13.8—(0.300 x 

Cap✧) 

No 

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

Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 9.3 EER = 9.3 EER = 9.3 No 

Package Terminal Heat Pump, <7,000 Btu/h, Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 10.8 

COP = 3.0 

EER = 11.9 

COP = 3.3 

(as of 10/8/12) 

EER = 11.9 

COP = 3.3 

No 

Package Terminal Heat Pump, ≥7,000 and <15,000 

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

EER = 12.3—(0.213 x 

Cap✧) 

COP = 3.2—(0.026 x 

Cap✧) 

EER = 14.0—(0.300 x 

Cap✧) 

COP = 3.7—(0.052 x 

Cap✧) 

(as of 10/8/12) 

EER = 14.0—(0.300 x 

Cap✧) 

COP = 3.7—(0.052 x 

Cap✧) 

No 

Package Terminal Heat Pump, >15,000 Btu/h, 

Standard Size (New Construction)‡‡‡.

EER = 9.1 

COP = 2.8 

EER = 9.5 

COP = 2.9 

EER = 9.5 

COP = 2.9 

No 

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

Through-the-Wall, Air-cooled Heat Pumps, ≤30,000 

Btu/h.

12.0 SEER 

7.4 HSPF 

13.0 SEER 

7.4 HSPF 

13.0 SEER 

7.7 HSPF 

No 

Small-Duct, High-Velocity, Air-cooled Heat Pumps, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

10.0 SEER 

6.8 HSPF 

N/A✧✧ 13.0 SEER 

7.7 HSPF 

No 

Air Conditioners and Condensing Units Serving Computer Rooms 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................ N/A 2.20 SCOP (downflow) 

2.09 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 and <240,000 

Btu/h.

N/A 2.10 SCOP (downflow) 

1.99 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .............. N/A 1.90 SCOP (downflow) 

1.79 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2363 

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

90.1–2007 AND ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF COMMERCIAL EQUIPMENT *—Continued 

ASHRAE equipment class** 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2007 

Energy efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 

Federal energy 

conservation standards DOE review triggered? 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........... N/A 2.60 SCOP (downflow) 

2.49 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.50 SCOP (downflow) 

2.39 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......... N/A 2.40 SCOP (downflow) 

2.29 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizer, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.55 SCOP (downflow) 

2.44 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizer, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.45 SCOP (downflow) 

2.34 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizer, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.35 SCOP (downflow) 

2.24 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ........... N/A 2.50 SCOP (downflow) 

2.39 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.15 SCOP (downflow) 

2.04 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......... N/A 2.10 SCOP (downflow) 

1.99 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, 

<65,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.45 SCOP (downflow) 

2.34 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, 

≥65,000 and <240,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.10 SCOP (downflow) 

1.99 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, 

≥240,000 Btu/h.

N/A 2.05 SCOP (downflow) 

1.94 SCOP (upflow) 

N/A Yes✧✧✧ 

* ‘‘Ec’’ means combustion efficiency; ‘‘Et’’ means thermal efficiency; ‘‘EER’’ means energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘SEER’’ means seasonal energy efficiency ratio; ‘‘HSPF’’ 

means heating seasonal performance factor; ‘‘COP’’ means coefficient of performance; ‘‘Btu/h’’ means British thermal units per hour; and ‘‘SCOP’’ means sensible coefficient of performance. 

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

previously covered DOE equipment classes remained covered equipment). 

*** A vent damper is an acceptable alternative to a flue damper for those furnaces that draw combustion air from conditioned space. †ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section IV.B.2 of this NOPR, DOE believes this level was a 

mistake and that the correct level is 11.7 EER. ††Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) systems are newly defined equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. As discussed in section IV.B.3 of this NOPR, 

DOE believes these systems are currently covered by Federal energy conservation standards for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. †††For these equipment classes, ASHRAE sets lower efficiency requirements for equipment with heat recovery systems. DOE believes systems with heat recovery 

and electric resistance heating would be required to meet the current Federal standard for equipment with electric resistance heating (i.e., the Federal standard level 

shown in the table). However, for equipment with heat recovery and no electric resistance heating, DOE believes heat recovery would be an ‘‘other’’ heating type allowing for a 0.2 EER reduction in the Federal minimum requirement. ‡The Federal energy conservation standards for this equipment class are specified differently for equipment with cooling capacity <17,000 Btu/h. However, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 does not distinguish this equipment class. ‡‡For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure, all EER values must be rated at 95ß F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively-cooled products, and at 85ß F entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 47ß F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for 

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

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

✧✧ ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 includes an efficiency level of 10.0 SEER for these products. However, as explained in section IV.B.5 of this NOPR, DOE believes that ASHRAE did not intend to set an efficiency level for these products. 

✧✧✧ An energy-savings analysis for this class of equipment was not conducted for the notice of data availability published on May 5, 2011 due to either a lack of 

data or because there is no equipment on the market that would fall into this equipment class. 

2. Notice of Data Availability 

On May 5, 2011, DOE published a 

notice of data availability (May 2011 

NODA) in the Federal Register and 

requested public comment as a 

preliminary step required pursuant to 

EPCA when DOE considers amended 

energy conservation standards for 

certain types of commercial equipment 

covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 

FR 25622. Specifically, the May 2011 

NODA presented for public comment 

DOE’s analysis of the potential energy 

savings estimates for amended national 

energy conservation standards for types 

of commercial equipment based on: (1) 

The modified efficiency levels 

contained within ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010; and (2) more-stringent 

efficiency levels. Id. at 25637. DOE has 

described these analyses and 

preliminary conclusions and sought 

input from interested parties, including 

the submission of data and other 

relevant information. Id. 

In addition, DOE presented a 

discussion in the May 2011 NODA of 

the changes found in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010. Id. at 25630–37. The May 

2011 NODA includes a description of 

DOE’s evaluation of each ASHRAE 

equipment type in order for DOE to 

determine whether the amendments in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 have 

increased efficiency levels. As an initial 

matter, DOE sought to determine which 

requirements for covered equipment in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if any, have 

been revised solely to reflect the level of 

the current Federal energy conservation 

standard (where ASHRAE is merely 

‘‘catching up’’ to the current national 

standard), have been revised but 

lowered, have been revised to include 

design requirements without changes to 

the efficiency level, or have had any 

other revisions made that do not 

increase the standard level, in which 

case, DOE is not triggered to act under 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for that particular 

product type. For those types of 

equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

for which ASHRAE actually increased 

efficiency levels above the current 

Federal standard, DOE subjected that 

equipment to the potential energy 

savings analysis discussed above and 

presented the results in the May 2011 

NODA for public comment. 76 FR 

25622, 25644–47 (May 5, 2011). 

Additionally, for single package vertical 

air conditioners and heat pumps, 

although the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 were unchanged, 

DOE performed an analysis of their 

potential energy savings as required by 

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

presented an initial assessment of the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2364 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

7 ‘‘EEI, No. 7 at p. 2’’ refers to: (1) To a statement 

that was submitted by the Edison Electric Institute 

and is recorded in the docket under ‘‘Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 

Equipment: Energy Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and WaterHeating Equipment,’’ Docket Number EERE–2011– 

BT–STD–0029, as comment number 7; and (2) a 

passage that appears on pages 1–2 of that statement. 

test procedure changes included in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

As a result of the preliminary 

determination of scope set forth in the 

May 2011 NODA, DOE found that there 

were equipment types for which 

ASHRAE increased the efficiency levels 

(thereby triggering further analysis) 

including: (1) Water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; 

(2) two classes of VRF water-source heat 

pumps with and without heat recovery; 

and (3) computer room air conditioners 

(which were not previously covered). 76 

FR 25622, 25644–47 (May 5, 2011). DOE 

presented its methodology, data, and 

results for the preliminary energy 

savings analysis developed for the 

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 

equipment classes in the May 2011 

NODA for public comment. 76 FR 

25622, 25637–46 (May 5, 2011). For the 

remaining equipment classes, DOE 

requested data and information that 

would allow it to accurately assess the 

energy savings potential of those 

equipment classes. 

III. General Discussion of Comments 

Regarding the ASHRAE Process and 

DOE’s Interpretation of EPCA’s 

Requirements With Respect to ASHRAE 

Equipment 

In response to its request for comment 

on the May 2011 NODA, DOE received 

seven comments from manufacturers, 

trade associations, utilities, and energy 

efficiency advocates. As discussed 

above, these comments are available in 

the docket for this rulemaking and are 

available for review by following the 

instructions in the ADDRESSES section. 

The following section summarizes the 

issues raised in these comments, along 

with DOE’s responses. 

A. The ASHRAE Process 

In response to the preliminary 

determination of scope and analyses set 

forth in the May 2011 NODA, DOE 

received several comments regarding 

the ASHRAE process for considering 

revised efficiency levels for certain 

commercial heating, ventilating, airconditioning, and water heater 

equipment. 

Edison Electric Institute (EEI) stated 

that it supported the efficiency levels for 

equipment shown in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, because the efficiency levels 

were created through a consensus-based 

process, DOE’s analysis shows energy 

savings for all ASHRAE values 

analyzed, and adopting ASHRAE values 

would ensure a streamlined approach. 

(EEI, No. 7 at p. 1–2) 7 The AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 

Institute (AHRI) stated that AHRI and its 

members were participants in the 

development of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, and that revisions to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are developed 

through a consensus process. AHRI 

encouraged DOE to adopt the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

as Federal minimum efficiency 

standards. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1, 3) 

DOE maintains its position expressed 

in the March 20, 2009 NOPR, as restated 

below. While DOE recognizes that 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 are the result of a consensus 

process, EPCA clearly sets forth DOE’s 

obligations in terms of considering 

amendments when ASHRAE revises 

Standard 90.1. Specifically, EPCA 

directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended, DOE must adopt amended 

energy conservation standards at the 

new efficiency level in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless clear and 

convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a morestringent 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)) In order to 

determine if more-stringent efficiency 

levels would meet EPCA’s criteria, DOE 

must review the efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and morestringent efficiency levels for their 

energy savings and economic potentials 

irrespective of whether the efficiency 

levels were part of a consensus 

standard. 74 FR 12000, 12006. 

B. The Definition of ‘‘Amendment’’ With 

Respect to the Efficiency Levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

The Appliance Standards Awareness 

Project (ASAP), the Natural Resources 

Defense Council (NRDC), the Northwest 

Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), and 

the Northwest Power and Conservation 

Council (NPCC) submitted a joint 

comment (hereafter referred to as ‘‘The 

Advocates’’ comment), which argued 

that although efficiency levels did not 

change for warm-air furnaces, ASHRAE 

90.1–2010 contains design requirements 

(interrupted or intermittent ignition 

device, jacket losses not exceeding 0.75 

percent of the input rating, and either 

power venting or a flue damper) that 

qualify as an amendment that triggers 

DOE’s review. (The Advocates, No. 8 at 

p. 2–3) The Advocates stated in 

previous comments attached as Exhibit 

B, ‘‘The plain language of EPCA ties 

DOE’s duty to review and update 

Federal standards to ASHRAE’s 

amendment of its own standards 

regardless of the direction or nature of 

the ASHRAE change.’’ (The Advocates, 

No. 8 at Exhibit B, p. 3) The Advocates 

further note that the prescriptive 

requirements for warm-air furnaces 

meet DOE’s own definition of 

‘‘amendment,’’ because it increases the 

level of efficiency for this equipment 

type. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit 

B p. 4, referring to 73 FR 40771) Even 

if DOE decides it cannot adopt multimetric standards, the Advocates believe 

that ASHRAE’s action triggers a DOE 

review of the warm-air furnaces 

standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at 

Exhibit B p. 4) 

DOE does not agree with the 

Advocates’ assertion that DOE is 

required to review changes in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 that do not increase 

the efficiency level when compared to 

the current Federal energy conservation 

standards for a given type of equipment. 

As it did in the July 2009 Final Rule, 

DOE views the trigger as attached to an 

increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312, 

36320 (July 22, 2009). Further, since 

EPCA does not explicitly define the 

term ‘‘amended’’ in the context of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided 

its interpretation of what would 

constitute an ‘‘amended standard’’ in a 

final rule published in the Federal 

Register on March 7, 2007. 72 FR 10038. 

In that rule, DOE stated that the 

statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt 

uniform national standards based on 

ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to 

change a standard for any of the 

equipment listed in EPCA section 

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

by increasing the energy efficiency level 

for that equipment type. Id. at 10042. 

The section cited above refers to ‘‘the 

minimum level * * * specified in the 

amended ASHRAE standard,’’ which 

DOE interprets as referring to an energy 

efficiency level. 

The Advocates also argued that EPCA 

authorizes DOE to adopt a multi-metric 

standard. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) 

DOE has previously noted that Congress 

intended 42 U.S.C. 6313 to result in 

DOE ‘‘maintain[ing] uniform national 

standards consistent with those set in 

ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.’’ (The 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3, referring to 72 

FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007)) The 

Advocates, therefore, contend that DOE 

must read the statute as permitting 

sufficient authority to harmonize 

standards with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

(The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 3) The 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2365 

8The Energy Independence and Security Act of 

2007 incorporated a provision commonly known as 

the ‘‘six-year look back,’’ requiring DOE to review 

‘‘any final rule establishing or amending a 

standard’’ every six years and either publish a 

notice indicating that new standards are not 

required or begin a rulemaking proposing new 

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

Advocates also state that several 

products (commercial storage water 

heaters, instantaneous water heaters, 

and commercial heat pumps) are 

already subject to multiple efficiency 

requirements, some of which are based 

on multi-part requirements in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (The Advocates 

Comment, No. 8 at p. 3) The Advocates 

asserted that DOE’s position that it lacks 

legal authority to apply more than one 

requirement in a standard for a given 

product was developed by DOE during 

the Bush administration in the 

residential furnaces rulemaking, and 

that it reversed the agency position 

taken previously in the central air 

conditioner docket. Therefore, the 

Advocates urged DOE to reconsider the 

policy. (The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit 

C p. 2) 

In response, if ASHRAE adds a 

prescriptive requirement for equipment 

where an efficiency level is already 

specified, DOE does not believe it has 

the authority to use a dual descriptor for 

a single equipment type. EPCA 

authorizes the Secretary to amend the 

energy conservation standards for 

specified equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)), but under 42 U.S.C. 

6311(18), the statute’s definition of the 

term ‘‘energy conservation standard’’ is 

limited to: (A) A performance standard 

that prescribes a minimum level of 

energy efficiency or a maximum 

quantity of energy use for a product; or 

(B) a design requirement for a product. 

The language of EPCA authorizes DOE 

to establish a performance standard or a 

single design standard. As such, DOE 

maintains its position stated in the July 

2009 Final Rule that a standard that 

establishes both a performance standard 

and a design requirement is beyond the 

scope of DOE’s legal authority, as would 

be a standard that included more than 

one design requirement. 74 FR 36312, 

36322 (July 22, 2009). In this case, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

recommends three design requirements, 

which goes beyond EPCA’s limit of one 

design requirement for the specified 

covered equipment. 

In light of the above, DOE maintains 

its position (stated in the July 2008 

notice of data availability) that if the 

revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves 

the standard level unchanged or lowers 

the standard, as compared to the level 

specified by the national standard 

adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does 

not have the authority to conduct a 

rulemaking to consider a higher 

standard for that equipment pursuant to 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 73 FR 40770, 

40771 (July 16, 2008). 

C. DOE’s Review of ASHRAE Equipment 

Independent of the ASHRAE Standards 

Process 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, 

Southern California Gas Company, and 

San Diego Gas and Electric submitted a 

joint comment in response to the May 

2011 NODA, with Southern California 

Edison (SCE) submitting an identical 

comment (hereafter referred to together 

as the CA IOU comment). Both the CA 

IOU comment and the Advocates 

comment argued that DOE should 

expand the scope of the rulemaking to 

include additional product classes. (CA 

IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; The 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) Both comments 

specifically recommended considering 

amended standards for commercial aircooled unitary air conditioners and heat 

pumps and commercial water heaters, 

arguing that higher efficiency levels 

would be technologically feasible and 

that potential national energy savings 

would be significant (commercial aircooled unitary air conditioners and heat 

pumps) or would likely be significant 

(commercial water heaters). (CA IOU, 

Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 2; The Advocates, 

No. 8 at p. 5, 9) The Advocates also 

requested that DOE evaluate whether 

there are potentially significant savings 

for unitary water-source heat pumps. 

(The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 6) In 

addition, EEI recommended that if DOE 

reviews products for higher efficiency 

standards, it should take a fuel-neutral 

approach and analyze the energy 

savings potential from increasing energy 

efficiency standards for gas and oil-fired 

furnaces and boilers in addition to the 

electric products triggered by ASHRAE 

90.1–2010. (EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) 

The Advocates also argued that the 

six-year look back provision in the 

Energy Independence and Security Act 

of 2007 (EISA 2007) 8 compels DOE to 

review standards for all product classes, 

including those specifically mentioned 

above, that are more than five years old. 

(The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1, 5–6, 9) 

The Advocates stated that the plain 

language of the provision applies to all 

final rules setting standards, including 

those issued prior to EISA 2007. (The 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) These 

commenters also stated that it would be 

unreasonable to read the provision to 

exclude the most out-of-date standards, 

because the purpose of the provision is 

to keep standards up-to-date. (The 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 2) Further, it was 

noted that the U.S. Department of 

Energy May 2011 Strategic Plan 

commits the Department to reviewing 

minimum appliance efficiency 

standards at least every 5 years. (The 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 1) 

The Advocates argued that EISA 2007 

does not provide a temporal limitation 

on what is included in the ‘‘any final 

rule’’ language used. (The Advocates, 

No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 7) The Advocates 

also cited several Supreme Court cases 

in which ‘‘any’’ is interpreted to have an 

expansive meaning encompassing all 

species of the category in question. (The 

Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 6–7) 

Therefore, the Advocates contend that 

the six-year review must be applied to 

all products that have a final rule 

regardless of when it was issued (i.e., 

including those issued prior to 

December 19, 2007, the enactment date 

of EISA 2007). (The Advocates, No. 8 at 

Exhibit A p. 7) These commenters use 

this rationale to support their 

recommendation above for DOE to 

expand the scope of the present 

rulemaking to include additional 

product classes. 

In response, DOE previously 

addressed similar comments in a March 

20, 2009 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

related to ASHRAE products. 74 FR 

12000. In that document, DOE 

acknowledged that EISA 2007 directs 

DOE to assess whether there is a need 

to update Federal energy conservation 

standards for certain commercial 

equipment (i.e., ASHRAE equipment) 

after a certain amount of time has 

elapsed. However, DOE also noted that 

it did not believe it was Congress’s 

intention to apply these requirements 

retroactively, so that DOE would 

immediately be in violation of its legal 

obligations upon passage of the statute, 

thereby failing from its inception. DOE 

did not agree that it was late or that it 

should immediately initiate review of 

certain commercial equipment. Id. at 

12007. 

DOE largely reiterated its position in 

the July 22, 2009 Final Rule related to 

ASHRAE products. 74 FR 36312, 36321. 

In response to DOE’s previously stated 

position, the Advocates acknowledged 

that the provision is not retroactive, but 

rather is prospective as it requires 

reviews going forward. (The Advocates, 

No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 8–9) The 

Advocates also acknowledged that some 

final rules were already more than six 

years old when the amendment was 

enacted, and that Congress did not 

specifically provide a transition period. 

(The Advocates, No. 8 at Exhibit A p. 9) 

However, the Advocates contend that 

this does not mean DOE was out of 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2366 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

compliance at the time of enactment, 

but rather that DOE must begin the 

process of reviewing standards more 

than six years old. (The Advocates, No. 

8 at Exhibit A p. 9) 

In response, DOE notes that it has 

determined previously that it plans to 

implement the six-year look back 

provision prospectively and believes 

that the clock for the six-year look back 

does not commence until a final rule is 

published for a given product or 

equipment after the enactment of EISA 

2007 (which occurred on December 19, 

2007). As the products in question (i.e., 

commercial air-cooled unitary air 

conditioners and heat pumps, 

commercial water heaters, and unitary 

water-source heat pumps) have not been 

the subject of a final rule since before 

the enactment of EISA 2007, review 

under the look back provision will not 

be required until after the next update 

of standards is completed following a 

trigger by updates to the corresponding 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency 

levels. After that point, if ASHRAE does 

not update standards within six years, 

DOE will be compelled to review the 

standards under the six-year look back 

provision. However, as a matter of 

policy, DOE’s May 2011 Strategic Plan 

expressed a goal of reviewing appliance 

standards at least every five years, and, 

accordingly, DOE will make an effort to 

review standards for ASHRAE products 

on a similar schedule, consistent with 

statutory mandates and available 

resources. 

IV. General Discussion of the Changes 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and 

Determination of Scope for Further 

Rulemaking Activity 

As discussed above, before beginning 

an analysis of the potential economic 

impacts and energy savings that would 

result from adopting the efficiency 

levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 or more-stringent efficiency 

levels, DOE first sought to determine 

whether or not the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 efficiency levels actually 

represented an increase in efficiency 

above the current Federal standard 

levels. This section discusses each 

equipment class where the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency level 

differs from the current Federal 

standard level, along with DOE’s 

preliminary conclusion as to the action 

DOE is taking with respect to that 

equipment. 

A. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces 

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

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

designed to supply heated air through 

ducts to spaces that require it and 

includes combination warm air furnace/ 

electric air-conditioning units but does 

not include unit heaters and duct 

furnaces.’’ In its regulations, DOE 

defines a ‘‘commercial warm air 

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

industrial equipment, and that has a 

capacity (rated maximum input) of 

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

431.72. 

Gas-fired commercial warm-air 

furnaces are fueled by either natural gas 

or propane. The Federal minimum 

energy conservation standard for gasfired commercial warm-air furnaces 

corresponds to the efficiency level in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989, which 

specifies for equipment with a capacity 

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

efficiency at the maximum rated 

capacity (rated maximum input) must 

be no less than 80 percent. 10 CFR 

431.77(a). The Federal minimum energy 

conservation standard for gas-fired 

commercial warm-air furnaces applies 

to equipment manufactured on or after 

January 1, 1994. 10 CFR 431.77. 

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

in terms of ‘‘thermal efficiency,’’ which 

is defined as ‘‘100 percent minus 

percent flue loss.’’ 10 CFR 431.72. The 

previous version of ASHRAE Standard 

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

specified a minimum efficiency level of 

80 percent combustion efficiency, but it 

defined ‘‘combustion efficiency’’ as 

‘‘100 percent minus flue losses’’ in the 

footnote to the efficiency table for 

commercial warm-air gas-fired furnaces, 

which references ANSI Z21.47–2001, 

‘‘Standard for Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces,’’ as the test procedure. In its 

analysis for the 2009 NOPR regarding 

standards for ASHRAE equipment in 

which DOE considered the updates in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2007, DOE 

noted that upon reviewing the efficiency 

levels and methodology specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2007, ASHRAE 

changed the efficiency metric for gasfired commercial warm-air furnaces in 

name only, and not in the actual test or 

calculation method. 74 FR 12000, 

12008–09 (March 20, 2009). Therefore, 

DOE stated its understanding that 

despite using the term ‘‘combustion 

efficiency’’ rather than ‘‘thermal 

efficiency,’’ ASHRAE did not intend to 

change the substance of the metric. 

Consequently, DOE left the existing 

Federal energy conservation standards 

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

efficiency’’ of 80 percent using the 

definition of ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ 

presented at 10 CFR 431.72. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

updated the tabulated requirements for 

gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces 

to specify a minimum efficiency level of 

80 percent ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ and 

references ANSI Z21.47–2006, 

‘‘Standard for Gas-Fired Central 

Furnaces,’’ as the test procedure. ANSI 

Z21.47–2006 defines ‘‘thermal 

efficiency’’ as ‘‘100 percent minus flue 

losses,’’ which is the same as DOE’s 

definition of ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ for 

this equipment. Because of this, DOE 

believes that the purpose of the 

ASHRAE metric change to ‘‘thermal 

efficiency’’ was to clarify the alignment 

to the existing Federal standards and the 

ANSI Z21.47–2006 test procedure. As a 

result, DOE tentatively concluded in the 

May 2011 NODA that this change does 

not constitute a revision to the actual 

efficiency level for gas-fired commercial 

warm-air furnaces and that no further 

action by the Department is required. 

In response to the preliminary review 

set forth in the May 2011 NODA, the 

Advocates commented that DOE must 

review requirements for warm-air 

furnaces because ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 contains new design 

requirements that are not included in 

the Federal standards, which they view 

as constituting an amendment that 

triggers DOE review. (The Advocates, 

No. 8 at p. 2–3) Further, the Advocates 

urged DOE to adopt all the requirements 

for gas-fired and oil-fired warm-air 

furnaces included in ASHRAE 90.1– 

2010 (i.e., efficiency level and design 

requirements) as Federal standards, as 

these requirements are included as part 

of the Implementation of National 

Consensus Appliance Agreements Act 

(INCAAA, S. 398). (The Advocates, No. 

8 at p. 2) In addition, the CA IOUs urged 

DOE to adopt all requirements, 

including prescriptive (design) 

requirements, for warm-air furnaces. 

(CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12, at p. 2) 

For the reasons explained in section 

III.B, DOE does not view the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 design requirements for 

warm-air furnaces as triggering DOE 

review of the efficiency levels for those 

products. Further, DOE has determined 

that incorporation of the design 

requirements in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 for commercial warm-air 

furnaces is beyond the scope of its legal 

authority, because the language of EPCA 

authorizes DOE to establish a 

performance standard or a single design 

standard and does not permit DOE to 

adopt both a performance standard and 

design standard. The fact that pending 

legislation, if passed, may convey such 

authority does not have any bearing on 

DOE’s current authority. Thus, DOE has 

not changed its preliminary view set 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2367 

forth in the May 2011 NODA, and 

consequently, DOE proposes to leave 

the existing Federal energy conservation 

standards in place for commercial 

warm-air furnaces. 

B. Commercial Package Airconditioning and Heating Equipment 

EPCA, as amended, defines 

‘‘commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ as air-cooled, 

evaporatively-cooled, water-cooled, or 

water-source (not including ground 

water-source) electrically operated, 

unitary central air conditioners and 

central air conditioning heat pumps for 

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

10 CFR 431.92) EPCA also defines 

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

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment based on the 

equipment’s rated cooling capacity. (42 

6311(8)(B)–(D); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means 

equipment rated less than 135,000 Btu 

per hour (cooling capacity). (42 

6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ‘‘Large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ means 

equipment rated at or above 135,000 Btu 

per hour and less than 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 at or above 240,000 Btu 

per hour and less than 760,000 Btu per 

hour (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92) 

1. Water-Cooled Equipment 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the six 

classes of water-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners for which 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 amended 

efficiency levels are shown in Table II.1. 

The Federal energy conservation 

standards for water-cooled equipment 

are differentiated based on the cooling 

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

and heating type (i.e., electric resistance 

heating/no heating or some other type of 

heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased the energy efficiency levels 

for all six equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standard 

levels. Therefore, the Department 

conducted an analysis of the potential 

energy savings due to amended 

standards for these products in the May 

2011 NODA. 

In response to the May 2011 NODA, 

the Advocates, the CA IOUs, and EEI 

recommended that DOE adopt the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency 

levels for water-cooled equipment, 

given that the potential national energy 

savings from efficiency levels above 

those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at 

p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; 

EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) Upon reviewing the 

results of the potential energy savings 

analysis in the May 2011 NODA, DOE 

agrees with the submitted comments. 

Because of the minimal energy savings 

available from this equipment (see 

section VIII.B.1), DOE has not 

conducted further analyses on these 

products and is proposing in today’s 

NOPR to adopt the energy efficiency 

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 for water-cooled commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. 

2. Evaporatively-Cooled Equipment 

The current Federal energy 

conservation standards for the six 

classes of evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners for 

which ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

amended efficiency levels are shown in 

Table II.1 above. Similar to water-cooled 

equipment, Federal energy conservation 

standards divide evaporatively-cooled 

equipment based on the cooling 

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

and heating type (i.e., electric resistance 

heating/no heating or some other type of 

heating). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased the energy efficiency levels 

for all six equipment classes to 

efficiency levels that surpass the current 

Federal energy conservation standard 

levels. 

DOE reviewed the market for 

evaporatively-cooled equipment and 

could not identify any models available 

on the market in the ‘‘small’’ unit 

product class (i.e., cooling capacity 

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

product class (i.e., cooling capacity 

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

there is currently no equipment in these 

classes being manufactured, DOE 

believes there are no energy savings 

associated with these classes at this 

time. Therefore, it is not possible to 

assess the potential for additional 

energy savings at the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 or more-stringent 

levels. Thus, DOE did not perform a 

potential energy-savings analysis for the 

small and large equipment classes of 

evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners. 

For very large (i.e., cooling capacity 

≥240,000 Btu/h) evaporatively-cooled 

air conditioners, DOE was able to 

identify a number of models on the 

market, and, therefore, DOE conducted 

an analysis of the potential energy 

savings for these products in the May 

2011 NODA. For very large 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 set the 

efficiency level for equipment with 

electric resistance or no heating at 11.9 

EER and for equipment with all other 

heating at 12.2 EER. However, ASHRAE 

historically has set the levels for 

equipment with other heating at 0.2 EER 

points below the efficiency levels for 

equipment with electric heating or no 

heating, which would make the 

expected efficiency level for very large 

evaporatively-cooled equipment with 

other heating 11.7 EER. In February 

2011, the Department received a letter 

from AHRI indicating that the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency level for 

very large evaporatively-cooled 

equipment with other heating is 

incorrect, and that the correct minimum 

energy efficiency standard for this 

category is 11.7 EER, as would be 

expected given the historical ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for these 

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

Further, AHRI indicated that at the 

winter 2011 ASHRAE meeting, the 

ASHRAE 90.1 committee approved an 

addendum for public review that 

corrects this error. In March 2011, 

ASHRAE released Proposed Addendum 

j to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, 

which corrects the value from 12.2 to 

11.7 EER. Based on release of the public 

review draft of this addendum, the 

Department tentatively decided in the 

May 2011 NODA to analyze the 

potential energy savings for this 

category at an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

level of 11.7 EER. 

In response to the May 2011 NODA, 

the Advocates, CA IOUs, and EEI 

recommended that DOE adopt the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels for 

evaporatively-cooled equipment, given 

that the potential national energy 

savings from efficiency levels above 

those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

are very small. (The Advocates, No. 8 at 

p. 5; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 1; 

EEI, No. 7 at p. 2) In addition, AHRI 

agreed that overall energy savings for 

evaporatively-cooled units less than 

240,000 Btu/h cannot be estimated 

because none exist on the market, but 

that DOE should still adopt ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 levels for those 

product classes. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) 

AHRI also agreed with DOE’s 

recognition of Proposed Addendum j in 

regards to the EER correction for very 

large evaporatively-cooled equipment. 

(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 1) 

DOE agrees with these comments, and 

because of the minimal energy savings 

associated with more-stringent levels for 

very large equipment (see section 

VIII.B.1) and the lack of models on the 

market for small and large equipment, 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2368 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

9Section 136 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 

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

include separate minimum efficiency requirements 

for commercial package air-cooled air conditioners 

and heating equipment with ‘‘all other heating 

system types that are integrated into the 

equipment’’ and with electric resistance or no 

heating. 

DOE has not conducted further analyses 

on these products. Accordingly, DOE is 

proposing to adopt the energy efficiency 

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 for evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment. 

3. Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 created 

a separate product class for variable 

refrigerant flow (VRF) air-conditioning 

and heating equipment. These products 

are currently covered under DOE’s 

standards for commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps, but they 

are not broken out as a separate product 

class. 

In general, a VRF system will have a 

single condensing unit serving multiple 

evaporator coils within a building. 

Specific ‘‘subclasses’’ of variable 

refrigerant flow heat pumps equipped 

with heat recovery capability have been 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 with less-stringent efficiency 

requirements than specified for VRF 

systems without heat recovery. (Heat 

recovery capability provides for 

shuttling of heat from one part of the 

building to another and allows for 

simultaneous cooling and heating of 

different zones within a building.) 

Specifically, the efficiency requirements 

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

recovery are equivalent to the Federal 

minimum energy conservation 

standards defined for air-cooled heat 

pumps with ‘‘all other heating system 

types that are integrated into the 

equipment,’’ and the efficiency 

requirements for air-cooled VRF heat 

pumps without heat recovery are 

equivalent to the Federal minimum 

standards for air-cooled heat pumps 

with electric resistance or no heating.9

The VRF systems with heat recovery 

specified by ASHRAE may also be 

provided with electric resistance 

heating systems as a back-up. For aircooled VRF heat pump systems that 

have both electric resistance heating and 

heat recovery heating capability, the 

Department has tentatively concluded 

that these systems must meet the 

efficiency requirements contained in 

EPCA for small, large, and very large aircooled central air-conditioning heat 

pumps with electric resistance heating, 

which are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)–(9)) In addition, 

the Department has tentatively 

concluded that air-cooled VRF systems 

without electric resistance heating but 

with heat recovery can qualify as having 

an ‘‘other’’ means of heating, and that 

these systems must meet the efficiency 

requirements contained in EPCA for 

small, large, and very large air-cooled 

central air-conditioning heat pumps 

with other heating, which are codified 

at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(7)–(9)) The proposed changes to 

the Code of Federal Regulations can be 

found at the end of this NOPR. 

Table IV.1 shows the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for 

VRF water-source heat pumps in 

comparison to the current Federal 

minimum energy conservation 

standards for water-source heat pumps, 

which DOE has preliminarily 

determined would apply to VRF 

systems. For water-source VRF heat 

pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

generally maintains the existing energy 

efficiency requirements that apply to 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment (water-source) 

for the VRF systems, with several 

notable exceptions. For VRF watersource heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 raises the 

efficiency levels above current Federal 

energy conservation standards. For VRF 

water-source heat pumps over 135,000 

Btu/h, ASHRAE sets standards for 

products where DOE did not previously 

have standards. As a result, the 

Department conducted further analysis 

for these classes in the May 2011 

NODA. DOE began by reviewing the 

current market for VRF water-source 

heat pumps with cooling capacities 

either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to 

or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less 

than 760,000 Btu/h. The Department did 

not identify any models under 17,000 

Btu/h on the market. DOE did identify 

19 models greater than 135,000 Btu/h on 

the market and attempted to contact the 

manufacturer producing most of these 

models, but DOE was unable to obtain 

EER information for most of the models 

and had no shipment information for 

this product class. Because DOE could 

not identify any VRF water-source heat 

pumps being manufactured with cooling 

capacities less than 17,000 Btu/h, DOE 

believes that there are no energy savings 

associated with this equipment class. 

Therefore, DOE did not perform a 

potential energy-savings analysis for 

this equipment. Due to the lack of 

information and data on VRF watersource heat pumps with cooling 

capacities greater than 135,000 Btu/h 

available at the time of the NODA, the 

Department did not conduct a 

preliminary energy saving estimate for 

the additional energy savings beyond 

the levels anticipated in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 for these VRF 

water-source heat pumps. 

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

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

Existing federal equipment class Federal minimum energy 

conservation standard 

ASHRAE standard 90.1–2010 Efficiency level for 

newly-established VRF equipment class 

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

11.8 EER (with heat recovery) 

4.2 COP 4.2 COP 

Water-source Heat Pump ≥17,000 and <65,000 Btu/h .... 12.0 EER 12.0 EER (without heat recovery) 

11.8 EER (with heat recovery) 

4.2 COP 4.2 COP 

Water-source Heat Pump ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h .. 12.0 EER 12.0 EER (without heat recovery) 

11.8 EER (with heat recovery) 

4.2 COP 4.2 COP 

Water-source Heat Pump ≥135,000 and <760,000 Btu/h N/A 10.0 EER (without heat recovery) 

9.8 EER (with heat recovery) 

3.9 COP 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2369 

In addition to the changes for the 

equipment classes discussed above, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 includes 

efficiency levels for VRF water-source 

heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER 

reduction in the efficiency requirement 

for systems with heat recovery. 

However, the current Federal minimum 

standards for water-source heat pumps 

do not provide for any reduction in the 

EER requirements for equipment with 

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

EER reduction below the current 

Federal standard levels for the VRF 

water-source heat pump equipment 

classes in which ASHRAE did not raise 

the standard from the existing Federal 

minimum for water-source heat pumps 

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

cooling capacities greater than or equal 

to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 

Btu/h and for water-source heat pumps 

with cooling capacities greater than or 

equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 

135,000 Btu/h) would result in a 

decrease in stringency in comparison to 

current standards. As noted in section 

III.B, if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 lowers 

its efficiency level as compared to the 

Federal minimum standard level, DOE 

does not have the authority to conduct 

a rulemaking to consider a higher 

standard for that equipment pursuant to 

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

did not consider the lower EER 

requirements for systems with heat 

recovery and will not perform an 

analysis of those product classes. The 

proposed changes to the Code of Federal 

Regulations to clarify which energy 

conservation standards VRF watersource heat pumps must meet can be 

found at the end of this NOPR. 

In response to the May 2011 NODA, 

AHRI agreed that there are no products 

available on the market in the category 

of less than 17,000 Btu/h water-source 

VRF heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 3) 

AHRI also commented that VRF watersource heat pumps with a cooling 

capacity greater than 135,000 Btu/h 

comprise a new equipment class, and as 

such, DOE should accept that an 

analysis to estimate energy savings 

cannot be done because of the 

unavailability of data. (AHRI, No. 11 at 

p. 3) AHRI encouraged DOE to adopt the 

efficiency standards for these products 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. (AHRI, 

No. 11 at p. 3) 

With regard to the 0.2 EER reduction 

for systems with heat recovery, AHRI 

noted that DOE should consider this 

requirement because non-VRF watersource heat pumps are not a proper 

comparative product for determining 

appropriate VRF water-source heat 

pump efficiency levels (in regard to 

backsliding) because: (1) Non-VRF 

water-source heat pumps do not use the 

type of heating components used by 

VRF systems, and (2) the components 

that require the 0.2 EER reduction 

provide overall energy savings in the 

system that are not reflected in EER 

calculations. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 5) 

Mitsubishi also submitted a comment in 

which it also noted that DOE’s 

comparison of VRF water-source heat 

pumps to non-VRF water-source heat 

pumps is not appropriate because the 

non-VRF water-source heat pumps do 

not contain gas-fired heat exchangers 

like the unitary systems, which 

Mitsubishi believes would be a better 

comparison to the VRF system. 

(Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 3) Mitsubishi 

further noted that regardless of the 

comparison, DOE should adopt the 0.2 

EER reduction because DOE is not 

legally prohibited from adopting an 

amendment that is a reduction of EER 

levels. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2, 

referring to 42 USC 6313(a)(6)(A)) 

Mitsubishi stated that the 0.2 EER 

reduction is necessary due to the 

increased pressure drop in the 

refrigerant levels due to the BC (branch 

circuit) controller, which works in 

unison with the outdoor unit to provide 

simultaneous cooling and heating 

needs. (Mitsubishi, No. 13 at p. 2) 

In response to comments from AHRI 

and from Mitsubishi regarding the 0.2 

EER deduction for water-source heat 

pumps with heat recovery, DOE has 

determined that while there may be 

certain additional efficiency penalties 

for the incorporation of heat recovery in 

VRF water-source heat pumps, DOE 

believes that under the statutory scheme 

for commercial equipment standards, 

the corresponding existing product class 

is a water-source heat pump in which 

condenser heat is rejected to water, not 

air. As such, DOE is prohibited from 

adopting an efficiency level lower than 

the current Federal standards for watersource heat pumps less than 135,000 

Btu/h cooling capacity under 42 U.S.C. 

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

regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)) providing for adoption of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency 

levels. For VRF water-source heat 

pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h, the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels 

with or without heat recovery exceed 

the current Federal standards. For VRF 

water-source heat pumps at or greater 

than 135,000 Btu/h, no current Federal 

standards exist. In both cases, DOE may 

adopt the ASHRAE 90.1–2010 efficiency 

levels for VRF water-source heat pumps 

with and without heat recovery. 

Since the May 2011 NODA, AHRI 

released a certified product directory for 

VRF water-source heat pumps, thereby 

allowing DOE to perform an energy use 

analysis for VRF water-source heat 

pumps equal to or greater than 135,000 

Btu/h similar to those presented for 

other products in the May 2011 NODA. 

This analysis is discussed in detail in 

section V. The preliminary analysis 

showed that only minimal energy 

savings are available for surpassing 

ASHRAE efficiency levels for these 

products (see section VIII.B.2), so DOE 

did not conduct any further energy or 

economic analysis for these products. 

DOE agrees with AHRI’s suggestion to 

adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

level for these products and is 

proposing to do so for VRF water-source 

heat pumps either less than 17,000 Btu/ 

h or equal to or greater than 135,000 

Btu/h with and without heat recovery. 

4. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 

and Heat Pumps 

EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal 

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

separate unencased combination of 

heating and cooling assemblies 

specified by the builder and intended 

for mounting through the wall. It 

includes a prime source of refrigeration, 

separable outdoor louvers, forced 

ventilation, and heating availability by 

builder’s choice of hot water, steam, or 

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

EPCA defines a ‘‘packaged terminal heat 

pump’’ as ‘‘a packaged terminal air 

conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle 

refrigeration as its prime heat source 

and should have supplementary heat 

source available to builders with the 

choice of hot water, steam, or electric 

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

DOE codified these definitions at 10 

CFR 431.92 in a final rule published in 

the Federal Register on October 21, 

2004. 69 FR 61962, 61970. 

DOE adopted amended energy 

conservation standards for this class of 

equipment in a final rule published in 

the Federal Register on October 7, 2008. 

73 FR 58772, 58828–30. The adopted 

Federal standards exceeded the 

standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2007. These Federal standards apply to 

standard size equipment manufactured 

on or after October 8, 2012, and to nonstandard size equipment manufactured 

on or after October 7, 2010. The CFR 

currently states that the compliance 

dates are September 30, 2012, and 

September 30, 2010, for standard size 

and non-standard size equipment, 

respectively. 10 CFR 431.97(c). The 

compliance dates currently included in 

the CFR for package terminal air 

conditioners and heat pumps were 

calculated from the date of issuance of 

the final rule for those products (i.e., 

September 29, 2008), but should have 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2370 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

10Proposed Addendum h to Standard 90.1–2010, 

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings (First Public Review, March 

2011) (Last accessed March 2011) (Available at : 

https://osr.ashrae.org/default.aspx). 

11Proposed Addendum j to Standard 90.1–2010, 

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings (First Public Review, March 

2011) (Last accessed March 2011) (Available at: 

https://osr.ashrae.org/default.aspx). 

12 Department of Energy: Office of Hearings and 

Appeals, Decision and Order, Case #TEE 0010 

(2004) (Available at: http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ 

ee/tee0010.pdf) and Case #TEE 0026 (2005) 

(Available at: http://www.oha.doe.gov/cases/ee/ 

tee0026.pdf). 

been calculated from the publication 

date in the Federal Register (i.e., 

October 7, 2008). Therefore, DOE is 

proposing in today’s notice to correct 

the compliance dates to October 8, 2012 

and October 7, 2010 for compliance 

with standards for standard size and 

non-standard size package terminal air 

conditioners and heat pumps, 

respectively. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased the efficiency levels for 

standard size equipment in comparison 

to the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007. However, the 

efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 for these equipment 

classes meet but do not exceed the 

Federal standards established by DOE in 

the October 2008 final rule. Because 

ASHRAE seems to be harmonizing the 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

with the Federal levels rather than 

increasing the minimum efficiency, 

DOE tentatively concluded in the May 

2011 NODA that it is not required to 

take action on these products at this 

time. DOE did not receive any 

comments on this subject and is 

maintaining its position in this NOPR. 

5. Small-Duct, High-Velocity, and 

Through-the-Wall Equipment 

EPCA does not separate small-duct 

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

types of small commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment in 

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

Therefore, EPCA’s definition of ‘‘small 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment’’ would include 

SDHV and TTW heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(8)(B)) 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

increased some of the efficiency levels 

for these classes of equipment. 

Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 increased the efficiency 

requirements for TTW heat pumps to 

13.0 SEER and 7.4 HSPF in comparison 

to the efficiency levels of 12.0 SEER and 

7.4 HSPF in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2007. However, in March 2011, 

ASHRAE issued Proposed Addendum h 

for public review that would correct the 

minimum SEER for these products to 

12.0 SEER.10 For SDHV heat pumps, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 did not 

increase the cooling efficiency 

requirement of 10.0 SEER beyond that 

in ASHRAE 90.1–2007. In addition, 

although ASHRAE 90.1–2007 specified 

a heating efficiency requirement of 6.8 

HSPF, ASHRAE 90.1–2010 did not 

specify any heating efficiency level for 

SDHV heat pumps. 

In the May 2011 NODA, DOE noted 

that Proposed Addendum h and another 

Proposed Addendum j,11 would both 

remove the SDHV product class from 

the standards tables entirely, with 

Addendum j stating: ‘‘In addition the 

small duct high velocity requirements 

have been dropped by DOE and they are 

only allowing such systems under 

waiver clause so the addendum has also 

made a change to remove the small duct 

high velocity systems from table 6.8.1a 

and table 6.8.1b.’’ 76 FR 25622, 25633 

(May 5, 2011) (quoting ASHRAE 

Addenda h and j). Therefore, DOE 

concluded that ASHRAE did not intend 

to specify any efficiency levels for these 

products in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010. Id. 

In response, DOE notes that the 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for commercial types of TTW and SDHV 

heat pumps, which are 13.0 SEER and 

7.7 HSPF, were established for the 

overall equipment category of small 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment by EISA 2007, 

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

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

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels for 

TTW equipment meet or do not exceed 

the DOE standards and because DOE 

believed that through the issuance of 

Addenda h and j, ASHRAE was 

removing requirements for this 

equipment from within ASHRAE 90.1 

(and thus also not proposing new, 

higher efficiency requirements), DOE 

tentatively concluded in the May 2011 

NODA that it was not required to take 

action on these products at this time. 76 

FR 25622, 25633 (May 5, 2011). 

In response to the May 2011 NODA, 

AHRI commented that DOE is incorrect 

in assuming that Addendum j removes 

SDHV systems from the scope of 

coverage of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) It stated that the 

current minimum SEER requirement for 

SDHV units in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 applies to all models, both singlephase and three-phase electrical power 

with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 

Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI 

stated that three-phase SDHV with a 

cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h 

are still covered by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 despite the omission in 

Addendum j (which AHRI believed 

deals only with single-phase SDHV 

systems covered under the National 

Appliance Energy Conservation Act 

(NAECA)). (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI 

stated that DOE must consider the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 SEER 

requirement for three-phase SDHVs and 

adopt it as the Federal standard or 

propose an alternate requirement. AHRI 

recommended that DOE consider 

establishing the minimum requirements 

for three-phase SDHV models at 11 

SEER and 6.8 HSPF. (AHRI, No. 11 at 

p. 2) 

In addition, Unico requested that 

SDHV be retained as a product class 

with a minimum efficiency of 11 SEER/ 

6.8 HSPF and that the product 

manufacturer must have an exception 

for this as granted by DOE. (Unico, No. 

14 at p. 2) (Currently, three 

manufacturers of SDHV products have 

been granted exception relief by DOE’s 

Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) 

allowing for the sale of SDHV products 

meeting efficiency of 11 SEER and 6.8 

HSPF.12) Unico recommended that DOE 

create a commercial SDHV product class 

that mirrors the consumer single-phase 

product class due to similar operating 

conditions. (Unico, No. 14 at p. 2) 

In response to the AHRI and Unico 

comments, DOE did not intend to imply 

that SDHV are removed from the scope 

of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, but notes 

that the removal of an efficiency 

requirement for a covered product 

within ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

indicative that ASHRAE is not 

proposing a higher standards for the 

equipment and that DOE, thus, has no 

requirement or legal ability to react to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels 

for the equipment. In both the case of 

the published ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 efficiency levels for SDHV, or the 

removal of published values as a result 

of Addendum j, the minimum Federal 

efficiency standards for three-phase, less 

than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, 

are higher than the levels originally 

proposed for SDHV in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. DOE cannot adopt 

lower efficiency levels due to the 

prohibition against ‘‘backsliding’’ found 

in 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). As such, DOE is prohibited 

from adopting the original ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007 SEER requirement 

for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal 

standard, and DOE has no requirement 

to consider higher levels for three-phase 

SDHV equipment. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2371 

DOE did not receive any comments 

regarding TTW heat pumps and is 

maintaining its position in today’s 

NOPR. The efficiency levels shown in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 or in 

Addendum h, meet or do not exceed the 

current Federal standard for 3-phase, 

less than 65,000 Btu/h small package 

cooling and heating equipment, and, 

thus, DOE is not required to take action 

on these products at this time. DOE has 

no authority to set standards for any 

products of this type lower than the 

current Federal minimum. 

6. Single-Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Single-Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps 

DOE issued standards for singlepackage vertical air conditioner and 

heat pump units (SPVUs) as part of the 

March 23, 2009 final rule technical 

amendment in response to mandated 

efficiency levels for SPVUs established 

in the EISA 2007 legislation. 74 FR 

12058, 12073–74. However, SPVUs are 

subject to a provision established by 

EISA 2007, which amended the 

applicable provisions of EPCA such that 

not later than three years after the date 

of this statutory provision’s enactment 

(i.e., December 19, 2007), the Secretary 

must review the most recently 

published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with 

respect to single-package vertical air 

conditioners and single-package vertical 

heat pumps using the procedures 

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

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

The Department interprets the 

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

constituting a separate trigger to 

evaluate standards higher than the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 level. SPVUs 

are considered classes within the 

broader scope of small, large, and very 

large commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment. 

EPCA, as amended, directs DOE to 

conduct a review of the energy savings 

potential sometime in the three-year 

interval, and DOE believes this separate 

trigger is a one-time mechanism, after 

which SPVUs revert to the normal 

‘‘ASHRAE trigger.’’ Accordingly, DOE 

commenced analytical work on these 

products along with the other 

equipment that is subject to the current 

‘‘ASHRAE trigger’’ in the May 2011 

NODA. 

Upon review of the SPVU market, 

DOE identified several models of SPVUs 

in the small equipment class. However, 

DOE did not identify any models of 

SPVUs in the very large category or any 

models of single package vertical heat 

pumps (SPVHPs) in the large category. 

The Department identified only five 

models of single package vertical air 

conditioners (SPVACs) in the large 

category, and these were all close to the 

upper size limit of the small category, at 

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

apparent lack of a market for very large 

SPVUs and large SPVHPs (as 

demonstrated by the small size of the 

market (five models) and accompanying 

lack of shipment estimates for the large 

SPVACs), for the May 2011 NODA, DOE 

conducted complete preliminary energy 

saving estimates for only the small 

equipment classes. Additionally, DOE 

used the energy saving results for small 

SPVACs to derive an estimate of the 

potential energy savings for large 

SPVACs. 

In response to the May 2011 NODA, 

the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to 

conduct additional analysis for SPVUs 

above the current ASHRAE levels due to 

DOE’s preliminary analysis of higher 

levels showing potential reduction of 

national energy consumption of 0.5 

quads over 30 years. (CA IOU, Nos. 10 

and 12 at p. 2) The Advocates also 

agreed that the amendments to EISA 

2007 compel review of the existing 

standards for SPVUs and consideration 

of levels above those contained in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2010. (The Advocates, 

No. 8 at p. 7) 

DOE concurs with these comments. 

As a result of the potential for high 

energy savings from increasing the 

efficiency levels for SPVUs, and the fact 

that any of these levels would be higher 

than the ASHRAE levels, DOE is 

conducting additional analysis for these 

products along the 30-month timeline 

for more-stringent standards, as allowed 

by EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) No 

further results regarding these products’ 

efficiency are presented in today’s 

NOPR, and the results of the additional 

analysis for SPVUs will be presented in 

a separate NOPR in the future, 

consistent with that timeline. However, 

DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 390 as 

the DOE test procedure for this 

equipment. 

C. Air Conditioners and Condensing 

Units Serving Computer Rooms 

Air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms operate 

similarly to other types of commercial 

packaged air conditioners in that they 

provide space conditioning using a 

refrigeration cycle consisting of a 

compressor, condenser, expansion 

valve, and evaporator. However, air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms are typically 

designed to maintain the temperature in 

the conditioned space within a narrow 

range (i.e., minimizing temperature 

swings) and to maintain a specific 

relative humidity. This equipment is 

commonly capable of humidifying or 

dehumidifying the air and then, if 

necessary, reheating it to maintain a 

specific humidity. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 created 

a separate product class for ‘‘air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms,’’ and set 

efficiency levels using the sensible 

coefficient of performance (SCOP) 

metric, as measured using the test 

method in ASHRAE Standard 127–2007, 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Computer 

and Data Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners.’’ The product classes and 

efficiency levels established in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 are set forth in 

Table II.1 above. 

Prior to this equipment having 

separate efficiency levels and test 

procedures specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE discussed such 

units using the terminology ‘‘computer 

room air conditioners’’ in an August 9, 

2000 NOPR (65 FR 48828, 48830–31) 

and an October 21, 2004 direct final rule 

(69 FR 61962, 61967). In the August 

2000 NOPR, DOE determined that 

computer room air conditioners were 

not covered as part of the commercial 

packaged air conditioning and heating 

equipment classes in EPCA and 

subsequently upheld this position in the 

October 2004 direct final rule. DOE 

made this determination because at the 

time of passage of the Energy Policy Act 

of 1992 (EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, 

which gave DOE the authority to cover 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment), the statute 

excluded this equipment, and as a 

result, DOE concluded that it lacked the 

authority to regulate this equipment. 

The basis for DOE’s decision stemmed 

from the scope of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, which at the time specified that 

the standard did not cover ‘‘equipment 

and portions of building systems that 

use energy primarily to provide for 

industrial, manufacturing, or 

commercial processes.’’ (See section 

2.3(c) of ASHRAE 90.1 standards prior 

to ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010; cited 

at 65 FR 48828, 48830 (August 9, 2000)). 

Further, the House Report on EPACT 

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

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

that the efficiency standards contained 

in the bill were developed by ASHRAE 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE 

concluded that this indicated that the 

efficiency standards for commercial 

products in EPACT 1992 would have 

the same scope as the version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at the 

time of the legislation’s enactment (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–89), which did 

not cover computer room air 

conditioners. As a result, DOE 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2372 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

concluded at the time that it did not 

have the authority to cover computer 

room air conditioners. However, DOE 

stated in both the NOPR and direct final 

rule that ‘‘if some of the relevant 

circumstances were to change—if, for 

example, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were 

to incorporate efficiency standards and 

test procedures for this equipment or 

the equipment was to become widely 

used for conventional air conditioning 

applications—the Department might 

revisit this issue.’’ 65 FR 48828, 48831 

(August 9, 2000) (supporting this point); 

69 FR 61962, 61967 (Oct. 21, 2004) 

(making the quotation). 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

experienced expanded scope as 

compared to previous versions of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including 

process loads (e.g., computer rooms) 

and creation of a separate product class 

for ‘‘air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms.’’ EPCA 

generally directs DOE to follow 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it is 

amended with respect to certain 

equipment types, including commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. Thus, DOE has tentatively 

concluded that because ASHRAE has 

expanded the scope of Standard 90.1 to 

include air conditioners and condensing 

units serving computer rooms, the scope 

of DOE’s obligations pursuant to EPCA 

with regard to ASHRAE products has 

similarly expanded to encompass these 

products. As such, DOE tentatively 

concluded in the May 2011 NODA that 

it had the authority to review the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency 

levels for air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms and to establish minimum energy 

conservation standard levels for this 

equipment. 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May 5, 

2011). However, DOE did not perform a 

potential energy savings analysis for this 

equipment as a part of the NODA due 

to the lack of available data, and 

instead, DOE requested data and 

information from interested parties that 

would allow it to conduct a potential 

energy savings analysis as part of this 

proceeding. 

Lastly, although DOE addressed 

computer room air conditioners in the 

August 2000 NOPR and October 2004 

direct final rule, DOE never formally 

defined this term. In reviewing 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE 

noted that ASHRAE does not define a 

class of equipment in terms of physical 

characteristics, but rather an application 

(i.e., ‘‘serving computer rooms’’). 

Because air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms have the same basic components 

as conventional air conditioners, there 

is some difficulty in defining ‘‘air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms’’ such that they 

can be clearly differentiated from 

conventional commercial packaged air 

conditioners and heat pumps. DOE 

reviewed the definitions in both 

ASHRAE 127–2007, Method of Testing 

for Rating Computer and Data 

Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners, (the test procedure 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 for air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms) and Title 20 in the California 

Code of Regulations (which establishes 

California’s requirements for this 

equipment), and found in the May 2011 

NODA that the definitions in each of the 

above sources do not contain criteria 

that would allow DOE to clearly 

differentiate this type of equipment 

from conventional equipment, without 

overlapping. 76 FR 25622, 25634 (May 

5, 2011). DOE revisited the issue of 

defining ‘‘computer room air 

conditioners’’ for this NOPR, and it is 

discussed further in section VI.A.1 

below. 

In response to the May 2011 NODA, 

the Advocates supported DOE’s 

determination that it has the authority 

to review the ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 efficiency levels for computer 

room air conditioners and establish 

energy conservation standards. (The 

Advocates, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI 

suggested that DOE should adopt the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 approach for 

computer room air conditioners. (AHRI, 

No. 11 at p. 3) The Advocates stated that 

potential energy savings for computer 

room air conditioners may be 

significant, and the CA IOUs also noted 

that computer room air conditioners 

have high potential energy savings, 

particularly given their market 

penetration. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 

7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3–4) 

The Advocates and the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE ensure that any 

standards established for computer 

room air conditioners be at least as 

stringent as the current California 

standards. (The Advocates, No. 8 at p. 

7; CA IOU, Nos. 10 and 12 at p. 3–4) 

In response to the suggestions from 

stakeholders, DOE undertook an 

analysis to estimate the potential energy 

savings associated with computer room 

air conditioners, and to perform a costbenefit analysis of standard levels above 

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels. 

DOE has obtained additional 

information for this equipment and 

conducted an energy and economic 

savings analysis, which is discussed in 

Section VI. However, as discussed in 

that section, DOE believes that clear and 

convincing evidence does not exist as 

would justify standards beyond those in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. As a 

result, DOE is proposing to adopt energy 

efficiency standards for computer room 

air conditioners at the levels set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. See 

sections VI and VIII for a summary of 

DOE’s analysis, results, and conclusions 

for computer room air conditioners. 

D. Coverage of Commercial Package Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

That Are Exclusively Used as Part of 

Industrial or Manufacturing Processes 

DOE received an inquiry from an 

interested party regarding the 

applicability of DOE’s regulatory 

program for commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment in 

terms of equipment that is used 

exclusively for industrial or 

manufacturing processes. Specifically, 

Engineered Air asked the Department to 

clarify it’s position on the following 

three issues: (1) In units where 

centrifugal condenser fans are required, 

the specified EERs cannot be met due to 

the motor horsepower required on the 

condenser fan; (2) applicability of the 

regulatory program in applications 

where the DX unit functions without 

ANY regard to the comfort of the 

occupants, the EERs may not be met; 

and (3) DOE’s position on enforcing its 

regulations since DOE’s regulations are 

broader than the scope of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (Engineered Air, No. 15 

at p. 1) 

As mentioned above with regard to air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms, ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 expanded the scope 

of its coverage as compared to previous 

versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

Previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 did not apply to equipment and 

portions of building systems that use 

energy primarily to provide for 

industrial, manufacturing, or 

commercial processes (see ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007, section 2.3(c)). 

While DOE still believes it is ASHRAE’s 

intent to continue to exclude most of 

those equipment types that are used 

solely for manufacturing and industrial 

processes, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

now applies to new equipment or 

building systems used in manufacturing 

or industrial processes that are 

specifically identified in the standard. 

In order to aid regulated entities in 

determining whether their equipment 

falls within the scope of DOE’s 

definition of ‘‘commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

and, thus, is subject to DOE’s regulatory 

requirements, DOE is providing the 

following guidance. If the equipment 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2373 

13The relevant statutory provisions at 42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)–(3) state that test procedure shall be 

reasonably designed to produce test results which 

reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs of a type of industrial equipment 

and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. If 

the test procedure is a procedure for determining 

estimated annual operating costs, such costs shall 

be calculated from measurements of energy use in 

a representative average-use cycle. 

14EPCA defines ‘‘small commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ as 

commercial package air conditioning and heating 

equipment that are rated below 135,000 Btu/h 

(cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) ASHRAE 

90.1–2010 generally divides covered commercial 

package air conditioners into the following class 

sizes: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) ≥65,000 and <135,000 

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

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

commercial package air conditioners, as defined by 

EPCA, are split into two size classes in ASHRAE 

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

(2) ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h. 

meets the definition of ‘‘commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment’’ in 10 CFR 431.92, is used 

exclusively for manufacturing and/or 

industrial processes, and is not listed as 

one of the equipment types specifically 

added to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, then 

DOE also believes it is not covered 

under DOE’s regulatory program. Just 

like manufacturers, DOE will make this 

determination on a case-by-case basis 

after considering the facts of the 

particular model in question. In making 

such a determination, DOE will 

consider factors such as how the model 

is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for 

use in buildings, the extent to which the 

equipment provides comfort 

conditioning to occupants, and how the 

equipment is designed and 

manufactured. For equipment that is 

used in commercial or industrial 

buildings, that has a design similar to 

that of equipment used in 

manufacturing processes, but provides 

comfort conditioning, DOE considers 

such equipment to meet the definition 

of ‘‘commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment’’ 

and consequently to be covered under 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. DOE 

notes that the fact that equipment may 

be advertised, marketed, and/or sold as 

part of industrial or manufacturing 

processes is not a mutually exclusive 

determination that the models are 

exempt them from coverage by DOE’s 

standards for equipment in buildings. 

DOE seeks comments on ways 

manufacturers currently differentiate 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment used solely for 

manufacturing and industrial processes 

from that equipment of the same type 

that is used in buildings. This is 

identified as issue 1 in section X.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

With respect to Engineered Air’s 

specific questions, DOE believes the 

above guidance will help manufacturers 

like Engineered Air evaluate the 

applicability of the Department’s 

regulatory equipment to the specific 

basic models it manufactures. All 

equipment distributed in commerce in 

the U.S. that meets DOE’s definition of 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment that is not 

subject to the Department’s exclusion 

guidance set forth above must meet the 

Federal energy conservation standards 

regardless of technology or design. DOE 

actively enforces all of its energy 

conservation standards for all covered 

products and equipment. 

E. Test Procedures 

EPCA requires DOE to amend any test 

procedures for ASHRAE products to the 

latest version generally accepted by the 

industry or the rating procedures 

developed or recognized by industry, as 

referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1, unless the Secretary determines 

that clear and convincing evidence 

exists that the latest version of the 

industry test procedure does not meet 

the requirements for test procedures 

described under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)– 

(3).13 (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)–(B)) The 

latest version of the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, 

updated its referenced test procedures 

to the latest generally accepted industry 

test procedures for small commercial 

package air conditioners and heating 

equipment (AHRI 210/240–2008, 

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, Performance Rating of 

Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment), commercial warm-air 

furnaces (UL 727–2006, Standard for 

Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces, 

and ANSI Z21.47–2006, Standard for 

Gas-Fired Central Furnaces), and 

commercial water heaters (ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2004, Gas Water Heaters, 

Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with 

Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per 

Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). In 

the May 2011 NODA, DOE reviewed 

each of these test procedures and 

described the changes in comparison to 

the previous version of the test 

procedure. 76 FR 25622, 25634–37 (May 

5, 2011). These changes are described 

further in the sections below. 

Additionally, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 adopts new test procedures 

for measuring the efficiency of variable 

refrigerant flow equipment (AHRI 1230– 

2010, Performance Rating of Variable 

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

Equipment) and air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms (ASHRAE 127–2007, Method of 

Testing for Rating Computer and Data 

Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners). ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 also lists AHRI 390–2003, 

Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps, as the test procedure for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs, for which there 

are currently no DOE test procedures. 

An initial assessment of these test 

procedures is presented below. 

Lastly, DOE is required to review the 

test procedures for covered ASHRAE 

equipment at least once every seven 

years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) In 

addition to the updates to the referenced 

standards (which are discussed in the 

subsections below), DOE is seeking 

comments on any other relevant issues 

that would affect the test procedures for 

the ASHRAE equipment addressed in 

today’s NOPR (i.e., those equipment for 

which DOE has been triggered). 

Interested parties are welcome to 

comment on any aspect of these test 

procedures as part of this 

comprehensive 7-year-review. This is 

identified as issue 2 in section X.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

1. Small 14 (<65,000 Btu/h Cooling 

Capacity) Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners and Heating Equipment 

For small commercial package air 

conditioners and heating equipment, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 updated 

its referenced test procedure from AHRI 

210/240–2003 to AHRI 210/240–2008. 

Between the 2003 and 2008 versions of 

AHRI 210/240, AHRI made several 

updates, which are summarized here 

and discussed in further detail in the 

May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25635 

(May 5, 2011). AHRI 210/240–2008 

references DOE’s test procedure for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps contained at 10 CFR part 

430, subpart B, Appendix M. AHRI 

updated the 210/240 test procedure for 

small commercial air conditioners and 

air-source heat pumps with a cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h to 

reflect the recent updates the DOE made 

to its test procedure for residential 

central air conditioners and heat pumps 

at 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, Appendix 

M. In doing so, AHRI updated the 

definitions for ‘‘heating seasonal 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2374 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

15See: http://www.ahrinet.org/App_Content/ahri/ 

files/Certification/OM%20pdfs/ 

ULE%20OM%20December%202010.pdf. 

performance factor’’ and ‘‘seasonal 

energy efficiency ratio’’ to match the 

definitions for those terms in DOE’s 

residential central air conditioner and 

heat pump test procedure. AHRI also 

added definitions for ‘‘tested 

combination, ‘‘small duct, high velocity 

system,’’ ‘‘space-constrained product,’’ 

and ‘‘through-the-wall air conditioner 

and heat pump,’’ that match the DOE’s 

definitions at 10 CFR 430.2. Further, 

AHRI reorganized and added tables 

specifying the criteria for the standard 

rating conditions for the various types of 

equipment to be identical to those 

contained in the DOE test procedure for 

residential central air conditioners and 

heat pumps at 10 CFR part 430, subpart 

B, Appendix M. 

In the NODA, DOE tentatively 

concluded that these changes did not 

significantly impact the energy 

efficiency metric of small commercial 

air conditioners and heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 

In response, DOE received comment 

from AHRI agreeing with DOE’s 

tentative conclusion in the NODA. 

(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not 

receive any comments or information 

that would cause it to reconsider the 

adoption of the updated AHRI 210/240– 

2008 test method. As a result, DOE is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

AHRI 210/240–2008 into the Federal 

test procedure for small commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 

Additionally, through review of the 

AHRI certification program for 

commercial unitary equipment, DOE 

has discovered that the use of a 

compressor ‘‘break-in’’ period is 

common when testing commercial 

unitary equipment. By way of 

explanation, the AHRI certification 

program provides for an optional 

‘‘break-in’’ period, which allows a 

manufacturer to have the testing 

laboratory run the equipment for a 

period of time before beginning the test. 

This break-in period is particularly 

important for scroll compressors, which 

may be less efficient when first started 

and may require time to warm up to 

achieve optimal performance. Once the 

compressor is broken in, the 

performance should be more 

representative of the actual field 

performance. EPCA requires that test 

procedures be reasonably designed to 

produce test results which reflect energy 

efficiency, energy use, and estimated 

operating costs for a typical type of 

equipment (or class thereof) during a 

representative use cycle, and shall not 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

DOE believes that allowing for an 

optional break-in period will provide 

manufacturers more flexibility to 

produce test results that reflect energy 

efficiency of their units in a manner that 

is representative of their average use. At 

the same time, DOE recognizes that 

requiring the break-in period may add 

significant testing costs and burden, 

and, thus, DOE believes the break-in 

period should be optional to allow 

manufacturers to use this period at their 

discretion. Therefore, DOE is proposing 

to create a provision in its test 

procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 that would 

allow manufacturers the option of a 

‘‘break-in’’ period not to exceed 16 

hours to warm up the equipment’s 

compressor and components. This 16- 

hour time limit of the ‘‘break-in’’ period 

that DOE is proposing matches the 

period used by AHRI in its Operations 

Manual for Unitary Large Equipment 

Certification Program.15 DOE believes 

that this limit is likely common practice 

in industry. Lastly, if manufacturers 

choose to use a break-in period when 

testing their equipment, DOE will be 

proposing to require that in addition to 

reporting to DOE the efficiency rating 

for their products, manufacturers must 

also report the amount of time (up to 16 

hours) used to break in their equipment 

to achieve the efficiency being 

represented. Note, DOE will update the 

certification provisions pending the 

outcome of this proposal in the 

upcoming certification, compliance, and 

enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks 

comments on all aspects of this 

proposal, including the need for an 

optional break-in period and the length 

of time that should be allowed for such 

a period. This is identified as issue 3 in 

section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

2. Small (≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h 

Cooling Capacity), Large (≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity) and 

Very Large (≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/ 

h Cooling Capacity) Commercial 

Package Air Conditioners and Heating 

Equipment 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

updated its referenced test procedure for 

small, large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioners and heating 

equipment with a cooling capacity 

greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h 

(AHRI 340/360) from the 2004 version 

(currently referenced in DOE’s test 

procedures) to the 2007 version. 

Between these two versions of AHRI 

340/360, AHRI expanded the scope of 

the standard to include air-cooled 

packaged unitary air-conditioners with a 

cooling capacity from 250,000 Btu/h to 

less than 760,000 Btu/h. AHRI also 

added a tolerance to the minimum 

external static pressure measurement 

(from 0.0 inches of H2O to 0.05 inches 

of H2O). 

In the May 2011 NODA, DOE 

concluded that these changes did not 

significantly impact the measurement of 

energy efficiency of small (≥65,000 Btu/ 

h), large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 

2011). In response to this conclusion, 

DOE received comment from AHRI 

agreeing with DOE’s position in the 

NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did 

not receive any other comments on this 

topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to 

incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360– 

2007 into the DOE test procedure for 

small, large, and very large commercial 

air conditioners and heat pumps with a 

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h but less than 760,000 

Btu/h. 

For small (≥65,000 Btu/h), large, and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

DOE is also proposing to add the 

optional ‘‘break-in’’ time of no more 

than 16 hours, as discussed in the small 

(<65,000 Btu/h) commercial package air 

conditioners and heating equipment 

subsection above (section IV.E.1). DOE 

believes that adding this option will 

allow the test procedure to be more 

representative of the actual performance 

characteristics of small (≥65,000 Btu/h), 

large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioners and heating 

equipment, while not increasing the 

burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE 

will update the certification provisions 

pending the outcome of this proposal in 

the upcoming certification, compliance, 

and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks 

comment on the need for an optional 

break-in period for small, large, and 

very large commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment, 

and the length of time that should be 

allowed for such a period. This is 

identified as issue 4 in section X.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

3. Commercial Oil-Fired Warm-Air 

Furnaces 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

updated its reference test procedure for 

commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces 

(UL 727) from the 1994 version of the 

standard to the 2006 version of the 

standard. The DOE test procedure for 

determining the energy efficiency of 

commercial warm-air furnaces 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2375 

references part of UL 727 for 

commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces. 

10 CFR 431.76. Within the sections of 

UL 727 referenced by the DOE test 

procedure, the only substantive change 

from the 1994 version to the 2006 

version of UL 727 was the removal of a 

passage from the scope section that 

allowed manufacturers to propose 

alternate revisions to the requirements 

of UL 727 if their product’s features, 

components, materials, or systems are 

unsafe when used with the UL 727 test 

procedure. 

In the May 2011 NODA, DOE 

concluded that this change did not 

significantly impact the energy 

efficiency metric for commercial oilfired warm-air furnaces. 76 FR 25622, 

25636 (May 5, 2011). In response, DOE 

received comment from AHRI agreeing 

with DOE’s tentative conclusion. (AHRI, 

No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not receive any 

other comments on this topic. Thus, 

DOE is proposing to amend its test 

procedures at 10 CFR 431.76 to 

reference UL 727–2006 for commercial 

oil-fired warm-air furnaces. 

4. Commercial Gas-Fired Warm-Air 

Furnaces 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

updated its referenced test procedure for 

commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces 

(ANSI Z21.47) from the 1998 version 

(currently referenced in DOE’s test 

procedure) to the 2006 version. Between 

the two versions of ANSI Z21.47, ANSI 

updated the sections that DOE 

references in its test procedure for 

determining the energy efficiency of 

commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces. 

In the relevant sections, ANSI expanded 

the scope to include optional special 

construction provisions for furnaces 

designed to operate at altitudes over 

2000 feet. ANSI also added a new 

section, which is not part of the 

referenced DOE test procedure but 

caused the Thermal Efficiency section 

(which is relevant) to move from section 

2.38 to section 2.39. In the May 2010 

NODA, DOE summarized these updates 

and stated its tentative conclusion that 

they do not substantively impact the 

measurement of energy efficiency for 

commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces. 

76 FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). 

In response, DOE received comment 

from AHRI agreeing with DOE’s 

conclusion in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 

at p. 4) DOE did not receive any other 

comments from interested parties 

pertaining to this issue. Thus, DOE is 

proposing to amend its test procedure at 

10 CFR 431.76 to reference ANSI 

Z21.47–2006 for commercial gas-fired 

furnaces warm-air furnaces. 

5. Commercial Water Heaters 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

updated its referenced test procedure for 

commercial gas-fired water heaters 

(ANSI Z21.10.3) from the 1998 version 

to the 2004 version. Between these two 

versions, ANSI moved the relevant 

sections for thermal efficiency test and 

standby loss test to Exhibit G and added 

a provision to limit the duration of the 

standby loss test to a maximum of 48 

hours if there is no cutout (i.e., the 

thermostat acts to shut off the burner) 

after the 24-hour mark. This addition 

closely matches the additional 

stipulation in DOE’s test procedure for 

commercial gas-fired water heaters at 10 

CFR 431.106, which references the 

ANSI Z21.10.3–1998 test procedure, but 

adds that the maximum duration of the 

test should be 48 hours if the water 

heater is not in heating mode at that 

time. The difference between the two 

tests is the ANSI version ends the test 

immediately at the 48-hour mark, 

whereas the DOE test procedure would 

allow time after the 48-hour mark for 

the water heater to finish its heating 

cycle. Because DOE’s test procedure 

already includes a provision regarding 

the duration of the standby test, the 

provision will supersede this update to 

ANSI Z21.10.3. 

In the May 2010 NODA, DOE 

tentatively concluded that these updates 

would not significantly affect the 

measurement of energy efficiency for 

commercial gas-fired water heaters. 76 

FR 25622, 25636 (May 5, 2011). In 

response, DOE received comment from 

AHRI agreeing with DOE’s conclusion 

in the NODA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) 

However, the American Gas Association 

(AGA) expressed concern that water 

heaters that comply with the version of 

ANSI Z21.10.3 currently referenced by 

DOE’s test procedure may be found in 

non-compliance under the revised test 

method and suggested that DOE do 

testing in order to provide data on the 

impact of this change. (AGA, No. 9 at 

p. 1) 

In response, DOE again reviewed the 

changes to the ANSI Z21.10.3 test 

procedure for commercial water heating 

equipment. DOE notes that the only 

change in the relevant sections of the 

ANSI Z21.10.3–1998 test procedure is 

the duration limit for the standby loss 

test in the event that a cutout does not 

occur. As noted above, this duration 

limit is superseded by DOE’s duration 

limit specified in 10 CFR 431.106, 

which has been in place since the 

October 21, 2004 direct final rule. 69 FR 

61974, 61984. As a result, the standby 

loss test changes in ANSI Z21.10.3–2004 

would similarly be superseded by DOE’s 

requirements for the standby loss test; 

and for all practical purposes, the test 

will continue to be required to be 

conducted in the same manner as before 

this proposed rule. Thus, DOE does not 

believe that the new changes to the test 

procedure will cause any currentlycompliant water heaters to be found in 

noncompliance. Because DOE believes 

that the incorporated provisions of the 

water heater test procedure in ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2004 will be conducted in the 

same manner as those referenced in the 

previous test procedure, DOE does not 

believe that testing is required to 

support its tentative conclusion that 

there will be no difference in equipment 

efficiency as determined by the updated 

test procedure. 

AGA also requested clarification on 

the current DOE efficiency requirement 

for electric and oil-fired commercial 

storage water heaters and was 

concerned that the standby loss test 

changes in ANSI Z21.10.3–2004 would 

also affect the ratings for these 

equipment classes. AGA stated its 

interpretation that the current standby 

loss requirements for these products 

stem from the 1989 version of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 and that editions of the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 since then 

contain standby loss requirements that 

are less stringent for commercial electric 

water heaters and, accordingly, are not 

adoptable by DOE. (AGA, No. 9 at p.1) 

In response, the efficiency requirements 

for electric and oil-fired commercial 

storage water heaters are listed at 10 

CFR 431.110. Oil-fired storage water 

heaters must have a minimum thermal 

efficiency of 78 percent and a maximum 

standby loss of Q/800+110(Vr)1/2 (Btu/h), 

where Q is the nameplate input rate in 

Btu/h and Vr is the rated volume. 

Electric water heaters do not currently 

have a minimum thermal efficiency but 

have a maximum standby loss of 

0.30+27/Vm (%/hr), where Vm is the 

measured storage volume. The 

standards for oil-fired commercial 

storage water heaters were promulgated 

in a final rule published in the Federal 

Register on January 12, 2001, which 

adopted the efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1999 (66 FR 

3336), and the Energy Policy Act of 

1992 (EPACT 1992) set the standards for 

electric commercial water heaters 

(EPACT 1992, Pub. L. 102–486, Oct. 24, 

1992). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1999 did 

revise the efficiency level for electric 

water heaters; however, DOE 

determined that the revised level was a 

less stringent standard than the current 

Federal standard (66 FR 3336, 3350 (Jan. 

12, 2001)). Subsequent editions of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 still contain this 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2376 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

16 ‘‘Sensible cooling’’ is the cooling effect that 

causes a decrease in the dry-bulb temperature, 

which is the actual temperature of the air. ‘‘Latent 

cooling’’ is the cooling effect that causes a decrease 

in the wet-bulb temperature or the moisture content 

of the air, which is similar to the temperature one 

feels. 

revised efficiency level, but DOE still 

maintains that the current Federal 

standard set by EPACT 1992 is more 

stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency 

level. 

DOE is proposing to amend its test 

procedure at 10 CFR 431.106 to 

incorporate by reference ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2006 for commercial gas-fired 

water heaters. DOE seeks additional 

comment on this proposal to adopt 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2006, which is 

identified as issue 5 in section X.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

6. Air Conditioners and Condensing 

Units Serving Computer Rooms 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

specifies ASHRAE 127–2007, Method of 

Testing for Rating Computer and Data 

Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners, as the test procedure for 

determining the sensible coefficient of 

performance (SCOP) of air conditioners 

and condensing units serving computer 

rooms. ASHRAE 127–2007 defines and 

establishes a test method for computer 

room air conditioners. As noted above, 

EPCA directs DOE to prescribe the 

generally accepted industry testing 

procedures or rating procedures 

developed or recognized by ASHRAE, as 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

unless there is clear and convincing 

evidence that to do so would not 

produce test results which reflect the 

energy efficiency or energy use during 

an representative average use cycle or 

that the test procedure would be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)–(4) DOE reviewed ASHRAE 

127–2007 to determine whether it meets 

the requirements of EPCA for 

incorporation by reference as part of the 

Federal test method for determining 

compliance with minimum energy 

conservation standards. 

ASHRAE 127–2007 contains 

provisions that make it better suited for 

computer room air conditioners than the 

current commercial packaged air 

conditioner test procedures (i.e., AHRI 

210/240 and AHRI 340/360). The 

ASHRAE 127–2007 test procedure 

places an emphasis on sensible 

cooling 16 by establishing the SCOP 

metric, which is a measure of the 

sensible cooling output divided by the 

electrical input of all components, 

excluding reheaters and humidifiers 

(e.g., the input of the compressors, fans, 

controls, air-cooled condenser, or aircooled fluidcooler fans if used). 

Sensible cooling is important in 

computer room air conditioners because 

the cooling load in most server and 

computer rooms deals almost 

exclusively with a sensible heat load, 

meaning that there is very little 

moisture removed from the air inside 

the room. There is a very low latent heat 

load (i.e., heat load associated with the 

removal of moisture in the air) because 

very little outside air actually reaches 

the room, and there is almost no outside 

water in the room, which would alter 

the humidity of the computer room. A 

typical air conditioner used for space 

conditioning will encounter both a 

latent load and a sensible load. 

However, unlike other types of air 

conditioners, a computer room air 

conditioner will have an almost 

exclusively sensible cooling load, so it 

is reasonable that the metric for 

measuring energy efficiency would 

place an emphasis on sensible cooling. 

DOE believes that the SCOP metric 

under ASHRAE 127–2007 is a useful 

metric for measuring the energy 

efficiency of computer rooms and data 

rooms due to its emphasis on sensible 

cooling. 

In addition, ASHRAE 127–2007 

contains a standard rating test for 

reheating/dehumidification/ 

humidification systems, which are 

important functions of computer room 

air conditioners. The humidity of a 

computer room is an important aspect to 

control, as too much humidity can cause 

condensation on the electronic 

equipment (which has the potential to 

render the equipment inoperable) and 

too little humidity may cause 

potentially hazardous static discharges. 

Because ASHRAE 127–2007 is 

tailored to computer room air 

conditioners, DOE believes it will 

provide a more representative efficiency 

rating, which is more reflective of the 

actual efficiency of the unit. DOE 

believes that ASHRAE 127–2007 is 

reasonably designed to produce test 

results that reflect the energy efficiency, 

energy use, and estimated operating 

costs during a representative average 

use cycle and is not unduly burdensome 

to conduct, as outlined in EPCA. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)). In response to the 

May 2011 NODA, AHRI encouraged 

DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127 as the test 

procedure for air conditioners and 

condensing units serving computer 

rooms. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did 

not receive any other comments from 

interested parties pertaining to this 

issue. For the reasons above, DOE is 

proposing to adopt ASHRAE 127–2007 

as the test method for computer room 

air conditioners; however, DOE notes 

several possible issues with the test 

procedure in the paragraphs below. DOE 

seeks comment on this proposal, as well 

as the need for potential modifications 

for the computer room air conditioner 

test procedures, and this is identified as 

issue 6 in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

DOE notes that on July 14, 2011, 

ASHRAE published a public draft 

review of a revision to ASHRAE 127. A 

preliminary review of this draft revealed 

that ASHRAE created four different 

application classes to meet the industry 

need to modify equipment to accept 

higher return temperatures. Each 

application class has a different 

standard rating condition. ASHRAE also 

changed the water temperature 

conditions for water-cooled direct 

expansion units to match the conditions 

in AHRI 340/360 plus a typical cooling 

tower approach. This update also 

renames the SCOP and adjusted sensible 

coefficient of performance (ASCOP) 

metrics as Net Sensible Coefficient of 

Performance Rating (NSenCOP) and 

Integrated Net Sensible Rating 

(iNSenCOP), respectively. The 

NSenCOP is to be published at five 

rating conditions as opposed to four for 

SCOP (the four rating test conditions A– 

D in addition to iNSenCOP). The public 

comment period for the review of this 

draft has closed. DOE is not proposing 

to adopt the draft revisions to ASHRAE 

127 because they have not been 

finalized yet, but DOE seeks comments 

about how to treat the revisions. This is 

identified as issue 6 in section X.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

Lastly, DOE notes that the SCOP 

metric in ASHRAE 127–2007 does not 

measure part-load performance, and 

may not properly account for efficiency 

features that improve the part-load 

performance, such as variable speed fan 

motors and multi-stage compressors. 

Computer room air conditioners operate 

virtually all year round with a varying 

load, depending on how active the 

computer room is and the outdoor 

conditions. DOE requests comments on 

the shortcomings of this test procedure 

and the SCOP metric, and further 

improvements that could be made. See 

Section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

For computer room air conditioners, 

DOE is also requesting comment on the 

appropriateness of allowing an optional 

‘‘break-in’’ time of no more than 16 

hours, similar to those being proposed 

for other commercial air conditioning 

and heating equipment in this notice (as 

discussed in section IV.E.1). DOE 

believes that adding this option could 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2377 

17 Daikin AC (Americas) Inc. (73 FR 39680 (July 

10, 2008); 74 FR 15955 (April 8, 2009); 74 FR 16373 

(April 10, 2009); 75 FR 22581 (April 29, 2010); 75 

FR 25224 (May 7, 2010); 76 FR 34685 (June 14, 

2011)). 

Mitsubishi Electric and Electronics USA, Inc. (74 

FR 35860 (July 21, 2009); 74 FR 66311 (Dec. 15, 

2009); 74 FR 66315 (Dec. 15, 2009); 76 FR 40714 

(July 11, 2011)). 

LG (74 FR 66330 (Dec. 15, 2009)). 

Sanyo North America Corporation (75 FR 41845 

(July 19, 2010)). 

Carrier Corporation (76 FR 31951 (June 2, 2011)). 

allow the test procedure to be more 

representative of the actual performance 

characteristics of computer room air 

conditioners, while not increasing the 

burden on manufacturers. DOE seeks 

comment on the need for an optional 

break-in period for computer room air 

conditioners, and the length of time that 

should be allowed for such a period, if 

it is needed. This is identified as issue 

17 in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

7. Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

specifies AHRI 1230, Performance 

Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow 

(VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and 

Heat Pump Equipment, as the test 

procedure for variable refrigerant flow 

systems. As noted previously, EPCA 

directs DOE to prescribe the ‘‘generally 

accepted industry testing procedures or 

rating procedures developed or 

recognized by the Air-Conditioning and 

Refrigeration Institute or by the 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigeration and Air Conditioning 

Engineers, as referenced in ASHRAE/ 

IES Standard 90.1’’ unless there is clear 

and convincing evidence that to do so 

would not produce test results which 

reflect the energy efficiency or energy 

use during an representative average use 

cycle or that the test procedure would 

be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 

U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(4)) DOE reviewed 

AHRI 1230–2010 to determine whether 

it meets the requirements of EPCA for 

incorporation by reference as part of the 

Federal test method for determining 

compliance with minimum energy 

conservation standards. 

DOE first addressed the issue of AHRI 

1230 in the October 22, 2007 test 

procedure final rule for residential air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 72 FR 

59906. In that final rule, DOE decided 

not to adopt ARI 1230 at the time for 

residential VRF products, because ARI 

1230 had not been finalized yet. DOE 

also noted that the draft test procedure 

lacked information on: (1) How to 

conduct intermediate speed tests; (2) 

whether any indoor units are to be 

turned off for part-load test; and (3) how 

to interpolate EER and COP in the 

intermediate speed range. Id. at 59909. 

Since 2008, DOE has issued 13 

waivers to 5 different manufacturers 

exempting them from the commercial 

air conditioning and heat pump test 

procedures (AHRI 210/240 or AHRI 340/ 

360).17 In all 13 cases, the equipment in 

question was a multi-split variable 

refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat 

pump. For these types of equipment, 

there are multiple indoor units that are 

paired with a single outdoor unit, and 

the indoor and outdoor units can be 

mixed and matched to create different 

systems with a wide array of possible 

combinations. For example, one major 

manufacturer has a product line that can 

have as many as 38 different interior 

units connected to a single outdoor unit. 

Those 38 interior units can be selected 

in any combination from a pool of 43 

unique indoor models. Then, when 

considering that the indoor units in the 

system could also be paired with any 

one of 7 unique outdoor models, the 

number of possible combinations 

becomes astronomical. DOE recognized 

that the vast number of combinations of 

units that would need to be tested 

would overwhelm any testing 

laboratory, so it granted test procedure 

waivers for these units and required 

these units to be tested using an 

alternative test procedure that DOE 

developed. The only restriction in terms 

of the number of interior units is that 

the total capacity of all the indoor units 

must be comparable to the capacity of 

the outdoor unit. This alternate test 

procedure (which is outlined in each 

test procedure waiver granted by DOE 

for this equipment) permits the 

manufacturer to designate a ‘‘tested 

combination’’ for each outdoor unit. 

Each ‘‘tested combination’’ must have 

between two and five indoor units and 

must be tested using according to the 

applicable DOE test procedure. 

Manufacturers must release the test 

results for those ‘‘tested combinations,’’ 

and for the non-tested combinations, 

manufacturers can represent the energy 

use as equal to the tested combination, 

provided that the outdoor units are the 

same. 

In addition, manufacturers brought up 

several other issues in the petitions for 

test procedure waivers that related to 

applying the commercial air 

conditioning test procedure to VRF 

systems. Manufacturers asserted that: (1) 

There is no provision to accommodate 

having indoor units operating at 

different static pressures; (2) there is no 

precise number of part-load tests for 

fully variable speed; and (3) it does not 

account for simultaneous heating and 

cooling. DOE notes that the fact that 

multi-split systems can simultaneously 

heat and cool a building does not 

impact the efficiency rating, because the 

efficiency metric (i.e., EER) is a single 

point rating metric and does not 

measure seasonal energy use. 

AHRI 1230–2010 contains the same 

definition and procedures for rating the 

efficiency of a ‘‘tested combination’’ as 

the alternative DOE test procedure that 

DOE developed in response to the 

waivers. AHRI 1230–2010 also contains 

specific language on how to test 

multiple indoor units, the number of 

tests for variable speed compressors, 

and how to test for simultaneous 

cooling and heating efficiency, which 

should mitigate manufacturer 

complaints regarding the existing DOE 

test procedure for commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

as it applies to VRF systems. AHRI 

1230–2010 also tests for EER and COP 

at the same rating conditions as AHRI 

210/240 and AHRI 340/360. Thus, these 

systems should test for EER in the same 

way as other commercial air 

conditioners and heat pumps once the 

systems are set up according to AHRI 

1230–2010. 

In February 2011, AHRI amended the 

test procedure in Addendum 1 to AHRI 

1230 to modify the definition of ‘‘tested 

combination’’ to contain between 2 and 

12 indoor units as opposed to between 

2 and 5 indoor units. DOE believes this 

change merely extends the range of a 

tested combination and has no effect on 

the efficiency metric of the system. DOE 

believes this test procedure properly 

addresses all the concerns of testing 

VRF systems, results in a rating that 

reasonably reflects the energy efficiency 

of these systems, and would not be 

unduly burdensome to conduct. 

In response, DOE received a comment 

from AHRI which encouraged DOE to 

adopt AHRI 1230–2010, stating that a 

deliberate and open process was used to 

develop this test procedure and that it 

incorporates the alternative test 

procedure initially developed by DOE to 

cover VRF equipment. (AHRI, No. 11 at 

p. 4) The Advocates and CA IOUs, 

however, encouraged DOE to conduct a 

test procedure rulemaking for VRF 

equipment in order to eliminate the 

need for manufacturers to seek test 

procedure waivers for this equipment. 

(Advocates, No. 8 at p. 5, CA IOUs, No. 

10,12 at p. 3) DOE believes that AHRI 

1230–2010 incorporates all of the 

alternative test procedure that DOE 

developed through its waiver process, is 

a comprehensive test procedure for VRF 

systems, and would not be unduly 

burdensome to conduct. Manufacturers 

of VRF systems should not need to seek 

a test procedure waiver from AHRI 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2378 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

1230–2010 with Addendum 1. Further, 

DOE notes that EPCA generally directs 

DOE to prescribe the industry testing 

procedures as referenced in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless there is clear and 

convincing evidence that to do so would 

not produce test results consistent with 

the requirements of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6314(a)(2)–(4)). DOE believes AHRI 

1230 meets the requirements of EPCA, 

and, therefore, is proposing to adopt 

AHRI 1230–2010 with Addendum 1 as 

the test procedure for VRF systems. DOE 

seeks comment on this proposal, and 

this issue is identified as issue 7 in 

section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

For VRF systems, DOE is also 

proposing to add the optional ‘‘breakin’’ time of no more than 16 hours, as 

discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment subsection 

above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that 

adding this option will allow the test 

procedure to be more representative of 

the actual performance characteristics of 

VRF systems, while not increasing the 

burden on manufacturers. Note, DOE 

will update the certification provisions 

pending the outcome of this proposal in 

the upcoming certification, compliance, 

and enforcement rulemaking. DOE seeks 

comment on the need for an optional 

break-in period for VRF systems, and 

the length of time that should be 

allowed for such a period. This is 

identified as issue 7 in section X.E, 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

8. Single Package Vertical Air 

Conditioners and Single Package 

Vertical Heat Pumps 

For single package vertical air 

conditioners and single package vertical 

heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 lists AHRI 390–2003, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Single Packaged 

Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ as the referenced test 

procedure. Commercial SPVACs and 

SPVHPs were not distinguished as 

separate classes of commercial air 

conditioning and heating equipment in 

DOE’s regulations until EISA 2007 

amended EPCA to set efficiency 

standards specifically for this 

equipment (codified at 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(10)), which DOE subsequently 

codified in its regulations through a 

final rule published on March 23, 2009. 

74 FR 12058. Although EISA 2007 

specified minimum energy conservation 

standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, it 

did not specify the applicable test 

procedure for measuring the energy 

efficiency of SPVACs and SPVHPs. As 

discussed previously, according to 

EPCA, the test procedures for ASHRAE 

products shall be those generally 

accepted industry testing procedures or 

rating procedures developed or 

recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as 

referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

and shall be reasonably designed to 

product test results which reflect energy 

efficiency or energy use of those 

products. Further, when a test 

procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 

amended, EPCA directs DOE to amend 

its test procedure for the product as 

necessary to be consistent with the 

amended industry test procedure, 

unless doing so would not meet the 

requirements for test procedures 

described in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and 

(3). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)–(B)) 

DOE reviewed AHRI 390–2003 and 

believes the procedure is reasonably 

designed to produce test results which 

reflect energy efficiency of SPVACs and 

SPVHPs. In the May 2011 NODA, DOE 

requested comment about the adoption 

of AHRI 390–2003 as the test method for 

SPVACs and SPVHPs. 76 FR 25622, 

25635 (May 5, 2011). DOE received a 

comment from AHRI encouraging DOE 

to adopt AHRI 390–2003, in which 

AHRI remarked that this test procedure 

was developed with input from DOE. 

(AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did not 

receive any other comments on this 

topic. As a result, DOE is proposing to 

adopt AHRI 390–2003 as its test 

procedure for SPVACs and SPVHPs. 

In addition, for this equipment DOE is 

proposing to add the optional ‘‘breakin’’ time of no more than 16 hours, as 

discussed in the small (<65,000 Btu/h) 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment subsection 

above (section IV.E.1). DOE believes that 

adding this option will allow the test 

procedure to be more representative of 

the actual performance characteristics of 

SPVACs and SPVHPs, while not 

increasing the burden on manufacturers. 

Note, DOE will update the certification 

provisions pending the outcome of this 

proposal in the upcoming certification, 

compliance, and enforcement 

rulemaking. DOE seeks comment on the 

need for an optional break-in period for 

small, large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, and the length of time that 

should be allowed for such a period. 

This is identified as issue 8 in section 

X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

9. Additional Specifications for Testing 

of Commercial Package Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment, 

Including VRF Systems 

As part of its ongoing testing efforts in 

support of DOE’s regulatory program, 

DOE has encountered situations where 

the Department has received ad hoc 

requests from manufacturers regarding 

the need for tailored modifications to 

the testing set-up or operating 

conditions for a basic model. The 

Department is reiterating that DOE will 

use only the conditions specified in the 

DOE test procedure for a given covered 

equipment, along with any additional 

guidance that is presented in the 

installation and/or operating manuals 

shipped with those units for any DOEinitiated testing. For example, the 

Department typically uses the optimal 

charge settings in the installation 

manuals of commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

when they are specified for a given basic 

model. No additional information (i.e., 

additional specificity for the placement 

or types of specific testing sensors) will 

be used for any DOE verification or 

enforcement testing that are not part of 

the aforementioned documents. 

DOE does not intend for this 

clarification to change the way 

manufacturers currently test their 

products for the purposes of 

determining their certified ratings for 

each basic model. Instead, DOE wishes 

to harmonize the way it conducts its 

testing with the testing done by 

manufacturers. Consequently, DOE 

seeks comments generally on whether 

there are additional settings beyond the 

tolerances in the test procedure or 

additional specifications for the test setup that DOE should consider for testing 

of all types of commercial air 

conditioning and heating equipment as 

part of this rulemaking. If such settings 

are basic-model specific, DOE could, for 

example, come up with a way for 

manufacturers to disclose these 

instructions as part of their initial 

certifications for a given basic model. 

With the separation of VRF systems as 

a separate equipment class and the 

complexity inherent in testing this type 

of equipment, DOE specifically seeks 

comment on the testing conditions, the 

basic model operating points, and set-up 

for this equipment. This is identified as 

issue 9 in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which 

DOE Seeks Comment.’’ 

10. Sampling Plans for Commercial 

Heating, Ventilating, and AirConditioning Equipment 

For purposes of certification testing, 

the determination that a basic model 

complies with the applicable 

conservation standard must be based on 

testing conducted using DOE’s testing 

procedures and the sampling 

procedures, which are found in 10 CFR 

Part 429.43 for commercial heating, 

ventilating, and air conditioning 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2379 

equipment. The sampling procedures 

provide that ‘‘a sample of sufficient size 

shall be tested to insure [compliance].’’ 

A minimum of two units must be tested 

to certify a basic model as compliant. 

This minimum is implicit in the 

requirement to calculate a mean—an 

average—which requires at least two 

values. Under no circumstances is a 

sample size of one (1) authorized. 

Manufacturers may need to test more 

than two samples depending on the 

variability of their sample. Therefore, 

the sample size can be an important 

element when evaluating the 

compliance of a basic model. 

DOE uses statistically meaningful 

sampling procedures for selecting test 

specimens of commercial and industrial 

equipment, which would require the 

manufacturer to select a sample at 

random from a production line and, 

after each unit or group of units is 

tested, either accept the sample or 

continue sampling and testing 

additional units until a rating 

determination can be made. DOE did 

not propose a specific sample size for 

each product because the sample size is 

determined by the validity of the sample 

and how the mean compares to the 

standard, factors which cannot be 

determined in advance. 

In this proposed rule, DOE is 

proposing that the existing sampling 

procedures in 10 CFR part 429.43 be 

applied to any new covered equipment 

being addressed by testing procedures 

in this NOPR, including VRF systems, 

SPVUs, and CRACs. DOE believes this 

type of equipment is similar to the other 

types of commercial heating, 

ventilating, and air-conditioning 

equipment subject to DOE’s existing 

sampling procedures for certification 

testing and does not warrant differential 

treatment. 

F. Definitional Changes 

As discussed in the preceding 

sections, DOE is proposing to include in 

its regulations separate standards and 

test procedures for VRF systems, and 

new standards and test procedures for 

computer room air conditioners. 

Additionally, after the enactment of 

EISA 2007, DOE created separate 

standards for single package vertical air 

conditioners and heat pumps in its 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.97 (74 FR 

12058, 12073–74 (March 23, 2009)), and 

is proposing to adopt a test procedure 

for those equipment in today’s notice. 

Further, DOE’s regulations at 10 CFR 

431.97 also include ‘‘very large’’ 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment. To be consistent 

with the treatment of other commercial 

HVAC equipment and to reduce 

ambiguity, DOE is proposing to modify 

the definition of ‘‘Commercial HVAC & 

WH product’’ that was added to 10 CFR 

431.2 by a March 7, 2011 final rule for 

certification, compliance, and 

enforcement for consumer products and 

commercial and industrial equipment. 

76 FR 12422, 12503. DOE proposes to 

modify the definition so that it 

explicitly includes very large 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment, single package 

vertical air conditioners, single package 

vertical heat pumps, computer room air 

conditioners, variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split air conditioners, and variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split heat pumps. 

V. Methodology for VRF Water-Source 

Heat Pumps 

This section addresses the analysis 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with respect to VRF water-source heat 

pumps. As mentioned in section IV.B.3, 

DOE performed a preliminary National 

Energy Savings analysis for VRF watersource heat pumps greater than 135,000 

Btu/h, equivalent to that performed for 

the May 2011 NODA for other product 

categories. DOE was unable to perform 

this analysis at the time of the NODA 

because AHRI had not yet released a 

database of efficiency information for 

these products, and DOE was unable to 

obtain sufficient EER information from 

a review of manufacturer Web sites. As 

a result of the minimal energy savings 

demonstrated by DOE’s analysis for the 

NOPR (the results of which are 

summarized in section VIII.B.2), DOE 

did not conduct further energy savings 

or economic analyses. In addition, in 

response to the May 2011 NODA, AHRI 

confirmed that there are no VRF watersource heat pumps being manufactured 

with cooling capacities below 17,000 

Btu/h, so DOE did not perform a 

potential energy-savings analysis for 

this product class. 

A. Definitions of ‘‘VRF Multi-Split Air 

Conditioners’’ and ‘‘VRF Multi-Split 

Heat Pumps’’ 

VRF water-source heat pumps are part 

of the larger VRF system equipment 

class. VRF systems are a subset of 

commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment, which ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 placed into separate 

equipment classes. As a result, in 

today’s NOPR, DOE is proposing to 

separate the VRF equipment classes 

from the other classes of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. Neither EPCA nor DOE’s 

regulations in the CFR define ‘‘variable 

refrigerant flow system.’’ DOE examined 

the definitions for VRF systems in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and AHRI 

Standard 1230, the proposed test 

procedure for this equipment. 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 defines 

a ‘‘variable refrigerant flow system’’ as 

‘‘an engineered direct expansion (DX) 

multi-split system incorporating at least 

one variable capacity compressor 

distributing refrigerant through a piping 

network to multiple indoor fan coil 

units each capable of individual zone 

temperature control, through integral 

zone temperature control devices and 

common communications network. 

Variable refrigerant flow utilizes three 

or more steps of control on common, 

interconnecting piping.’’ AHRI Standard 

1230, the test procedure cited by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for use 

with this equipment, uses the term 

‘‘variable refrigerant flow multi-split 

system’’ and defines it as ‘‘a split system 

air-conditioner or heat pump 

incorporating a single refrigerant circuit, 

with one or more outdoor units, at least 

one variable speed compressor or an 

alternative compressor combination for 

varying the capacity of the system by 

three or more steps, multiple indoor fan 

coil units, each of which is individually 

metered and individually controlled by 

a proprietary control device and 

common communications network. The 

system shall be capable of operating as 

an air conditioner or a heat pump. 

Variable refrigerant flow implies three 

or more steps of control on common, 

inter-connecting piping.’’ 

In both cases, the definitions use the 

term ‘‘multi-split’’ to distinguish such 

units from ‘‘mini-split,’’ with the indoor 

units of the latter systems only being 

able to be controlled by one thermostat 

(as opposed to multi-split, which can be 

controlled by multiple thermostats). 

Because DOE believes that it is 

important to distinguish VRF systems as 

multi-split systems, DOE is proposing to 

formulate these definitions with the 

term ‘‘multi-split’’ in the title for this 

equipment class based on the 

definitions above. DOE believes that 

these proposed definitions incorporate 

all the unique features of this equipment 

class, most notably the individuallycontrolled indoor units which operate 

independently from other indoor units. 

DOE proposes the definitions of 

‘‘variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioner’’ and ‘‘variable refrigerant 

flow multi-split heat pump’’ to read as 

follows: 

Variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioner means a unit of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment that is configured as a split 

system air-conditioner incorporating a single 

refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor 

units, at least one variable-speed compressor 

or an alternate compressor combination for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2380 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

18Briggs, R.L., R.G. Lucas, and Z.T. Taylor, 

Climate Classification for Building Energy Codes 

and Standards: Part 1—Development Process and 

Part 2—Zone Definitions, Maps, and Comparisons, 

ASHRAE Transactions (2003) (1) pp. 4610–4611. 

19 Directory of Certified Variable Refrigerant Flow 

(VRF) Multi-Split Air Conditioning and Heat Pump 

Equipment: 2011 Edition (Effective Date: Sept. 16, 

2011) (Last accessed on Sept. 26, 2011) (Available 

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

pages/home.aspx). 

20See: http://www.ahridirectory.org/ 

ahridirectory/pages/vrf/ 

VRFDirectory_20110916.pdf. 

varying the capacity of the system by three 

or more steps, and multiple indoor fan coil 

units, each of which is individually metered 

and individually controlled by an integral 

control device and common communications 

network and which can operate 

independently in response to multiple indoor 

thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies 

three or more steps of capacity control on 

common, inter-connecting piping. 

Variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat 

pump means a unit of commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment that 

is configured as a split system heat pump 

that uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its 

primary heating source and which may 

include secondary supplemental heating by 

means of electrical resistance, steam, hot 

water, or gas. The equipment incorporates a 

single refrigerant circuit, with one or more 

outdoor units, at least one variable-speed 

compressor or an alternate compressor 

combination for varying the capacity of the 

system by three or more steps, and multiple 

indoor fan coil units, each of which is 

individually metered and individually 

controlled by a control device and common 

communications network and which can 

operate independently in response to 

multiple indoor thermostats. Variable 

refrigerant flow implies three or more steps 

of capacity control on common, interconnecting piping. 

These definitions clearly delineate 

VRF air conditioners and heat pumps as 

a sub-category of commercial package 

air conditioning and heating equipment 

and are structured in such a way to 

ensure that there are no overlaps with 

any other covered equipment class. 

There is also a subcategory of VRF 

systems that have heat recovery; 

therefore, DOE is also proposing to 

define ‘‘heat recovery’’ in the context of 

variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioners or variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split heat pumps to read as 

follows: 

Heat recovery (in the context of variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners 

or variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat 

pumps) means that the air conditioner or 

heat pump is also capable of providing 

simultaneous heating and cooling operation, 

where recovered energy from the indoor 

units operating in one mode can be 

transferred to one or more other indoor units 

operating in the other mode. A variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split heat recovery heat 

pump is a variable refrigerant flow multisplit heat pump with the addition of heat 

recovery capability. 

DOE is requesting comment on its 

proposed definitions of ‘‘variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioner,’’ ‘‘variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split heat pump,’’ and ‘‘heat 

recovery.’’ This is identified as issue 10 

in section X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment.’’ 

B. Annual Energy Use 

Annual per-unit energy use estimates 

for VRF water-source heat pumps at or 

greater than 135,000 Btu/h cooling 

capacity were developed based on 

whole building energy simulation of a 

medium-sized prototype office building 

in 15 locations around the U.S, with 

each location representing one of 15 

unique climate zones within the U.S.18

The prototype office building model 

used two water-source VRF systems in 

conjunction with a gas-fired boiler and 

a single cooling tower to serve the 

condensing water loop for the VRF 

systems. The simulation tool was a 

commercial version of the DOE2.1E 

building simulation tool, with the 

capability to model water-source VRF 

equipment using custom DOE2.1E 

functions. This simulation tool also 

provides actual performance curves 

obtained from equipment manufacturers 

for a number of specific equipment 

models, including many water-source 

VRF condensing units and indoor 

sections. 

DOE simulated the medium office 

building using actual equipment 

selections corresponding to three 

different efficiency levels identified in 

the AHRI certified product directory for 

VRF multi-split air conditioners and 

heat pumps.19 These efficiency levels 

corresponded to: (1) The lowest 

efficiency level identified in the 

directory and close to the ASHRAE 

baseline; (2) an efficiency level 

corresponding to the highest efficiency 

level identified for ducted systems; and 

(3) an efficiency level near the highest 

efficiency identified for ductless 

systems. The AHRI 1230–2010 test 

procedure provides that each 

condensing unit be tested as both a 

ducted system (representing equipment 

using indoor units that are connected to 

short distribution ducts) and as a 

ductless system (representing 

equipment using ductless indoor 

sections that provide conditioned air 

directly to the building space served). 

Because of a higher external static 

pressure when testing ducted units, the 

rated efficiency (EER and COP) of a 

given condensing unit is lower when 

tested as a ducted system than when 

tested as a ductless system. The two 

higher efficiency levels simulated 

utilized the same condensing unit but 

represent ratings as a ducted and as a 

ductless system respectively. The lowest 

EER level simulated was represented by 

a lower-performing condensing unit in a 

ducted system configuration. 

DOE performed simulations of the 

prototype office building at these three 

VRF efficiency levels in each climate for 

systems with and without heat recovery. 

As the ratings data do not identify the 

indoor units used, DOE selected a 

representative ducted indoor section 

and developed supply fan power 

estimates based on that unit for ducted 

systems representing the first two 

efficiency levels simulated. For nonducted systems where there was a large 

variety of indoor sections available, 

DOE developed an average fan power 

estimate based on average supply fan 

power data for five different ductless 

indoor section designs. DOE then used 

that average ductless fan power estimate 

in simulating the building with VRF 

systems at this third, highest, efficiency 

level. 

The annual electrical energy use for 

the VRF equipment, including each 

condensing unit and all associated 

evaporator units, was extracted from the 

simulation results for each building 

simulated and normalized by cooling 

capacity to provide estimates of annual 

VRF cooling, heating, and fan energy 

consumption at the average cooling 

capacities estimated by DOE for the two 

VRF product classes. For water-source 

VRF systems greater than 135,000 

Btu/h without heat recovery, DOE 

estimated the average cooling capacity 

at 216,000 Btu/h based on the average 

for available equipment found in the 

2011 AHRI certified products 

directory.20 For water-source VRF 

systems with heat recovery, DOE 

estimated the average cooling capacity 

at 192,000 Btu/h using the same data 

source. 

DOE calculated the national average 

energy use for VRF systems with and 

without heat recovery at each efficiency 

level using commercial building 

construction weights previously 

developed by DOE and assigned to each 

of the 15 U.S. climate zones. For each 

equipment class, DOE developed linear 

relationship between the national 

average cooling energy use and the 

reciprocal of the cooling EER for each 

consecutive pair of three efficiencies 

modeled. DOE also developed a linear 

relationship between the national 

average heating energy use and the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2381 

21http://www.census.gov/manufacturing/cir/ 

historical_data/ma333m/index.html, http:// 

permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps38720/. 

22http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html. 

23See: www.ahridirectory.org. 

reciprocal of the heating COP for each 

consecutive pair of efficiencies 

modeled. DOE then used these 

relationships to estimate the annual 

average cooling and heating energy use 

at the ASHRAE baseline efficiency level 

and at four higher efficiency levels, 

including the highest EER and COP 

levels found in the AHRI certified 

product directory for each product class 

(identified as max-tech levels for this 

analysis). Level 2 corresponded to the 

highest efficiency found for ducted VRF 

equipment in the AHRI directory. DOE 

held the fan energy use constant for 

levels at and below level 2 to that 

estimated based on the ducted VRF 

simulations. DOE determined that the 

max-tech level corresponded to a 

ductless system and estimated the 

energy use at the max-tech level using 

the linear relationship between the 

higher two efficiencies simulated. 

Annual energy use at level 3 was 

calculated based on interpolation 

between level 2 and the max-tech level. 

In all, DOE developed annual energy 

consumption estimates for efficiency 

levels at EER values of 10.0, 11.0, 12.0, 

13.0, and 14.5 for water-source VRF heat 

pumps without heat recovery. DOE 

developed annual energy consumption 

estimates for efficiency levels at EER 

values of 9.8, 11.0, 12.0, 13.0, and 14.5 

for water-source VRF heat pumps with 

heat recovery. 

C. Shipments 

DOE obtained historical (1989–2009) 

water-source heat pump shipment data 

from the U.S. Census.21 Table V.1 

exhibits the shipment data provided for 

a selection of years, while the full data 

set can be found in chapter 7 of the 

NOPR TSD.22 DOE used these shipment 

data to extrapolate shipments into the 

future based on the historical trend. 

TABLE V.1—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF

WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS

Year Units 

shipped 

1990 ............................................ 139,864 

1994 ............................................ 99,321 

2000 ............................................ 133,654 

2005 ............................................ 141,410 

2009 ............................................ 180,101 

As these shipment data represent 

water-source heat pumps generally and 

not VRF water-source heat pumps 

specifically, DOE undertook research to 

ascertain the number of models of 

water-source heat pumps in total, and 

VRF water-source heat pumps 

specifically. DOE used AHRI’s 

Directories of Certified Product 

Performance for Water-to-Air and 

Water-to-Water Heat Pumps (excluding 

groundwater loop and ground loop) and 

VRF Multi-Split Water-to-Air Heat 

Pumps for this purpose.23 DOE 

supplemented the AHRI Directory for 

VRF systems with information from 

manufacturers’ Web sites to capture as 

much of the market as possible. DOE 

used the ratio of VRF water-source heat 

pump greater than 135,000 Btu/h 

models to all water-source heat pump 

models on the market (164:4277) to 

estimate VRF water-source heat pump 

shipments. DOE also used the ratio of 

VRF water-source heat pumps greater 

than 135,000 Btu/h without heat 

recovery to all VRF water-source heat 

pumps greater than 135,000 Btu/h to 

allocate shipments into the two product 

classes (106:164). The complete 

historical data set and the projected 

shipments can be found in chapter 7 of 

the NOPR TSD. 

DOE then reviewed the AHRI 

Certified Product Directory to determine 

the distribution of efficiency levels for 

commercially-available models of VRF 

water-source heat pumps greater than 

135,000 Btu/h. 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 can be found in chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD. It is important to note that 

DOE did not identify any models on the 

market for either class of equipment 

with an EER below those specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

For the standards case, DOE assumed 

shipments at lower efficiencies were 

most likely to roll up into higher 

efficiency levels in response to morestringent energy conservation standards. 

For each efficiency level analyzed 

within a given equipment class, DOE 

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

the market shares by efficiency level for 

the year in which compliance with 

amended standards is required (i.e., 

2013). 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. As an example, Table V.2 

shows the distribution of efficiencies 

within the base-case and the roll-up 

scenarios to establish the distribution of 

efficiencies in the standards cases for 

VRF water-source heat pumps without 

heat recovery. 

TABLE V.2—DISTRIBUTION OF EFFICIENCIES IN THE BASE CASE AND STANDARDS CASES FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT

PUMPS >135 KBtu WITHOUT HEAT RECOVERY

Efficiency level 

Efficiency ranges (EER)* 

9.5–9.7 9.8–10.4 10.5–11.5 11.6–12.5 12.6–13.4 13.5+ 

Market Baseline ........................................................................... 0% 3% 73% 15% 3% 5% 

Efficiency Level 1—ASHRAE (10.0 EER) ................................... .................. 3% 73% 15% 3% 5% 

Efficiency Level 2—(11.0 EER) ................................................... .................. .................. 76% 15% 3% 5% 

Efficiency Level 3—(12.0 EER) ................................................... .................. .................. .................. 92% 3% 5% 

Efficiency Level 4—(13.0 EER) ................................................... .................. .................. .................. .................. 95% 5% 

Efficiency Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—(14.5 EER) ............................ .................. .................. .................. .................. .................. 100% 

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

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

Using the distribution of efficiencies 

in the base case and in the standards 

cases, as well as the unit energy 

consumption (UEC) for each specified 

EER (discussed previously), DOE 

calculated market-weighted average 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2382 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

24AEO2011 can be accessed at: http:// 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/. 

25 2011 ASHRAE Handbook HVAC Applications. 

ASHRAE, 2011. Atlanta GA (Available at 

www.ashrae.org). ASHRAE’s handbook does not list 

a service life for VRF equipment specifically, but it 

does provide service life estimates for water-source 

heat pumps generally. In this regard, ASHRAE cites 

two different studies for equipment service life. The 

first study of this type of equipment reported a 

service life of 19 years. The second, more-recent 

study cited suggests a service life of 24 years for all 

classes of direct expansion cooling systems. This 

second study relies heavily on extrapolation of a 

survival curve based on a sample of 1907 DX 

equipment observations from various equipment 

classes from which 284 units had actually been 

replaced and most were still in service. (ASHRAE 

Research Project 1237–TRP Interactive Web-based 

Owning and Operating Cost Database Final Report, 

July 2005. Available at www.ashrae.org) However, 

as VRF products are new to the U.S. with relatively 

little data on lifetime, DOE has relied on the older, 

more conservative, 19-year service life estimate for 

its analysis. 

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 are provided 

in chapter 8 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD. 

D. Other Analytical Inputs 

1. Site-to-Source Conversion 

DOE converted the annual site energy 

savings into the annual amount of 

energy saved at the source of electric 

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

site-to-source conversion factors over 

the analysis period (calculated from the 

Energy Information Agency’s (EIA’s) 

Annual Energy Outlook 2011 (AEO2011) 

projections).24 DOE derived the annual 

conversion factors by dividing the 

delivered electricity to the commercial 

sector plus loss for each forecast year in 

the United States, as indicated in 

AEO2011, by the delivered electricity to 

the commercial sector for each 

forecasted year. 

2. Product Lifetime 

DOE used a product lifetime of 19 

years for VRF water-source heat pumps 

based on the ASHRAE 2011 HVAC 

Applications Handbook.25

3. Compliance Date and Analysis Period 

For purposes of calculating the 

national energy savings (NES), DOE 

used an analysis period of 2013 (the 

assumed compliance date if DOE were 

to adopt the ASHRAE levels as Federal 

standards for large and very large 

products) through 2042. This is the 

standard analysis period of 30 years that 

DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. 

While the analysis period remains the 

same for assessing the energy savings of 

Federal standard levels higher than the 

ASHRAE levels, those energy savings 

would not begin accumulating until 

2017 (the assumed compliance date if 

DOE were to determine that standard 

levels more stringent than the ASHRAE 

levels are justified). 

If DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards at the efficiency levels 

contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010, EPCA states that any such 

standards shall become effective on or 

after a date which is two or three years 

(depending on equipment size) after the 

effective date of the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency requirement 

in the amended ASHRAE standard (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010). (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For VRF watersource heat pumps in this rulemaking, 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 does not 

specify an effective date; therefore, the 

effective date is assumed to be the 

publication date of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, or October 29, 2010. Thus, if 

DOE decides to adopt the levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, the rule 

would apply to large and very large 

equipment (the product class analyzed 

here) manufactured on or after October 

29, 2013, which is three years from the 

effective date specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. 

If DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards higher than the efficiency 

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, under EPCA, any such 

standard would apply to for products 

manufactured four years after the date of 

publication of the final rule in the 

Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(D)) Thus, for products for 

which DOE might adopt a level more 

stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency 

level, the rule would apply to products 

manufactured on or after a date which 

is four years from the date of 

publication of the final rule adopting 

standards higher than the ASHRAE 

efficiency levels (30 months after 

publication of the revised ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, which was October 29, 

2010). Under this timeline, compliance 

with such more-stringent standards 

would be required no later than April 

29, 2017. 

VI. Methodology for Computer Room 

Air Conditioners 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this rulemaking 

with respect to computer room air 

conditioners. A separate subsection 

addresses each analysis. In overview, 

DOE used a spreadsheet to calculate the 

life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback 

periods (PBPs) of potential energy 

conservation standards. DOE used 

another spreadsheet to provide 

shipments forecasts and then calculate 

national energy savings and net present 

value impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards. 

A. Market Assessment 

To begin its review of the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels, 

DOE developed information that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the equipment concerned, 

including the purpose of the equipment, 

the industry structure, and market 

characteristics. This activity included 

both quantitative and qualitative 

assessments based primarily on 

publicly-available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market 

assessment for this rulemaking include 

equipment classes, manufacturers, 

quantities, and types of equipment sold 

and offered for sale. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized below. For additional 

detail, see chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD. 

1. Definitions of ‘‘Computer Room Air 

Conditioners’’ 

As discussed in the May 2011 NODA, 

the 2010 version of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 modified the scope of the standard 

to include air conditioning equipment 

used for process cooling and set 

efficiency levels for computer room air 

conditioners. 76 FR 25622, 25633–34 

(May 5, 2011). Given this expansion of 

scope, DOE tentatively determined that 

it has the authority to consider and 

adopt standards for this equipment. Id. 

However, DOE currently does not have 

a definition for ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner,’’ because DOE’s regulations 

do not currently cover this equipment 

class. Because ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 expanded its scope to include air 

conditioners and condensing units 

serving computer rooms and DOE has 

decided to consider standards for this 

equipment, DOE must now define this 

equipment. 

As noted in section IV.C, computer 

room air conditioners operate in a 

similar manner to other commercial air 

conditioners, in that they provide space 

conditioning using a refrigeration cycle 

with a compressor, condenser, 

expansion valve, and an evaporator. 

However, computer room air 

conditioners are designed to maintain 

the temperature in a narrow range, to 

minimize temperature swings, and to 

maintain a specific relative humidity 

(usually between 40 and 55 percent). 

The equipment usually must be able to 

both humidify and dehumidify the air to 

maintain humidity at desired levels, and 

they are sometimes called ‘‘precision air 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2383 

26A ‘‘fluid economizer’’ is a system configuration 

potentially available where an external fluid cooler 

is utilized for heat rejection (i.e., for glycol-cooled 

or water-cooled equipment). The fluid economizer 

utilizes a separate liquid-to-air cooling coil within 

the CRAC unit and the cooled water or glycol fluid 

returning from the external fluid cooler to cool 

return air directly, much like a chilled water air 

handling unit (i.e., without the use of compressors). 

The ‘‘economizer’’ cooling can either augment or 

can take the place of compressor cooling, but only 

when returning water or glycol fluid temperatures 

are low enough to provide for significant direct 

coiling from the liquid-to-air cooling coil 

conditioners’’ because of this 

requirement. However, although the 

characteristics listed above are common 

among computer room air conditioners, 

not all computer room air conditioners 

are equipped with humidity control 

options; DOE found that typically, such 

features are optional, as much of the 

equipment is custom-built for a specific 

application. 

DOE is not aware of any components 

in computer room air conditioners that 

are exclusive to only computer room air 

conditioners and not to commercial air 

conditioners used for comfort 

conditioning (or vice versa) that could 

be used to effectively differentiate the 

two types of units on the basis of their 

construction. Further, DOE notes that 

the class of computer room air 

conditioners is defined in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 as an application (i.e., 

units that serve computer rooms), rather 

than based on a specific physical 

characteristic or component that 

differentiates the equipment from other 

commercial package air conditioning 

equipment. DOE also examined the 

definitions in ASHRAE Standard 127– 

2007 (Method of Testing for Rating 

Computer and Data Processing Room 

Unitary Air Conditioners). Specifically, 

DOE reviewed the definition of 

‘‘computer and data processing room 

(CDPR) unitary air conditioner’’ 

contained in that standard and found 

that there are no distinct physical 

characteristics used to differentiate 

computer room air conditioners from 

other commercial air conditioning and 

heating equipment. DOE believes, 

therefore, that this equipment is 

typically identified in the marketplace 

based on its intended application (i.e., 

how the equipment is marketed), rather 

than on differentiating physical 

components. 

In the NODA, DOE requested 

comment on an appropriate approach 

for establishing a definition for 

‘‘computer room air conditioner.’’ 76 FR 

25622, 25634 (May 5, 2011). In 

response, AHRI suggested that DOE use 

the product’s rated performance and the 

relevant rating standard (SCOP and 

ASHRAE 127, respectively) to 

distinguish air conditioners and 

condensing units designed for serving 

computer rooms from other types of 

commercial packaged air conditioning 

and heating equipment covered by 

EPCA. (AHRI, No. 11 at p. 4) DOE did 

not receive any other comments on this 

issue. 

As noted above, DOE found that the 

operating conditions for computer room 

air conditioners are different from those 

for air conditioners used for comfort 

conditioning. Different humidity and 

temperature conditions and a higher 

sensible load could lead manufacturers 

of computer room air conditioners to 

optimize their equipment to perform 

best at the rating conditions found in 

ASHRAE Standard 127 (a test method 

specifically for computer and data 

processing room air conditioners), 

rather than AHRI Standard 210/240 or 

340/360 (test methods for commercial 

package air conditioning equipment 

used for comfort conditioning). Because 

of this, DOE believes that manufacturers 

of computer room air conditioners 

would likely test those units according 

to ASHRAE Standard 127, while 

manufacturers of commercial package 

air conditioners intended for use in 

comfort conditioning applications 

would test those units according to 

either AHRI Standard 210/240 or AHRI 

Standard 340/360, depending on the 

cooling capacity of the unit. 

As a result, DOE is proposing in 

today’s NOPR to define a ‘‘computer 

room air conditioner’’ based on how the 

equipment is marketed exclusively for 

use and which test standard is used to 

rate the performance of the equipment. 

DOE proposes the following definition 

of ‘‘computer room air conditioner’’: 

Computer room air conditioner means a 

unit of commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment that is advertised, 

marketed, and/or sold specifically for use in 

computer rooms, data processing rooms, or 

other precision cooling applications, and is 

rated for performance using ASHRAE 

Standard 127. Such equipment may not be 

marketed or advertised as equipment for any 

other space conditioning applications, and 

may not be rated for performance using AHRI 

Standard 210/240 or AHRI Standard 340/360. 

DOE seeks comment on its proposed 

definition of ‘‘computer room air 

conditioner,’’ as well as on alternatives 

to this proposed definition. DOE is 

particularly interested in information on 

physical characteristics or features that 

could possibly be used to differentiate 

between computer room air 

conditioners and other types of 

commercial package air conditioners. 

This is identified as issue 11 in Section 

X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

2. Equipment Classes 

As noted above, there are currently no 

Federal energy conservation standards 

for computer room air conditioners. 

Different classes of computer room air 

conditioners are distinguished by 

several factors in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, which include the net 

sensible cooling capacity (i.e., small, 

large, or very large), orientation of 

airflow through the equipment (i.e., 

upflow or downflow), heat rejection 

method (i.e., air-cooled, water-cooled, or 

glycol-cooled), and whether a fluid 

economizer is used.26 Using these 

characteristics, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 divided computer room air 

conditioners into thirty equipment 

classes and set the efficiency levels 

shown in Table VI.1. 

TABLE VI.1—ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum SCOP 

efficiency 

Downflow 

units 

Upflow 

units 

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

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

≥240,000 Btu/h ..................................... 1.90 1.79 

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2384 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

27For more information see: http:// 

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

28See: http://www.appliances.energy.ca.gov/. 

TABLE VI.1—ASHRAE STANDARD 90.1–2010 COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued 

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum SCOP 

efficiency 

Downflow 

units 

Upflow 

units 

≥240,000 Btu/h ..................................... 2.40 2.29 

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

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

≥240,000 Btu/h ..................................... 2.35 2.24 

Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled (rated at 40% propylene glycol) ....................... <65,000 Btu/h ....................................... 2.50 2.39 

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

≥240,000 Btu/h ..................................... 2.10 1.99 

Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled (rated at 40% propylene glycol) with a Fluid 

Economizer.

<65,000 Btu/h ....................................... 2.45 2.34 

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

≥240,000 Btu/h ..................................... 2.05 1.94 

In general, DOE divides equipment 

classes by the type of energy used or by 

capacity or other performance-related 

features that affect efficiency. Different 

energy conservation standards may 

apply to different equipment classes. (42 

U.S.C. 6295(q)) In the context of the 

present rulemaking, DOE believes net 

sensible cooling capacity (i.e., small, 

large, or very large), orientation (i.e., 

upflow or downflow), heat rejection 

method (i.e., air-cooled, water-cooled, or 

glycol-cooled), and use of a fluid 

economizer are all performance-related 

features that affect computer room air 

conditioner efficiency (i.e., SCOP). By 

examining the characteristics of 

equipment available on the market, DOE 

found computer room air conditioners 

in a wide range of efficiencies 

depending on their design and features. 

Consequently, DOE is proposing to use 

the same thirty equipment classes in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 to 

differentiate between types of computer 

room air conditioners. 

3. Review of Current Market for 

Computer Room Air Conditioners 

In order to obtain the information 

needed for the market assessment for 

this rulemaking, DOE consulted a 

variety of sources, including 

manufacturer literature, manufacturer 

Web sites, and the California Energy 

Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency 

Database. The information DOE 

gathered serves as resource material 

throughout the rulemaking. The sections 

below provide an overview of the 

computer room air conditioner market 

assessment, and chapter 2 of the NOPR 

TSD provides additional detail on the 

market assessment, including citations 

to relevant sources. 

a. Trade Association Information 

There is no trade association that 

represents computer room air 

conditioner manufacturers. AHRI is the 

trade association representing most 

manufacturers of commercial air 

conditioning and heating equipment; 

however, AHRI does not have a 

subsection for computer room air 

conditioners, and the major 

manufacturers of computer room air 

conditioners that DOE identified are not 

AHRI members.27

b. Manufacturer Information 

DOE initially identified 

manufacturers of computer room air 

conditioners through conversations with 

industry experts and by examining the 

California Energy Commission (CEC) 

appliance efficiency database.28

Manufacturers that DOE identified 

include American Power Conversion, 

Compu-Aire, Data Aire, Liebert, and 

Stulz. DOE reviewed manufacturer 

literature to gain insight into product 

availability, technologies used to 

improve efficiency, and product 

characteristics (e.g., cooling capacities) 

of the models in each equipment class. 

c. Market Data 

Using the CEC database and 

manufacturer literature gathered from 

manufacturer Web sites, DOE compiled 

a database of 1,364 computer room air 

conditioner models from the five 

manufacturers it identified. These units 

included 452 air-cooled units, 248 

water-cooled units without a fluid 

economizer, 174 water-cooled units 

with a fluid economizer, 237 glycolcooled units without a fluid 

economizer, and 253 glycol-cooled units 

with a fluid economizer. These units 

can also be divided by size categories 

and orientation, and a full breakdown of 

the number of units in each equipment 

class can be found in chapter 2 of the 

NOPR TSD. Of the 1,364 computer room 

air conditioners in DOE’s database, DOE 

was only able to obtain efficiency data 

for 208 units, which accounts for 

approximately 15 percent of the 

database (see section VI.B.4 of this 

NOPR for information about how DOE 

estimated efficiency data). Because 

computer room air conditioner 

manufacturers are not currently 

required to report efficiency information 

to DOE, most manufacturers do not 

publish efficiency information in their 

product literature. DOE gathered 

available efficiency information for two 

manufacturers from the CEC database 

(where manufacturers are required to 

report efficiency information in if they 

sell models in California) and one other 

manufacturer’s product literature 

(which was the only manufacturer that 

provided efficiency information in their 

product literature). DOE did not find 

any efficiency information for 

equipment from two of the five 

manufacturers of computer room air 

conditioners. 

The average SCOP for each equipment 

class where DOE had adequate data is 

shown in the Table VI.2. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2385 

TABLE VI.2—AVERAGE SCOP FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONER EQUIPMENT CLASSES

Equipment class Size category 

Upflow 

orientation 

average 

SCOP 

Downflow 

orientation 

average 

SCOP 

Air-Cooled .................................................................................................. <65,000 Btu/h .................................. 2.49 2.61 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.64 2.64 

≥240,000 Btu/h ................................ (1) 2.25 

Water-Cooled ............................................................................................. <65,000 Btu/h .................................. 2.76 2.90 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.76 2.78 

≥240,000 Btu/h ................................ (1) 2.45 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ..................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................................. (1) (1) 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h (1) (1) 

≥240,000 Btu/h ................................ (1) (1) 

Glycol-Cooled ............................................................................................ <65,000 Btu/h .................................. 2.66 2.71 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h (1) 2.62 

≥240,000 Btu/h ................................ (1) 2.49 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer .................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................................. (1) 2.43 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h (1) 2.48 

≥240,000 Btu/h ................................ (1) 2.38 

1 No information. 

Chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD contains 

additional information drawn from the 

data that was used to inform DOE’s 

analysis, such as the average sensible 

capacities for each equipment class. 

DOE used the information gathered in 

the market assessment as the foundation 

for developing the price-efficiency 

relationship in the engineering analysis. 

Additionally, DOE used the market data, 

along with other sources, to estimate the 

shipments of computer room air 

conditioners. Further details regarding 

the development of shipments estimates 

and forecasts can be found in section 

VI.F of this NOPR. 

B. Engineering Analysis 

The engineering analysis establishes 

the relationship between the cost and 

efficiency of a piece of equipment DOE 

is evaluating for potential amended 

energy conservation standards. This 

relationship serves as the basis for costbenefit calculations for individual 

consumers and the Nation. The 

engineering analysis identifies 

representative baseline equipment, 

which is the starting point for analyzing 

possible energy efficiency 

improvements. For covered ASHRAE 

equipment, DOE sets the baseline at the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, 

because by statute, DOE cannot adopt 

any level below the revised ASHRAE 

level. The engineering analysis then 

identifies higher efficiency levels and 

the incremental increase in product cost 

associated with achieving the higher 

efficiency levels. After identifying the 

baseline models and cost of achieving 

increased efficiency, DOE estimates the 

additional costs to the customer through 

an analysis of contractor costs and 

markups, and uses that information in 

the downstream analyses to examine the 

costs and benefits associated with 

increased equipment efficiency. 

DOE typically structures its 

engineering analysis around one of three 

methodologies: (1) The design-option 

approach, which calculates the 

incremental costs of adding specific 

design options to a baseline model; (2) 

the efficiency-level approach, which 

calculates the relative costs of achieving 

increases in energy efficiency levels 

without regard to the particular design 

options used to achieve such increases; 

and/or (3) the reverse-engineering or 

cost-assessment approach, which 

involves a ‘‘bottom-up’’ manufacturing 

cost assessment based on a detailed bill 

of materials derived from tear-downs of 

the product being analyzed. 

1. Approach 

For this analysis, DOE used an 

efficiency-level approach in conjunction 

with a pricing survey to develop the 

price-efficiency relationships for the 

various classes of computer room air 

conditioners. An efficiency-level 

approach allowed DOE to estimate the 

cost of achieving different SCOP levels 

in a timely manner (which was 

necessary to allow DOE to meet the 

statutorily-required deadlines for 

ASHRAE equipment in EPCA). The 

efficiency-level approach allowed DOE 

to capture a variety of designs available 

on the market and focused on the price 

of units at different SCOP ratings. The 

efficiency levels that DOE considered in 

the engineering analysis were 

representative of computer room air 

conditioners currently produced by 

manufacturers at the time the 

engineering analysis was developed. 

DOE relied on data collected from 

equipment distributors of three large 

computer room air conditioner 

manufacturers to develop its costefficiency relationship for computer 

room air conditioners. (See chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD for further detail.) 

Although there are certain benefits to 

using an efficiency-level approach with 

a pricing survey (namely the ability to 

conduct an analysis in a limited amount 

of time that spans a variety of 

equipment and technologies), DOE 

notes there are also drawbacks to this 

approach. The most significant 

drawback of such an approach is that 

equipment pricing is not always based 

solely on equipment cost and is often 

influenced by a variety of other factors. 

Factors such as whether the unit is a 

high-volume seller, whether the unit has 

premium features (such as more 

sophisticated controls or a longer 

warranty), and the differences in 

markup between different 

manufacturers all have an effect on the 

prices of computer room air 

conditioners. In certain instances, this 

can make it difficult to compare prices 

across manufacturers because of the 

number of different ways that 

manufacturers can decide to set pricing 

based on features that are not part of the 

basic equipment costs. As a result, the 

relationship between price and 

efficiency could be different from the 

relationship between manufacturer cost 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2386 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

29One ton of cooling capacity is equivalent to 

12,000 Btu/h. 

30As discussed in section VI.B.6, DOE focused its 

analysis on downflow models to reduce the total 

number of product classes requiring analysis. The 

SCOP for upflow models were reduced by 0.11 

SCOP, and the upflow class was combined with the 

downflow class. 

and efficiency that might be revealed 

through other engineering methods such 

as a design-option approach or using 

reverse-engineering. However, given the 

limited analysis time allowed by EPCA, 

DOE proceeded with an efficiency-level 

approach in which it gathered the price 

of equipment at various efficiency 

levels. Nonetheless, DOE believes this 

approach provides a reasonable 

approximation of the cost increases 

associated with efficiency increases and 

could be conducted in a timely manner 

that would allow DOE to meet the 

deadlines specified in EPCA for 

ASHRAE products. The approach 

allowed DOE to provide an estimate of 

equipment prices at different 

efficiencies and spanned a range of 

technologies currently on the market 

that are used to achieve the increased 

efficiency levels. 

2. Representative Input Capacities for 

Analysis 

Computer room air conditioners are 

separated into three size categories 

based upon the equipment’s net sensible 

cooling capacity: (1) <65,000 Btu/h; (2) 

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

(3) ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 

For each equipment size category, DOE 

chose a representative capacity for 

analysis. The representative capacity 

chosen was the average sensible 

capacity (rounded to the nearest ton 29) 

of all models that DOE found on the 

market in a given product class. DOE 

collected pricing data as close to the 

representative capacity as possible; 

however, given the limited amount of 

data available, it was not always 

possible for DOE to obtain pricing 

information for models exactly at the 

representative capacity. Consequently, 

DOE obtained pricing for units as close 

as possible to the representative 

capacity (generally within 15 percent of 

the representative capacity) and then 

normalized the price in order to 

estimate the price at the representative 

capacity by calculating the price based 

on the price per Btu per hour and 

adjusting it accordingly. 

For computer room air conditioners 

with a sensible cooling capacity less 

than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE collected data 

at the representative size of 36,000 Btu/ 

h and normalized the cost to that 

capacity. For computer room air 

conditioners with a sensible cooling 

capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h and 

less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE collected 

data at the representative size of 132,000 

Btu/h and normalized the cost to that 

capacity. For computer room air 

conditioners with a sensible cooling 

capacity greater than 240,000 Btu/h, 

DOE collected data for five total units 

with efficiency data in these equipment 

classes and normalized it to a 

representative capacity of 288,000 Btu/ 

h. See chapter 2 of the NOPR TSD for 

information about the capacity 

information that DOE found for 

equipment on the market and chapter 3 

of the TSD for more detail about the 

representative capacities selected. 

3. Baseline Equipment 

DOE selected baseline efficiency 

levels as reference points for each 

equipment class, against which it 

measured changes resulting from 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE defined the baseline 

efficiency levels in the engineering 

analysis and the LCC and PBP analyses 

as reference points to compare the 

technology, energy savings, and cost of 

equipment with higher energy efficiency 

levels. A baseline piece of equipment 

refers to a model having features and 

technologies typically found in 

equipment currently offered for sale. 

The baseline model in each equipment 

class represents the typical 

characteristics of equipment in that 

class. Typically, units at the baseline 

efficiency level just meet Federal energy 

conservation standards and provide 

basic consumer utility. However, since 

computer room air conditioners are a 

new equipment class, there are no 

current Federal standards for these 

units. Further, EPCA requires that DOE 

must adopt either the ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 levels or more 

stringent levels. Therefore, because the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 levels 

were the lowest levels that DOE could 

adopt, DOE used those levels as the 

baseline efficiency level for the 

purposes of its analysis. Table VI.3 

shows the baseline efficiency level for 

each computer room air conditioner 

equipment class in the downflow 

orientation.30

TABLE VI.3—BASELINE SCOP EFFICIENCY LEVEL

Equipment class Size category 

Downflow 

orientation 

baseline 

SCOP 

Air-Cooled ..................................................................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h ........................................... 2.2 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......... 2.1 

≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................... 1.9 

Water-Cooled ............................................................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h ........................................... 2.6 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......... 2.5 

≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................... 2.4 

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

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

≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................... 2.35 

Glycol-Cooled ............................................................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h ........................................... 2.5 

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

≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................... 2.1 

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

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .......... 2.1 

≥240,000 Btu/h ......................................... 2.05 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2387 

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

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

and latent) cooling capacity. 

32As noted in section VI.B.4, only three 

manufacturers provided efficiency data. DOE 

obtained pricing from all manufacturers for which 

it had efficiency data. 

4. Identification of Efficiency 

Information and Efficiency Levels for 

Analysis 

Since DOE does not currently regulate 

computer room air conditioners, 

manufacturers are not required to report 

or rate the efficiency of their equipment. 

Therefore, DOE relied on efficiency 

information found in manufacturer 

literature (for those manufacturers who 

voluntarily rate their equipment 

efficiency) and in the CEC database (as 

CEC does require manufacturers to 

certify the efficiency ratings for their 

computer room air conditioners being 

sold in California). Because SCOP is a 

new efficiency metric in ASHRAE 127– 

2007, all efficiency data DOE gathered 

were in the form of EER, as measured by 

the previous version of ASHRAE 127 

(i.e., ASHRAE 127–2001). DOE only 

found EER data for three of the five 

manufacturers. ASHRAE 127–2007 

contains a ‘‘rule-of-thumb’’ method for 

determining SCOP using the EER as 

measured by ASHRAE 127–2001 and 

the sensible heat ratio (SHR).31 DOE 

used the ‘‘rule-of-thumb’’ method to 

approximate SCOP ratings based on EER 

information contained in the CEC 

database and manufacturer literature, as 

well as SHR information found in 

manufacturer specification sheets. As 

noted above, this method allowed DOE 

to estimate SCOP ratings for 15 percent 

of the total units in its database, for 

which this information was available. 

Upon examining the market, DOE 

concluded that only four equipment 

classes contained enough models with 

efficiency information to adequately 

select efficiency levels based on the 

efficiency of models on the market. For 

the equipment classes where DOE did 

not have enough SCOP data to select 

efficiency levels, DOE translated the 

efficiency levels from one of the four 

previously mentioned equipment 

classes based on the SCOP differences 

between the different equipment classes 

as specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010. The efficiency levels selected for 

analysis for each equipment class are 

shown in Table VI.4. Chapter 3 of the 

NOPR TSD shows additional details on 

the efficiency levels selected for 

analysis. 

TABLE VI.4—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR ANALYSIS OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Equipment 

Efficiency levels (SCOP) 

Baseline 

level Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.45 2.65 2.85 3.05 3.25 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.35 2.55 2.75 2.95 3.15 

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

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

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

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

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ............. 2.10 2.30 2.50 2.70 2.90 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ........... 2.05 2.25 2.45 2.65 2.85 

5. Pricing Data 

Once DOE identified representative 

capacities and baseline units, and 

selected equipment classes and 

efficiency levels to analyze, DOE 

contacted three of the manufacturers of 

computer room air conditioners 32 to 

obtain pricing information for 

individual models in quantities of 10 

units. DOE used 10 as a standard 

request that would be typical of a 

contractor installing the units in an 

office space. DOE received pricing 

information for 32 models total. DOE 

then used the pricing information in 

conjunction with the SCOP data 

(estimated from EER data) to build 

price-efficiency curves. See chapter 3 of 

the NOPR TSD for additional details 

about the pricing data DOE received. 

6. Equipment Classes for Analysis and 

Extrapolation to Unanalyzed Equipment 

Classes 

Due to a lack of efficiency data and 

small number of models on the market 

for certain equipment classes, DOE did 

not analyze each of the 30 equipment 

classes created by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 separately. Rather, DOE analyzed 

the equipment classes with the largest 

numbers of models on the market (and 

as a result the most data available) and 

used a variety of assumptions to 

extrapolate that analysis to the 

equipment classes with less information 

available. 

DOE only considered downflow units 

in its engineering analysis. In reviewing 

the models available in its database, 

DOE found that each given equipment 

model (characterized by a product line 

and model number) was generally 

available in both an upflow and 

downflow configuration, and review of 

specific equipment indicated that the 

internal components could be 

optionally arranged by the manufacturer 

for either an upflow or downflow 

orientation. Therefore, DOE assumed 

that downflow units and upflow units 

generally have the same major 

components, but that those components 

are arranged differently. DOE assumed 

that the price of the units would likely 

be nearly the same and that the 

incremental cost of increasing efficiency 

would also be the same. However, DOE 

observed the 0.11 SCOP reduction in the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency 

levels for upflow units as compared to 

downflow units. DOE believes this 

difference is a result of the additional 

static pressure that the blower fan must 

overcome in the upflow orientation, as 

required in the ASHRAE 127 test 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2388 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

procedure. By assuming that the results 

of a cost-benefit analysis for the upflow 

classes for a given incremental change 

in SCOP would have the same results as 

the downflow class (because the 

incremental cost and efficiency gains 

would be the same), DOE was able to 

focus on the downflow equipment 

classes where more data were available. 

Among the downflow equipment 

classes, DOE found there was only 

enough efficiency information to 

analyze four equipment classes: (1) 

Small (i.e., sensible capacity less than 

65,000 Btu/h) air-cooled; (2) large (i.e., 

sensible capacity greater than or equal 

to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 

Btu/h) air-cooled; (3) small (i.e., sensible 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) watercooled; and (4) large (i.e., sensible 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h) 

water-cooled. For the other 11 

downflow equipment classes, DOE had 

to extrapolate the analysis based on 

these four primary equipment classes 

due to a lack of efficiency and pricing 

data for those equipment classes. 

To extrapolate the data and generate 

a price-efficiency relationship for the 

very large (i.e., sensible capacity greater 

than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h but less 

than 760,000 Btu/h) air-cooled and very 

large water-cooled equipment classes, 

DOE modified the price-efficiency 

curves for the large air-cooled and large 

water-cooled equipment classes, 

respectively. In each case, DOE shifted 

the relationship down by the difference 

in SCOP specified between the 

equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010. Then, using the limited 

pricing data collected in the very large 

equipment classes, DOE found the 

percent difference between a large unit 

and very large unit for a given 

manufacturer (or manufacturers if 

multiple points were available). DOE 

multiplied the prices by the average 

percentage difference between a very 

large unit and a large unit of the same 

model line to estimate the priceefficiency relationship for the very large 

equipment classes. 

For the three glycol-cooled equipment 

classes (i.e., small, large, and very large), 

DOE was able to collect a limited 

amount of pricing data, and DOE found 

that the prices of glycol-cooled units 

were identical to those for water-cooled 

units in the same product line. 

Therefore, DOE modeled the costefficiency curves for glycol-cooled units 

after the water-cooled equipment by 

maintaining the same pricing, but 

shifting the curves to account for the 

decrease in SCOP that DOE believes 

results from a decrease in heat transfer 

for glycol-cooled units as compared to 

water-cooled units. DOE shifted the 

curves by the same amount as the 

difference in the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 efficiency levels between 

each respective equipment class. 

For the six computer room air 

conditioner equipment classes with a 

fluid economizer (i.e., small, large, and 

very large water-cooled, and small, 

large, and very large glycol-cooled), 

DOE translated the efficiency data and 

prices from the corresponding watercooled or glycol-cooled equipment 

classes. Because a fluid economizer 

adds additional external static pressure 

that must be overcome by the blower 

fan, DOE believes these units generally 

will require more fan power and have 

lower SCOP ratings than equivalent 

models without an economizer. 

Therefore, DOE shifted the efficiency 

down 0.05 SCOP, which was the 

efficiency difference for computer room 

air conditioners with fluid economizers 

versus those without an economizer in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. From the 

limited pricing data that DOE was able 

to collect for units with fluid 

economizers, DOE found the percentage 

difference in price for equipment with 

a fluid economizer compared to the 

same model without a fluid economizer. 

DOE then increased the pricing in the 

price-efficiency relationships for each 

equipment class by the percentage 

difference found for adding a fluid 

economizer to generate the priceefficiency relationship for the 

equipment classes with fluid 

economizers. 

7. Engineering Analysis Results 

The result of the engineering analysis 

is a set of price-efficiency curves. 

Creating the price-efficiency curves 

involved plotting the manufacturer 

price versus efficiency and using an 

exponential regression analysis to fit a 

curve that best defines the aggregated 

data. When DOE examined the pricing 

data for each individual manufacturer, 

DOE found there was no correlation 

between pricing and efficiency. Only 

when the manufacturer data points were 

aggregated across all manufacturers for 

each equipment class did a correlation 

appear. Generally, there were 

manufacturers who sold lower-priced, 

lower-SCOP equipment and those who 

sold higher-priced, higher-SCOP 

equipment. DOE used an exponential 

regression to determine the relationship 

between price and efficiency across the 

three manufacturers. Table VI.5 and 

Table VI.6 below show the priceefficiency data for the four primary 

equipment classes, for which DOE had 

enough information to do a regression 

analysis. The results for the equipment 

classes where DOE had to extrapolate 

the price-efficiency relationship are 

contained in chapter 3 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

TABLE VI.5—AIR-COOLED COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA

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

SCOP Price SCOP Price 

2.20 ......................................................................... $6,681.09 2.10 ........................................................................ $22,621.45 

2.40 ......................................................................... 7,853.51 2.35 ........................................................................ 24,383.30 

2.60 ......................................................................... 9,231.68 2.60 ........................................................................ 26,282.38 

2.80 ......................................................................... 10,851.69 2.85 ........................................................................ 28,329.36 

3.00 ......................................................................... 12,755.99 3.10 ........................................................................ 30,535.77 

TABLE VI.6—WATER-COOLED COMPUTER AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA

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

SCOP Price SCOP Price 

2.60 ......................................................................... $14,232.84 2.50 ........................................................................ $12,883.01 

2.80 ......................................................................... 11,527.69 2.70 ........................................................................ 17,315.28 

3.00 ......................................................................... 9,336.69 2.90 ........................................................................ 23,272.43 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2389 

33The 2007 U.S. Census Bureau financial data for 

the plumbing, heating, and air conditioning 

industry is the latest version data set and was 

issued in August 2009. Available at: http:// 

factfinder.census.gov/servlet/IBQTable?_bm=y&-

geo_id=&-ds_name=EC0723I1&-_lang=en. 

34The Sales Tax Clearinghouse. Table of State 

sales tax rates along with combined city and county 

rates. (Last accessed Nov. 2, 2011) (Available at: 

https://thestc.com/STRates.stm). 

TABLE VI.6—WATER-COOLED COMPUTER AIR CONDITIONERS PRICE-EFFICIENCY DATA—Continued 

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

SCOP Price SCOP Price 

3.20 ......................................................................... 7,562.12 3.10 ........................................................................ 31,279.07 

3.40 ......................................................................... 6,124.84 3.30 ........................................................................ 42,040.32 

DOE notes that the results for the 

small (< 65,000 Btu/h) water-cooled 

equipment class are counter-intuitive, 

because the correlation between price 

and efficiency showed a decrease in 

price for increased efficiency for that 

equipment class. This result is likely the 

result of not having enough data points 

to develop a statistically significant 

trend between price and efficiency. In 

addition, as discussed above, 

manufacturers might have different 

reasons for pricing the different features 

other than equipment efficiency, and, 

thus, there would be no correlation 

between efficiency and price for 

individual manufacturers. In DOE’s 

experience, an inverse correlation 

between price and efficiency is not 

typical, and thus, DOE believes 

additional data and analysis would 

possibly reveal a different relationship 

than the pricing analysis. DOE seeks 

comment on the results of the pricing 

analysis and requests information and 

data regarding price-efficiency trends 

for computer room air conditioners. 

This is identified as issue 12 in section 

X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comments.’’ 

C. Markups To Determine Equipment 

Price 

DOE understands that the price of 

CRAC equipment depends on the 

distribution channel the customer uses 

to purchase the equipment. Typical 

distribution channels for most 

commercial HVAC equipment include 

shipments which may pass through 

manufacturers’ national accounts, or 

through entities including wholesalers, 

mechanical contractors, and/or general 

contractors; however, DOE understands 

that the typical distribution channel for 

CRAC equipment for either new 

construction or replacement is that a 

mechanical contractor orders the 

equipment from a manufacturer or 

distributor who provides the equipment 

at a price delivered to the job site. The 

mechanical contractor then adds his 

own markup and provides installation 

services. Because of the specialized 

nature of the equipment, general 

contractors are not involved in the 

transaction, nor did DOE find any 

evidence of wholesaler involvement or 

national accounts for distribution of this 

specialized CRAC equipment. DOE 

developed equipment costs for 

mechanical contractors directly in the 

engineering analysis and estimated cost 

to customers using a markup chain 

beginning with the mechanical 

contractor cost. Because of the 

complexity of installation, DOE 

estimated most sales of CRAC 

equipment involved mechanical 

contractors. Consequently, DOE did not 

develop separate markups for other 

distribution chains. 

DOE developed supply chain 

markups in the form of multipliers that 

represent increases above the 

mechanical contractor cost. DOE 

applied these markups (or multipliers) 

to the mechanical contractor costs it 

developed from the engineering 

analysis. DOE then added sales taxes 

and installation costs to arrive at the 

final installed equipment prices for 

baseline and higher-efficiency 

equipment. See chapter 5 of the 

ASHRAE NOPR TSD for additional 

details on markups. DOE identified two 

separate distribution channels for CRAC 

equipment to describe how the 

equipment passes from the mechanical 

contractor to the customer (Table VI.7). 

TABLE VI.7—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS

FOR CRAC EQUIPMENT

Channel 1 

(replacements) 

Channel 2 

(New construction) 

Mechanical Contractor.Mechanical Contractor 

Customer ................... Customer 

DOE estimated a baseline markup and 

an incremental markup. DOE defined a 

‘‘baseline markup’’ as a multiplier that 

converts the mechanical contractor cost 

of equipment with baseline efficiency to 

the customer purchase price for the 

equipment at the same baseline 

efficiency level. An ‘‘incremental 

markup’’ is defined as the multiplier to 

convert the incremental increase in 

mechanical contractor cost of higherefficiency equipment to the customer 

purchase price for the same equipment. 

Both baseline and incremental markups 

are independent of the CRAC equipment 

efficiency levels. 

DOE developed the markups based on 

available financial data. DOE based the 

mechanical contractor markups on data 

from the 2007 U.S. Census Bureau 

financial data 33 for the plumbing, 

heating, and air conditioning industry. 

The overall markup is the product of 

all the markups (baseline or 

incremental) for the different steps 

within a distribution channel plus sales 

tax. DOE calculated sales taxes based on 

2010 State-by-State sales tax data 

reported by the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse.34 Because both 

contractor costs and sales tax vary by 

State, DOE developed distributions of 

markups within each distribution 

channel by State. No information was 

available to develop State-by-State 

distribution of CRAC equipment by 

building type or business type, so the 

percentage distribution of sales by 

business type are assumed to be the 

same in all States. The National 

distribution of the markups varies 

among business types. Chapter 5 of the 

ASHRAE NOPR TSD provides 

additional detail on markups. 

D. Energy Use Characterization 

DOE’s building energy use 

characterization assesses the annual 

energy use for each of the 15 classes of 

computer room air conditioners at the 

efficiency levels established in the 

engineering analysis. Because of the 

fixed 0.11 EER difference between 

upflow and downflow CRAC units 

established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 and presumed in the engineering 

analysis for all higher efficiency levels, 

DOE determined that the per-unit 

energy savings benefits for 

corresponding upflow computer room 

air conditioners at higher efficiency 

levels could be adequately represented 

using these 15 downflow equipment 

classes. The energy use characterization 

assessed the energy use of computer 

room air conditioners using a purposebuilt spreadsheet which estimates the 

annual energy consumption for each 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2390 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

35EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy 

Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact Statement 

Consultation Draft: Minimum Energy Performance 

Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close 

Control Air Conditioners, Report No 2008/11 (Sept. 

2008) (Available at: www.energyrating.gov.au). 

36EnergyPlus Engineering Reference included 

with EnergyPlus simulation software version 6.0 

(Available at: http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/energyplus). 

37S. Wilcox and W. Marion, Users Manual for 

TMY3 Data Sets, NREL/TP–581–43156 (May 2008). 

38 DOE’s Life-Cycle Cost spreadsheet model can 

be found on the DOE’s ASHRAE Products Web site 

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

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html. 

equipment class at each efficiency level. 

The spreadsheet uses a modified outside 

temperature bin analysis. For each aircooled equipment class, the spreadsheet 

calculates fan energy and condensing 

unit power consumption at each 5 °F 

outdoor air dry bulb temperature bin. 

For water-cooled and glycol-cooled 

equipment, the spreadsheet first 

estimates the condensing water supply 

temperature from either an evaporative 

cooling tower or a dry cooler for watercooled and for glycol-cooled CRAC 

equipment, respectively, based on 

binned weather data. Using these 

results, DOE then estimates the 

condensing unit power consumption 

and adds to this the estimated fan 

power. The sum of the CRAC 

condensing unit power and the CRAC 

fan power is the estimated average 

CRAC total power consumption for each 

temperature bin. Annual estimates of 

energy use are developed by 

multiplying the power consumption at 

each temperature bin by the number of 

hours in that bin for each climate 

analyzed. 

To implement DOE’s analysis 

methodology, DOE estimated the 

average heat load on each type and size 

of CRAC equipment based on an average 

thermal load set at 65 percent of the 

nominal sensible capacity based on an 

estimate provided in an Australian 

energy performance standards report.35

As CRAC equipment is used to cool 

internally-generated thermal loads and 

is generally not climate dependent, DOE 

believes that this figure would also 

apply to CRAC equipment in the U.S. 

DOE did not have manufacturer 

efficiency or performance data as a 

function of the outdoor temperature or 

the fraction of full load. Accordingly, 

DOE used an example of the variation 

in full-load performance as a function of 

ambient air temperature (for air-cooled 

equipment) or entering fluid 

temperature (for water-cooled and 

glycol-cooled equipment) provided in 

the ASHRAE 127–2007 test procedure 

and based on computer simulations to 

adjust full-load performance from the 

SCOP rating condition. A part-load 

performance degradation was also 

included, based on the methodology 

outlined for unitary direct-expansion air 

conditioning equipment presented in 

the DOE EnergyPlus simulation tool 

documentation.36 For water-cooled and 

glycol-cooled equipment with 

economizer coils, DOE reduced the 

thermal load on the condensing unit 

during hours when the economizer 

would be expected to meet some or all 

of the sensible cooling load. Because the 

primary heat load met for computer 

room air conditioners is a sensible load 

and because DOE did not have data to 

adequately estimate the relative sensible 

load versus latent load during the year 

for computer rooms, DOE did not 

separately examine the latent load on 

the equipment as a function of 

conditions, but determined that the total 

energy use could be based on the SCOP 

performance. 

DOE estimated the annual energy 

consumption for each equipment class 

at each efficiency level for 239 climate 

locations using typical meteorological 

year (TMY3) weather data.37 DOE relied 

on population-based climate location 

weights to map the results for 

individual TMY locations to State-level 

annual energy consumption estimates 

for each U.S. State. DOE used the 

resulting State-by-State annual energy 

consumption estimates for each 

efficiency level in the subsequent lifecycle cost analysis. 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analyses 

DOE conducted the life-cycle cost 

(LCC) and payback period (PBP) 

analyses to estimate the economic 

impacts of potential standards on 

individual customers of CRAC 

equipment. DOE first analyzed these 

impacts for CRAC equipment by 

calculating the change in customers’ 

LCCs likely to result from higher 

efficiency levels compared with the 

ASHRAE baseline efficiency levels for 

the 15 downflow CRAC classes 

discussed in the engineering analysis. 

DOE determined that the LCC benefits 

for higher efficiency levels for each 

downflow class of CRAC equipment 

would adequately represent LCC 

benefits for the corresponding upflow 

class. The LCC calculation considers 

total installed cost (contractor cost, sales 

taxes, distribution chain markups, and 

installation cost), operating expenses 

(energy, repair, and maintenance costs), 

equipment lifetime, and discount rate. 

DOE calculated the LCC for all 

customers as if each would purchase a 

new CRAC unit in the year the standard 

takes effect. Since DOE is considering 

both the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2007 and more-stringent 

efficiency levels, the compliance date 

for a new DOE energy conservation 

standard for any equipment class would 

depend upon the efficiency level 

adopted. This is because the statutory 

lead times for DOE adoption of the 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency 

levels and the adoption of morestringent efficiency levels are different. 

(See section V.H.1 below for additional 

explanation regarding compliance 

dates.) However, the LCC benefits to the 

customer of standards higher than those 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 can 

only begin to accrue after the 

compliance date for such higher 

standard once adopted by DOE. To 

account for this difference and to 

facilitate comparison, DOE presumes 

that the purchase year for all CRAC 

equipment for purposes of the LCC 

calculation is 2017, the earliest year in 

which DOE can establish an amended 

energy conservation level at an 

efficiency level more stringent than the 

ASHRAE efficiency level. To compute 

LCCs, DOE discounted future operating 

costs to the time of purchase and 

summed them over the lifetime of the 

equipment. 

Next, DOE analyzed the effect of 

changes in installed costs and operating 

expenses by calculating the PBP of 

potential standards relative to baseline 

efficiency levels. The PBP estimates the 

amount of time it would take the 

customer to recover the incremental 

increase in the purchase price of moreefficient equipment through lower 

operating costs. The PBP is the change 

in purchase price divided by the change 

in annual operating cost that results 

from the energy conservation standard. 

DOE expresses this period in years. 

Similar to the LCC, the PBP is based on 

the total installed cost and the operating 

expenses. However, unlike the LCC, 

DOE only considers the first year’s 

operating expenses in the PBP 

calculation. Because the PBP does not 

account for changes in operating 

expense over time or the time value of 

money, it is also referred to as a simple 

PBP. 

DOE conducted the LCC and PBP 

analyses using a commercially-available 

spreadsheet tool and a purpose-built 

spreadsheet model, available online.38

This spreadsheet model developed by 

DOE accounts for variability in energy 

use and prices, installation costs, repair 

and maintenance costs, and energy 

costs. It uses weighting factors to 

account for distributions of shipments 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2391 

39 Damodaran Online, Leonard N. Stern School of 

Business, New York University (Jan. 2011) 

(Available at: www.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ 

New_Home_Page/data.html). 

to different building types and States to 

generate national LCC savings by 

efficiency level. The results of DOE’s 

LCC and PBP analyses are summarized 

in section VI and described in detail in 

chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD. 

1. Approach 

Recognizing that each business that 

uses CRAC equipment is unique, DOE 

analyzed variability and uncertainty by 

performing the LCC and PBP 

calculations assuming a correspondence 

between business types and market 

segments (characterized as building 

types) for customers located in three 

types of commercial buildings (health 

care, education, and office). DOE 

developed financial data appropriate for 

the customers in each building type. 

Each type of building has typical 

customers who have different costs of 

financing because of the nature of the 

business. DOE derived the financing 

costs based on data from the Damodaran 

Online site.39

The LCC analysis used the estimated 

annual energy use for each CRAC 

equipment unit described in section 

V.D. Because energy use of CRAC 

equipment is sensitive to climate, 

energy use varies by State. Aside from 

energy use, other important factors 

influencing the LCC and PBP analyses 

are energy prices, installation costs, 

equipment distribution markups, and 

sales tax. All of these are assumed to 

vary by State. At the national level, the 

LCC spreadsheets explicitly modeled 

both the uncertainty and the variability 

in the model’s inputs, using probability 

distributions based on the shipment of 

CRAC equipment to different States. 

As mentioned above, DOE generated 

LCC and PBP results by building type 

and State and used developed weighting 

factors to generate national average LCC 

savings and PBP for each efficiency 

level. As there is a unique LCC and PBP 

for each calculated value at the building 

type and State level, the outcomes of the 

analysis can also be expressed as 

probability distributions with a range of 

LCC and PBP results. A distinct 

advantage of this type of approach is 

that DOE can identify the percentage of 

customers achieving LCC savings or 

attaining certain PBP values due to an 

increased efficiency level, in addition to 

the average LCC savings or average PBP 

for that efficiency level. 

2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs 

For each efficiency level DOE 

analyzed, the LCC analysis required 

input data for the total installed cost of 

the equipment, its operating cost, and 

the discount rate. Table VI.8 

summarizes the inputs and key 

assumptions DOE used to calculate the 

customer economic impacts of all 

energy efficiency levels analyzed in this 

rulemaking. A more detailed discussion 

of the inputs follows. 

TABLE VI.8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES

Inputs Description 

Affecting Installed Costs 

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

MSP (distributor’s price delivered to a mechanical contractor at the 

job site, calculated in the engineering analysis) by mechanical contractor markups, as needed, plus sales tax from the markups analysis. 

Installation Cost ........................................................................................ Installation cost includes installation labor, installer overhead, and any 

miscellaneous materials and parts, derived from RS Means 

CostWorks 2011.40

Affecting Operating Costs 

Annual Energy Use .................................................................................. Annual unit energy consumption for each class of equipment at each 

efficiency level estimated in a per-State basis using a spreadsheet 

model and a population-based mapping of climate locations to 

States. 

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

data for 2010.41

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

CostWorks 2011 for CRAC equipment. Annual maintenance cost did 

not vary as a function of efficiency. 

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

equipment based on cost data from RS Means CostWorks 2011 

(2010 data). DOE assumed that the materials components portion of 

the repair costs would vary in direct proportion with the MSP at higher efficiency levels because it generally costs more to replace components that are more efficient. 

Affecting Present Value of Annual Operating Cost Savings 

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

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

cited in available CRAC literature. 

Discount Rate ........................................................................................... Mean real discount rates for all buildings range from 2.7 percent for 

education buildings to 4.5 percent for office building owners. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2392 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

42RS Means CostWorks 2011, R.S. Means 

Company, Inc. 2011, Kingston, Massachusetts 

(Available at: http://www.meanscostworks.com/). 

43EIA’s Commercial Buildings Energy 

Consumption Survey, Energy Information Agency 

(Public use microdata available at: http:// 

www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cbecs/cbecs2003/ 

public_use_2003/cbecs_pudata2003.html). 

44EIA’s 2003 CBECS is the most recent version 

of the data set. 

TABLE VI.8—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND KEY ASSUMPTIONS USED IN THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSES—Continued 

Inputs Description 

Analysis Start Year ................................................................................... Start year for LCC is 2017, which is the earliest compliance date that 

DOE can set for new standards if it adopts any efficiency level for 

energy conservation standards higher than that shown in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. 

Analyzed Efficiency Levels 

Analyzed Efficiency Levels ....................................................................... DOE analyzed the baseline efficiency levels (ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010) and four higher efficiency levels for all 15 equipment classes. 

See the engineering analysis for additional details on selections of 

efficiency levels and cost. 

40 RS Means CostWorks 2011, R.S. Means Company, Inc. (2011) (Available at: http://www.meanscostworks.com/). 41Electric Sales, Revenue, and Average Price 2009 (Data accessed on May 10, 2011 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/electricity/esr/ 

esr_sum.html). Inflator—2009 to 2010 dollars from EIA AEO 2011 GDP Price Index (Accessed on 4/27/2011 at http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/aeo/

tablebrowser/#release=AEO2011&subject=0-AEO2011&table=18-AEO2011®ion=0-0&cases=ref2011-d020911a). 

a. Equipment Prices 

The price of CRAC equipment reflects 

the application of distribution channel 

markups (mechanical contractor 

markups) and sales tax to the 

manufacturer sales price (distributor’s 

price, delivered to the job site), which 

is the cost established in the engineering 

analysis. As described in section VI.B, 

DOE determined mechanical contractor 

costs and markup for air conditioning 

equipment. For each equipment class, 

the engineering analysis provided 

contractor costs for the baseline 

equipment and up to four higher 

equipment efficiencies. 

The markup is the percentage increase 

in price as the CRAC equipment passes 

through the distribution channel. As 

explained in section VI.C, all CRAC 

equipment is assumed to be delivered 

by the manufacturer through a 

distributor to the mechanical contractor 

at the job site for installation without 

the involvement of a general contractor. 

This is assumed to happen whether the 

equipment is being purchased for the 

new construction market or to replace 

existing equipment. 

To forecast a price trend for the 

NOPR, DOE derived an inflationadjusted index of the PPI for 

miscellaneous refrigeration and airconditioning equipment over 1990– 

2010. These data show a general price 

index decline from 1990 to 2004, 

followed by a sharp increase, primarily 

due to rising prices of copper and steel 

products that go into this equipment. 

Given the slowdown in global economic 

activity in 2011, DOE believes that the 

extent to which the trends of the past 

couple of years will continue is very 

uncertain and that the observed data 

provide a firm basis for projecting future 

costs trends for CRAC equipment. 

Therefore DOE used a constant price 

assumption as the default price factor 

index to project future computer room 

air conditioner prices in 2017. Thus, 

prices forecast for the LCC and PBP 

analysis are equal to the 2011 values for 

each efficiency level in each equipment 

class. Appendix 8–D of the NOPR TSD 

describes the historic data and the 

derivation of the price forecast. 

DOE requests comments on the most 

appropriate trend to use for real 

(inflation-adjusted) computer room air 

conditioner prices. 

b. Installation Costs 

DOE derived national average 

installation costs for CRAC equipment 

from data provided in RS Means 

CostWorks 2011 (RS Means) specifically 

for CRAC equipment.42 RS Means 

provides estimates for installation costs 

for CRAC units by equipment capacity, 

as well as cost indices that reflect the 

variation in installation costs for 295 

cities in the United States. The RS 

Means data identifies several cities in 

all 50 States and the District of 

Columbia. DOE incorporated locationbased cost indices into the analysis to 

capture variation in installation cost, 

depending on the location of the 

customer. 

For more-stringent efficiency levels, 

DOE recognized that installation costs 

could potentially be higher with larger 

units and higher-efficiency CRAC 

equipment due to larger sizes and more 

complex setup requirements. DOE 

utilized RS Means installation cost data 

from RS Means CostWorks 2011 to 

derive installation cost curves by size of 

unit for the base-efficiency unit. DOE 

did not have data to calibrate the extent 

to which installation cost might change 

as efficiency increased. For purposes of 

the NOPR LCC analysis, DOE assumed 

that installation cost would not increase 

as a function of increased efficiency. 

This is identified as Issue 13 under 

‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ 

in section X.E of today’s NOPR. 

c. Annual Energy Use 

DOE estimated the annual electricity 

consumed by each class of CRAC 

equipment, by efficiency level, based on 

the energy use characterization 

described in section V.D and in chapter 

4 of the NOPR TSD. 

d. Electricity Prices 

Electricity prices are used to convert 

the electric energy savings from higherefficiency equipment into energy cost 

savings. Because of the variation in 

annual electricity consumption savings 

and equipment costs across the country, 

it is important to consider regional 

differences in electricity prices. DOE 

used average effective commercial 

electricity prices at the State level from 

Energy Information Administration 

(EIA) data for 2010. This approach 

captured a wide range of commercial 

electricity prices across the United 

States. Furthermore, different kinds of 

businesses typically use electricity in 

different amounts at different times of 

the day, week, and year, and therefore, 

face different effective prices. To make 

this adjustment, DOE used EIA’s 2003 

CBECS 43 data set to identify the average 

prices the three building types paid and 

compared them with the average prices 

all commercial customers paid.44 DOE 

used the ratios of prices paid by the 

three types of businesses to the national 

average commercial prices seen in the 

2003 CBECS as multipliers to adjust the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2393 

45 Damodaran financial data used for determining 

cost of capital available at: http:// 

pages.stern.nyu.edu/∼adamodar/ for commercial 

businesses. Data for determining financing for 

public buildings available at: http:// 

finance.yahoo.com/bonds/composite_bond_rates. 

average commercial 2010 State price 

data. 

DOE weighted the prices each 

building type paid in each State by the 

estimated sales of CRAC equipment to 

each building type to obtain a weightedaverage national electricity price for 

2010. The State/building type weights 

reflect the probabilities that a given unit 

of CRAC equipment shipped will 

operate with a given fuel price. The 

original State-by-State average 

commercial prices (adjusted to 2011$) 

range from approximately $0.066 per 

kWh to approximately $0.216 per kWh. 

(See chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR 

TSD for further details.) 

The electricity price trends provide 

the relative change in electricity costs 

for future years. DOE applied the 

AEO2011 reference case as the default 

scenario and extrapolated the trend in 

values at the Census Division level from 

2025 to 2035 of the forecast to establish 

prices in 2030 to 2060. This method of 

extrapolation is in line with methods 

the EIA uses to forecast fuel prices for 

the Federal Energy Management 

Program. DOE provides a sensitivity 

analysis of the LCC savings and PBP 

results to different fuel price scenarios 

using both the AEO2011 high-price and 

low-price forecasts in the ASHRAE 

NOPR TSD. 

e. Maintenance Costs 

Maintenance costs are the costs to the 

customer of maintaining equipment 

operation. Maintenance costs include 

services such as cleaning heatexchanger coils and changing air filters. 

DOE estimated annual routine 

maintenance costs for CRAC equipment 

as $84 per year for capacities up to 288 

kBtu per hr and $102 per year for larger 

capacities, reported in the RS Means 

CostWorks 2011 database. Because data 

were not available to indicate how 

maintenance costs vary with equipment 

efficiency, DOE decided to use 

preventive maintenance costs that 

remain constant as equipment efficiency 

increases. 

f. Repair Costs 

The repair cost is the cost to the 

customer of replacing or repairing 

components that have failed in the 

CRAC equipment. DOE estimated the 

one-time repair cost in RS Means 

CostWorks 2011 as a percentage of MSP 

for capacities between 5 tons (T) (60,000 

Btu/hr) and 15 T (180,000 Btu/hr), with 

the curve flattening at the 15 T 

percentage thereafter. DOE applied the 

percentage to the MSP for more-efficient 

equipment at each capacity for the onetime repair, then annualized the 

resulting repair costs. DOE determined 

that annualized repair costs would 

increase in direct proportion with 

increases in equipment prices. Because 

the price of CRAC equipment increases 

with efficiency, the cost for component 

repair will also increase as the 

efficiency of equipment increases. See 

chapter 6 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD for 

details on the development of repair 

costs. 

g. Equipment Lifetime 

DOE defines ‘‘equipment lifetime’’ as 

the age when a unit of CRAC equipment 

is retired from service. DOE reviewed 

available literature to establish typical 

equipment lifetimes. The literature 

offered a wide range of typical 

equipment lifetimes ranging from 10 

years to 25 years. The data did not 

distinguish between classes of CRAC 

equipment. Consequently, DOE used a 

distribution of lifetimes between 10 and 

25 years, with an average of 15 years 

based on review of a range of CRAC 

lifetime estimates found in published 

studies and online documents and 

applied this distribution to all classes of 

CRAC equipment analyzed. Chapter 6 of 

the ASHRAE NOPR TSD contains a 

discussion of equipment lifetime. 

h. Discount Rate 

The discount rate is the rate at which 

future expenditures are discounted to 

establish their present value. DOE 

determined the discount rate by 

estimating the cost of capital for 

purchasers of CRAC equipment. Most 

purchasers use both debt and equity 

capital to fund investments. Therefore, 

for most purchasers, the discount rate is 

the weighted-average cost of debt and 

equity financing, or the weightedaverage cost of capital (WACC), less the 

expected inflation. 

To estimate the WACC of CRAC 

equipment purchasers, DOE used a 

sample of over 2000 companies grouped 

to be representative of operators of each 

of three commercial building types 

(health care, education, and office) 

drawn from a database of 7,369 U.S. 

companies presented on the Damodaran 

Online Web site.45 This database 

includes most of the publicly-traded 

companies in the United States. For 

most educational buildings and a 

portion of the office buildings occupied 

by public schools, universities, and 

State and local government agencies, 

DOE estimated the cost of capital based 

on composite tax exempt bond rates for 

AA-rated municipal bonds. Federal 

office space was assumed to use the 

Federal bond rate, derived as the 40- 

year geometric average of long term (> 

10 years) U.S. government securities. 

When one or more of the variables 

needed to estimate the discount rate in 

the Damodaran dataset were missing or 

could not be obtained, DOE discarded 

the firm from the analysis. DOE further 

reduced the sample to exclude firms 

that were unlikely to use the computer 

rooms served by CRAC equipment. The 

WACC approach for determining 

discount rates accounts for the current 

tax status of individual firms on an 

overall corporate basis. DOE did not 

evaluate the marginal effects of 

increased costs, and, thus, depreciation 

due to more expensive equipment, on 

the overall tax status. 

DOE used the final sample of 

companies to represent purchasers of 

CRAC equipment. For each company in 

the sample, DOE derived the cost of 

debt, percent debt financing, and 

systematic company risk from 

information on the Damodaran Online 

Web site. Damodaran estimated the cost 

of debt financing from the long-term 

Federal government bond rate (6.74 

percent) and the standard deviation of 

the stock price. DOE then determined 

the weighted average values for the cost 

of debt, range of values, and standard 

deviation of WACC for each category of 

the sample companies. Deducting 

expected inflation from the cost of 

capital provided estimates of real 

discount rate by ownership category. 

Based on this database, DOE calculated 

the weighted average after-tax discount 

rate for CRAC equipment purchases, 

adjusted for inflation, in each of the 

three building types used in the 

analysis. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE 

NOPR TSD contains the detailed 

calculations on the discount rate. 

3. Payback Period 

DOE also determined the economic 

impact of potential amended energy 

conservation standards on customers by 

calculating the PBP of more-stringent 

efficiency levels relative to a baseline 

efficiency level. The PBP measures the 

amount of time it takes the commercial 

customer to recover the assumed higher 

purchase expense of more-efficient 

equipment through lower operating 

costs. Similar to the LCC, the PBP is 

based on the total installed cost and the 

operating expenses for each building 

type and State, weighted on the 

probability of shipment to each market. 

Because the simple PBP does not take 

into account changes in operating 

expense over time or the time value of 

money, DOE considered only the first 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2394 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

46An overview of the NEMS model and 

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

oiaf/aeo/overview/index.html. 

year’s operating expenses to calculate 

the PBP, unlike the LCC which is 

calculated over the lifetime of the 

equipment. Chapter 6 of the ASHRAE 

NOPR TSD provides additional details 

about the PBP. 

F. National Impact Analysis—National 

Energy Savings and Net Present Value 

Analysis 

The national impact analysis (NIA) 

evaluates the effects of a proposed 

energy conservation standard from a 

national perspective rather than from 

the customer perspective represented by 

the LCC. This analysis assesses the net 

present value (NPV) (future amounts 

discounted to the present) and the 

National Energy Savings (NES) of total 

commercial customer costs and savings, 

which are expected to result from 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels. For each efficiency level 

analyzed, DOE calculated the NPV and 

NES for adopting more-stringent 

standards than the efficiency levels 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010. The NES refers to cumulative 

energy savings from 2012 through 2041 

or 2013 through 2042, depending on the 

product class. DOE calculated new 

energy savings in each year relative to 

a base case, defined as DOE adoption of 

the efficiency levels specified by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. DOE also 

calculated energy savings from adopting 

efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 compared to the 

current market base case. The NPV 

refers to cumulative monetary savings. 

DOE calculated net monetary savings in 

each year relative to the base case 

(ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010) as the 

difference between total operating cost 

savings and increases in total installed 

cost. Cumulative savings are the sum of 

the annual NPV over the specified 

period. DOE accounted for operating 

cost savings until 2055 or 2056, when 

the equipment installed in the 30th year 

after the compliance date of the 

amended standards should be retired. 

1. Approach 

The NES and NPV are a function of 

the total number of units in use and 

their efficiencies. Both the NES and 

NPV depend on annual shipments and 

equipment lifetime. Both calculations 

start by using the shipments estimate 

and the quantity of units in service 

derived from the shipments model. 

With regard to estimating the NES, 

because more-efficient computer room 

air conditioners are expected to 

gradually replace less-efficient ones, the 

energy per unit of capacity used by the 

computer room air conditioners in 

service gradually decreases in the 

standards case relative to the base case. 

DOE calculated the NES by subtracting 

energy use under a standards-case 

scenario from energy use in a base-case 

scenario. 

Unit energy savings for each 

equipment class are taken from the LCC 

spreadsheet for each efficiency level and 

weighted based on market efficiency 

distributions. To estimate the total 

energy savings for each efficiency level, 

DOE first calculated the national site 

energy consumption (i.e., the energy 

directly consumed by the units of 

equipment in operation) for each class 

of computer room air conditioners for 

each year of the analysis period. The 

NES and NPV analysis periods begin 

with the earliest expected compliance 

date of amended Federal energy 

conservation standards (i.e., 2012 or 

2013), assuming DOE adoption of the 

baseline ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

efficiency levels. For the analysis of 

DOE’s potential adoption of morestringent efficiency levels, the earliest 

compliance date would be 2017, four 

years after DOE would likely issue a 

final rule requiring such standards. 

Second, DOE determined the annual site 

energy savings, consisting of the 

difference in site energy consumption 

between the base case and the standards 

case for each class of computer room air 

conditioner. Third, DOE converted the 

annual site energy savings into the 

annual amount of energy saved at the 

source of electricity generation (the 

source energy), using a site-to-source 

conversion factor. Finally, DOE summed 

the annual source energy savings from 

2012 to 2041 or 2013 to 2042 to 

calculate the total NES for that period. 

DOE performed these calculations for 

each efficiency level considered for 

computer room air conditioners in this 

rulemaking. 

DOE considered whether a rebound 

effect is applicable in its NES analysis. 

A rebound effect occurs when an 

increase in equipment efficiency leads 

to an increased demand for its service. 

EIA in its National Energy Modeling 

System (NEMS) model assumes a 

certain elasticity factor to account for an 

increased demand for service due to the 

increase in cooling (or heating) 

efficiency.46 EIA refers to this as an 

efficiency rebound. For the computer 

room air conditioning equipment 

market, there are two ways that a 

rebound effect could occur: (1) 

increased use of the air conditioning 

equipment within the commercial 

buildings they are installed in; and (2) 

additional instances of air conditioning 

computer rooms where it was not being 

cooled before. 

The first instance does not occur often 

because computer rooms are generally 

cooled to the level required for safe 

operation of the servers and other 

equipment. As inanimate objects, 

computers have no desire for further 

cooling, and persons maintaining the 

equipment have no reason to deviate 

from the optimal range of environmental 

conditions. With regard to the second 

instance, computer room air 

conditioners are unlikely to be installed 

in previously uncooled computer 

rooms, because servers and other 

equipment that need to be cooled or 

otherwise space conditioned to the 

degree of precision that requires a 

computer room air conditioner already 

would be. Given the potential for 

computer equipment damage or 

diminished performance, running a 

computer room without the appropriate 

environmental controls from the outset 

is highly unlikely. Therefore, DOE did 

not assume a rebound effect in the 

present NOPR analysis. DOE seeks input 

from interested parties on whether there 

will be a rebound effect for 

improvements in the efficiency of 

computer room air conditioners. If 

interested parties believe a rebound 

effect would occur, DOE is interested in 

receiving data quantifying the effects, as 

well as input regarding how should 

DOE quantify this in its analysis. This 

is identified as Issue 14 under ‘‘Issues 

on Which DOE Seeks Comment’’ in 

section X.E of today’s NOPR. 

To estimate NPV, DOE calculated the 

net impact as the difference between 

total operating cost savings (including 

electricity cost savings) and increases in 

total installed costs (including customer 

prices). DOE calculated the NPV of each 

considered standard level over the life 

of the equipment using the following 

three steps. First, DOE determined the 

difference between the equipment costs 

under the standard-level case and the 

base case in order to obtain the net 

equipment cost increase resulting from 

the higher standard level. As noted in 

section VI.E.2.a, DOE used a constant 

price assumption as the default price 

forecast. Second, DOE determined the 

difference between the base-case 

operating costs and the standard-level 

operating costs in order to obtain the net 

operating cost savings from each higher 

efficiency level. Third, DOE determined 

the difference between the net operating 

cost savings and the net equipment cost 

increase in order to obtain the net 

savings (or expense) for each year. DOE 

then discounted the annual net savings 

(or expenses) to 2012 for computer room 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2395 

47EnergyConsult Pty Ltd., Equipment Energy 

Efficiency Committee Regulatory Impact Statement 

Consultation Draft: Minimum Energy Performance 

Standards and Alternative Strategies for Close 

Control Air Conditioners, Report No 2008/11 (Sept. 

2008) (Available at: www.energyrating.gov.au). 

air conditioners bought on or after 2012 

or 2013, depending on product class, 

and summed the discounted values to 

provide the NPV of an efficiency level. 

An NPV greater than zero shows net 

savings (i.e., the efficiency level would 

reduce customer expenditures relative 

to the base case in present value terms). 

An NPV that is less than zero indicates 

that the efficiency level would result in 

a net increase in customer expenditures 

in present value terms. 

To make the analysis more 

transparent to all interested parties, 

DOE used a commercially-available 

spreadsheet tool to calculate the energy 

savings and the national economic costs 

and savings from potential amended 

standards. Chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD 

explains the models and how to use 

them. Interested parties can review 

DOE’s analyses by changing various 

input quantities within the spreadsheet. 

Unlike the LCC analysis, the NES 

spreadsheet does not use distributions 

for inputs or outputs, but relies on 

national average first costs and energy 

costs developed from the LCC 

spreadsheet. DOE used the NES 

spreadsheet to perform calculations of 

energy savings and NPV using the 

annual energy consumption and total 

installed cost data from the LCC 

analysis. DOE forecasted the energy 

savings, energy cost savings, equipment 

costs, and NPV of benefits for 

equipment sold in each computer room 

air conditioner class from 2012 through 

2041 or 2013 through 2042, depending 

on the product class. The forecasts 

provided annual and cumulative values 

for all four output parameters described 

above. 

2. Shipments Analysis 

Equipment shipments are an 

important element in the estimate of the 

future impact of a potential standard. 

DOE developed shipment projections 

and, in turn, calculated equipment stock 

by assuming that in each year, each 

existing computer room air conditioner 

either ages by one year or breaks down 

after a 15-year equipment life. DOE used 

the shipments projection and the 

equipment stock to determine the NES. 

The shipments portion of the 

spreadsheet model forecasts computer 

room air conditioner shipments from 

2012 or 2013 to 2041 or 2042, 

depending on the product class. 

Data on computer room air 

conditioner shipments in the U.S. were 

not available. To estimate U.S. 

shipments, DOE obtained historical and 

projected (2000–2020) computer room 

air conditioner shipment data from an 

Australian energy performance 

standards report.47 DOE then used the 

ratio of business establishments in the 

United States compared to Australia to 

inflate Australia shipments to the U.S. 

market. The inflator used was 13.2. 

Table VI.9 exhibits the shipment data 

provided for a selection of years, while 

the full data set and the complete 

discussion of energy use indicators can 

be found in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD. 

DOE used these shipments data to 

extend a shipments trend into the 

future. 

TABLE VI.9—TOTAL SHIPMENTS OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS (UNITS) 

Year Units shipped 

(Australian data) 

Units shipped 

(U.S. estimate) 

2000 ............................................................................................................................................................. 850 11,228 

2005 ............................................................................................................................................................. 985 13,011 

2010 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1140 15,058 

2015 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1320 17,436 

2020 ............................................................................................................................................................. 1526 20,157 

DOE allocated overall shipments into 

product classes using a two-step 

process. First, DOE used Australian 

market share to allocate shipments to 

six broad product classes. DOE then 

used the relative fraction of models for 

each equipment class reflected in DOE’s 

market database to allocate shipments 

further into the 15 product classes 

analyzed. The complete discussion of 

shipment allocation can be found in 

chapter 7 of the ASHRAE NOPR TSD. 

Table VI.10 shows the forecasted 

shipments for the different equipment 

classes of computer room air 

conditioners for selected years from 

2012 to 2042 (with start and end years 

dependent on the product class), as well 

as the cumulative shipments. As 

equipment purchase price and repair 

costs increase with efficiency, DOE 

recognizes that higher first costs and 

repair costs can result in a drop in 

shipments. However, DOE had no basis 

for estimating the elasticity of 

shipments for computer room air 

conditioners as a function of first costs, 

repair costs, or operating costs. In 

addition, because computer room air 

conditioners are necessary for their 

application, DOE believes shipments 

would not change as a result of higher 

first costs and repair costs. Therefore, 

DOE presumed that the shipments 

projection does not change with higher 

standard levels. DOE seeks input on this 

assumption. This is identified as Issue 

15 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment’’ in section X.E of today’s 

NOPR. Chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD 

provides additional details on the 

shipments forecasts. 

TABLE VI.10—SHIPMENTS FORECAST FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Equipment 

Units shipped by year and equipment class 

2012/ 

2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2041/ 2042 

Cumulative 

shipments 

(2012/2013– 

2041/2042) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ......... 671 732 847 922 1,015 1,109 1,202 1,221 28,518 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 

Btu/h ................................................................. 7,499 7,951 9,192 10,009 11,023 12,038 13,052 13,457 315,793 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2396 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

48The NES spreadsheet can be found on the 

DOE’s ASHRAE Products Web site at: http:// 

www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ 

appliance_standards/commercial/ 

ashrae_products_docs_meeting.html. 

TABLE VI.10—SHIPMENTS FORECAST FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued 

Equipment 

Units shipped by year and equipment class 

2012/ 

2013 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2041/ 2042 

Cumulative 

shipments 

(2012/2013– 

2041/2042) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ........ 1,677 1,778 2,056 2,239 2,466 2,693 2,919 3,010 70,636 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ..... 74 81 94 102 112 122 133 135 3,152 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to 

<240,000 Btu/h ................................................. 1,233 1,308 1,512 1,646 1,813 1,980 2,147 2,213 51,940 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ... 470 498 576 627 690 754 817 843 19,780 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...................................... 46 50 58 63 70 76 82 84 1,954 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................. 1,036 1,098 1,270 1,383 1,523 1,663 1,803 1,859 43,628 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .................................... 180 190 220 240 264 288 313 322 7,563 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .... 69 75 87 95 104 114 124 126 2,935 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to 

<240,000 Btu/h ................................................. 1,233 1,308 1,512 1,646 1,813 1,980 2,147 2,213 51,940 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .. 387 410 474 516 569 621 673 694 16,288 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ...................................... 69 75 87 95 104 114 124 126 2,935 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................. 1,431 1,517 1,754 1,910 2,103 2,297 2,490 2,567 60,250 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .................................... 345 366 423 461 508 554 601 620 14,542 

Total .............................................................. 16,420 17,437 20,162 21,954 24,177 26,403 28,627 29,490 691,854 

Note: Total shipments shown in this table may not exactly match those in Table VI.9 as a result of rounding during allocation to product 

classes. 

3. Base-Case and Standards-Case 

Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies 

DOE reviewed the distribution of 

efficiency levels for commerciallyavailable models within each equipment 

class in order to develop base-case 

efficiency distributions. DOE bundled 

the efficiency levels into ‘‘efficiency 

ranges’’ and determined the percentage 

of models within each range. DOE 

applied the percentages of models 

within each efficiency range to the total 

unit shipments for a given equipment 

class to estimate the distribution of 

shipments within the base case. Then, 

from those market shares and 

projections of shipments by equipment 

class, DOE extrapolated future 

equipment efficiency trends both for a 

base-case scenario and for standardscase scenarios. The difference in 

equipment efficiency between the base 

case and standards cases was the basis 

for determining the reduction in perunit annual energy consumption that 

could result from amended standards. 

For the base case, DOE had no basis 

to estimate potential change in 

efficiency market shares. Therefore, 

DOE assumed that, absent amended 

standards, forecasted market shares 

would remain frozen until the end of 

the forecast period (30 years after the 

compliance date). This prediction could 

cause DOE to overestimate the savings 

associated with the higher efficiency 

levels discussed in this notice because 

computer room air conditioner 

efficiencies or relative efficiency class 

preferences may change voluntarily over 

time. 

For each efficiency level analyzed, 

DOE used a ‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to 

establish the market shares by efficiency 

level for the year that compliance would 

be required with amended standards 

(i.e., 2017 if DOE adopts more-stringent 

efficiency levels than those in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010). DOE collected 

information that suggests the 

efficiencies of equipment in the base 

case that did not meet the standard level 

under consideration would roll up to 

meet the standard level. This 

information also suggests that 

equipment efficiencies in the base case 

that were above the standard level 

under consideration would not be 

affected. 

The base-case efficiency distributions 

for each equipment class are presented 

in chapter 7 of the TSD. DOE seeks 

input on its basis for the NES-forecasted 

base-case distribution of efficiencies and 

its prediction of how amended energy 

conservation standards would affect the 

distribution of efficiencies in the 

standards case. This is identified as 

Issue 16 under ‘‘Issues on Which DOE 

Seeks Comment’’ in section X.E of 

today’s NOPR. 

4. National Energy Savings and Net 

Present Value 

The computer room air conditioner 

equipment stock is the total number of 

computer room air conditioners in each 

equipment class purchased or shipped 

from previous years that have survived 

until the point at which stock is taken. 

The NES spreadsheet,48 through use of 

the shipments model, keeps track of the 

total number of computer room air 

conditioners shipped each year. For 

purposes of the NES and NPV analyses, 

DOE assumes that shipments of CRAC 

units survive for 15 years, at the end of 

which time they are removed from 

stock. 

The national annual energy 

consumption is the product of the 

annual unit energy consumption and 

the number of computer room air 

conditioner units of each vintage in the 

stock, summed over all vintages. This 

approach accounts for differences in 

unit energy consumption from year to 

year. In determining national annual 

energy consumption, DOE calculated 

the annual energy consumption at the 

site (i.e., million kWh consumed by 

computer room air conditioners) and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2397 

49The analysis only shows five product classes 

for this equipment size because DOE was able to 

analyze downflow and upflow units in 

combination. These units are nearly identical, but 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 identifies a 0.11 

SCOP reduction in efficiency levels for upflow 

units as compared to downflow units (likely as a 

result of the additional static pressure that the 

blower fan must overcome in the upflow 

orientation). By adjusting the upflow units by 0.11 

SCOP, DOE could analyze upflow and downflow 

units in combination. 

50The analysis only shows ten product classes for 

this equipment size for the same reasons mentioned 

for equipment <65,000 Btu/h. 

51Since ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 on October 29, 2010, EPCA requires that 

DOE publish a final rule adopting more-stringent 

standards than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010, if warranted, within 30 months of ASHRAE 

action (i.e., by April 2013). Thus, four years from 

April 2013 would be April 2017, which would be 

the anticipated complaince date for DOE adoption 

of more-stringent standards. 

multiplied that by a conversion factor to 

account for generation and distribution 

losses, resulting in annual energy 

consumption at the source (or primary 

energy). DOE then summed the source 

or primary energy savings over a 30-year 

period to arrive at NES. 

Table VI.11 summarizes the inputs to 

the NES spreadsheet model along with 

a brief description of the data sources. 

The results of DOE’s NES and NPV 

analysis are summarized in section 

VIII.B.3.b below and described in detail 

in chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE VI.11—SUMMARY OF NES AND NPV MODEL INPUTS

Inputs Description 

Shipments ....................................... Annual shipments based on Australian data adjusted to the U.S. (see chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD). 

Compliance Date of Standard ........ 2017 for adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level than those specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010. 

2012 or 2013 for adoption of the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. 

Base-Case Efficiencies ................... Distribution of base-case shipments by efficiency level. 

Standards-Case Efficiencies ........... Distribution of shipments by efficiency level for each standards case. Standards-case annual shipmentweighted market shares remain the same as in the base case and each standard level for all efficiencies 

above the efficiency level being analyzed. All other shipments are at the efficiency level. 

Annual Energy Use per Unit ........... Annual national weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (See chapter 4 of the NOPR 

TSD.) 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ........... Annual weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) 

Annualized Maintenance and Repair Costs per Unit.Annual weighted-average values are a function of efficiency level. (See chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD.) 

Escalation of Fuel Prices ................ AEO2011 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for beyond 2035. (See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.) 

Site-Source Conversion .................. AEO2011 forecasts (to 2035) and extrapolation for beyond 2035. (See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.) 

Discount Rate ................................. 3 percent and 7 percent real. 

Present Year ................................... Future costs are discounted to 2012. 

G. Other Issues 

1. Compliance Date of the Proposed 

Amended Energy Conservation 

Standards 

Generally, covered equipment to 

which a new or amended energy 

conservation standard applies must 

comply with the standard if such 

equipment is manufactured or imported 

on or after a specified date. In today’s 

NOPR, DOE is evaluating whether morestringent efficiency levels than those in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 would be 

technologically feasible, economically 

justified, and result in a significant 

amount of energy savings. If DOE were 

to propose a rule prescribing energy 

conservation standards at the efficiency 

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, EPCA states that compliance 

with any such standards shall be 

required on or after a date which is two 

or three years (depending on equipment 

size) after the compliance date of the 

applicable minimum energy efficiency 

requirement in the amended ASHRAE/ 

IES standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) 

DOE has applied this two-year or threeyear implementation period to 

determine the compliance date of any 

energy conservation standard equal to 

the efficiency levels specified by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 proposed 

by this rulemaking. Thus, if DOE 

decides to adopt the efficiency levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, the 

compliance date of the rulemaking 

would be dependent upon the date 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 or its publication date, if none is 

specified. 

The rule would apply to equipment 

<65,000 Btu/h (10 product classes 49) 

manufactured on or after October 29, 

2012, which is two years after the 

publication date of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, and to equipment ≥65,000 

Btu/h (20 product classes 50) 

manufactured on or after October 29, 

2013, which is three years after the 

publication date of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010. Typically, equipment equal 

to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h and less 

than 135,000 Btu/h would have a 

compliance date two years after the 

publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

However, because ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 established a product class 

for computer room air conditioners that 

combines traditional small and large 

categories, DOE has decided to assign 

the later compliance date of three years 

after the publication of ASHRAE 90.1– 

2010 to all computer room air 

conditioner product classes that cover 

products between 65,000 Btu/h and 

240,000 Btu/h. 

If DOE were to propose a rule 

prescribing energy conservation 

standards higher than the efficiency 

levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, EPCA states that compliance 

with any such standards is required for 

products manufactured on or after a 

date which is four years after the date 

the rule is published in the Federal 

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

has applied this 4-year implementation 

period to determine the compliance date 

for any energy conservation standard 

higher than the efficiency levels 

specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 that might be prescribed in a 

future rulemaking. Thus, for products 

for which DOE might adopt a level more 

stringent than the ASHRAE efficiency 

levels, the rule would apply to products 

manufactured on or after a date four 

years from the date of publication of the 

final rule, which the statute requires to 

be completed by April 29, 2013 (thereby 

resulting in a compliance date no later 

than April 29, 2017).51

Table VI.12 presents the anticipated 

compliance dates of an amended energy 

conservation standard for each 

equipment class for which DOE 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2398 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

52EIA approves the use of the name ‘‘NEMS’’ to 

describe only an AEO version of the model without 

any modification to code or data. Because the 

present analysis entails some minor code 

modifications and runs the model under various 

policy scenarios that deviate from AEO 

assumptions, the name ‘‘NEMS–BT’’ refers to the 

model as used here. (BT stands for DOE’s Building 

Technologies Program.) 

53 DOE notes that future iterations of the NEMS– 

BT model will incorporate any changes necessitated 

by issuance of the Transport Rule. 

developed a potential energy savings 

analysis. 

TABLE VI.12—COMPLIANCE DATES OF AN AMENDED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD FOR EACH EQUIPMENT CLASS

OF COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Equipment class 

Compliance date for 

adopting the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE 

standard 90.1–2010 

Compliance date for 

adopting more-stringent efficiency levels 

than those in 

ASHRAE standard 

90.1–2010 (no later 

than) 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VII. Methodology for Emissions 

Analysis and Monetizing Carbon 

Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts 

A. Emissions Analysis 

In the emissions analysis, DOE 

estimated the reduction in power sector 

emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and mercury 

(Hg) from amended energy conservation 

standards for ASHRAE equipment. DOE 

used the NEMS–BT computer model,52

which is run similarly to the AEO 

NEMS, except that equipment energy 

use is reduced by the amount of energy 

saved (by fuel type) at each efficiency 

level. The inputs of national energy 

savings come from the NIA spreadsheet 

model, while the output is the 

forecasted physical emissions. The net 

benefit of each efficiency level in 

today’s proposed rule is the difference 

between the forecasted emissions 

estimated by NEMS–BT at each 

efficiency level and the AEO 2011 

Reference case, which incorporates 

projected effects of all emissions 

regulations promulgated as of January 

31, 2011. NEMS–BT tracks CO2

emissions using a detailed module that 

provides results with broad coverage of 

all sectors and inclusion of interactive 

effects. For today’s NOPR, DOE used the 

version of NEMS–BT based on AEO 

2011. For the final rule, DOE intends to 

revise the emissions analysis using the 

most current version of NEMS–BT, 

which may be based on AEO 2012. 

SO2 emissions from affected electric 

generating units (EGUs) are subject to 

nationwide and regional emissions capand-trade programs, and DOE has 

preliminarily determined that these 

programs create uncertainty about the 

impact of energy conservation standards 

on SO2 emissions. Title IV of the Clean 

Air Act sets an annual emissions cap on 

SO2 for affected EGUs in the 48 

contiguous States and the District of 

Columbia (DC). SO2 emissions from 28 

eastern States and DC are also limited 

under the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR, 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005)), 

which created an allowance-based 

trading program. Although CAIR was 

remanded to the Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) by the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the District of 

Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) (see North 

Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 

2008)), it remained in effect temporarily, 

consistent with the D.C. Circuit’s earlier 

opinion in North Carolina v. EPA, 531 

F.3d 896 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On July 6, 

2010, EPA issued the Transport Rule 

proposal, a replacement for CAIR (75 FR 

45210 (Aug. 2, 2010)), and on July 6, 

2011, EPA issued the final Transport 

Rule, titled the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule. 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011) (See 

http://www.epa.gov/crossstaterule/). 

Because the AEO 2011 NEMS used for 

today’s NOPR assumes the 

implementation of CAIR, DOE has not 

been able to take into account the effects 

of the Transport Rule for this 

rulemaking.53

The attainment of emissions caps 

typically is flexible among EGUs and is 

enforced through the use of emissions 

allowances and tradable permits. Under 

existing EPA regulations, any excess 

SO2 emissions allowances resulting 

from the lower electricity demand 

caused by the imposition of an energy 

conservation standard could be used to 

permit offsetting increases in SO2

emissions by any regulated EGU. 

However, if the new and amended 

standards resulted in a permanent 

increase in the quantity of unused 

emissions allowances, there would be 

an overall reduction in SO2 emissions 

from the standards. While there remains 

some uncertainty about the ultimate 

effects of energy conservation standards 

on SO2 emissions covered by the 

existing cap-and-trade system, the 

NEMS–BT modeling system that DOE 

uses to forecast emissions reductions 

currently indicates that no physical 

reductions in power sector emissions 

would occur for SO2. 

As discussed above, the AEO 2011 

NEMS used for today’s NOPR assumes 

the implementation of CAIR, which 

established a cap on NOX emissions in 

28 eastern States and the District of 

Columbia. With CAIR in effect, the 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2399 

54National Research Council, ‘‘Hidden Costs of 

Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy 

Production and Use,’’ National Academies Press: 

Washington, DC (2009). 

energy conservation standards that are 

the subject of today’s NOPR are 

expected to have little or no physical 

effect on NOX emissions in those States 

covered by CAIR, for the same reasons 

that they may have little effect on SO2

emissions. However, the proposed 

standards would be expected to reduce 

NOX emissions in the 22 States not 

affected by CAIR. For these 22 States, 

DOE is using the NEMS–BT to estimate 

NOX emissions reductions from the 

standards considered in today’s NOPR. 

In the absence of caps, a DOE energy 

conservation standard could reduce Hg 

emissions, and DOE used NEMS–BT to 

estimate these reductions. Although at 

present there are no national, Federally 

binding regulations for mercury from 

EGUs, on March 16, 2011, EPA 

proposed national emissions standards 

for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAPs) 

for mercury and certain other pollutants 

emitted from coal and oil-fired EGUs. 76 

FR 24976. The NESHAPs do not include 

a trading program and, as such, DOE’s 

energy conservation standards would 

likely reduce Hg emissions. However, 

for the emissions analysis for this 

rulemaking, DOE estimated mercury 

emissions reductions using NEMS–BT 

based on AEO2011, which does not 

incorporate the NESHAPs. DOE expects 

that future versions of the NEMS–BT 

model will reflect the implementation of 

the NESHAPs. 

B. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and 

Other Emissions Impacts 

As part of the development of this 

proposed rule, DOE considered the 

estimated monetary benefits likely to 

result from the reduced emissions of 

CO2 and NOX that are expected to result 

from each of the considered efficiency 

levels. In order to make this calculation 

similar to the calculation of the NPV of 

customer benefit, DOE considered the 

reduced emissions expected to result 

over the lifetime of products shipped in 

the forecast period for each efficiency 

level. This section summarizes the basis 

for the monetary values used for each of 

these emissions and presents the values 

considered in this rulemaking. 

For today’s NOPR, DOE is relying on 

a set of values for the social cost of 

carbon (SCC) that was developed by an 

interagency process. A summary of the 

basis for those values is provided below, 

and a more detailed description of the 

methodologies used is provided as an 

appendix to chapter 10 of the NOPR 

TSD. 

1. Social Cost of Carbon 

Under section 1(b)(6) of Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

agencies must, to the extent permitted 

by law, assess both the costs and the 

benefits of the intended regulation and, 

recognizing that some costs and benefits 

are difficult to quantify, propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that the benefits of the 

intended regulation justify its costs. The 

purpose of the SCC estimates presented 

here is to allow agencies to incorporate 

the monetized social benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions into costbenefit analyses of regulatory actions 

that have small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ impacts 

on cumulative global emissions. The 

estimates are presented with an 

acknowledgement of the many 

uncertainties involved and with a clear 

understanding that they should be 

updated over time to reflect increasing 

knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts. 

As part of the interagency process that 

developed the SCC estimates, technical 

experts from numerous agencies met on 

a regular basis to consider public 

comments, explore the technical 

literature in relevant fields, and discuss 

key model inputs and assumptions. The 

main objective of this process was to 

develop a range of SCC values using a 

defensible set of input assumptions 

grounded in the existing scientific and 

economic literatures. In this way, key 

uncertainties and model differences 

transparently and consistently inform 

the range of SCC estimates used in the 

rulemaking process. 

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions 

The SCC is an estimate of the 

monetized damages associated with an 

incremental increase in carbon 

emissions in a given year. It is intended 

to include (but is not limited to) changes 

in net agricultural productivity, human 

health, property damages from 

increased flood risk, and the value of 

ecosystem services. Estimates of the 

SCC are provided in dollars per metric 

ton of carbon dioxide. 

When attempting to assess the 

incremental economic impacts of carbon 

dioxide emissions, the analyst faces a 

number of serious challenges. A recent 

report from the National Research 

Council 54 points out that any 

assessment will suffer from uncertainty, 

speculation, and lack of information 

about: (1) Future emissions of 

greenhouse gases; (2) the effects of past 

and future emissions on the climate 

system; (3) the impact of changes in 

climate on the physical and biological 

environment; and (4) the translation of 

these environmental impacts into 

economic damages. As a result, any 

effort to quantify and monetize the 

harms associated with climate change 

will raise serious questions of science, 

economics, and ethics and should be 

viewed as provisional. 

Despite the serious limits of both 

quantification and monetization, SCC 

estimates can be useful in estimating the 

social benefits of reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions. Consistent with the 

directive in Executive Order 12866 

discussed above, the purpose of the SCC 

estimates presented here is to make it 

possible for agencies to incorporate the 

social benefits from reducing carbon 

dioxide emissions into cost-benefit 

analyses of regulatory actions that have 

small, or ‘‘marginal,’’ impacts on 

cumulative global emissions. Most 

Federal regulatory actions can be 

expected to have marginal impacts on 

global emissions. 

For such policies, the agency can 

estimate the benefits from reduced (or 

costs from increased) emissions in any 

future year by multiplying the change in 

emissions in that year by the SCC value 

appropriate for that year. The net 

present value of the benefits can then be 

calculated by multiplying each of these 

future benefits by an appropriate 

discount factor and summing across all 

affected years. This approach assumes 

that the marginal damages from 

increased emissions are constant for 

small departures from the baseline 

emissions path, an approximation that 

is reasonable for policies that have 

effects on emissions that are small 

relative to cumulative global carbon 

dioxide emissions. For policies that 

have a large (non-marginal) impact on 

global cumulative emissions, there is a 

separate question of whether the SCC is 

an appropriate tool for calculating the 

benefits of reduced emissions. This 

concern is not applicable to this notice, 

and DOE does not attempt to answer 

that question here. 

At the time of the preparation of this 

notice, the most recent interagency 

estimates of the potential global benefits 

resulting from reduced CO2 emissions in 

2010, expressed in 2010$, were $4.9, 

$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided. For emissions reductions that 

occur in later years, these values grow 

in real terms over time. Additionally, 

the interagency group determined that a 

range of values from 7 percent to 23 

percent should be used to adjust the 

global SCC to calculate domestic 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2400 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

55 It is recognized that this calculation for 

domestic values is approximate, provisional, and 

highly speculative. There is no a priori reason why 

domestic benefits should be a constant fraction of 

net global damages over time. 

56The models are described in appendix 15–A of 

the NOPR TSD. 

effects,55 although preference is given to 

consideration of the global benefits of 

reducing CO2 emissions. 

It is important to emphasize that the 

interagency process is committed to 

updating these estimates as the science 

and economic understanding of climate 

change and its impacts on society 

improves over time. Specifically, the 

interagency group has set a preliminary 

goal of revisiting the SCC values within 

2 years or at such time as substantially 

updated models become available, and 

to continue to support research in this 

area. In the meantime, the interagency 

group will continue to explore the 

issues raised by this analysis and 

consider public comments as part of the 

ongoing interagency process. 

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in 

Past Regulatory Analyses 

To date, economic analyses for 

Federal regulations have used a wide 

range of values to estimate the benefits 

associated with reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. In the model year 2011 CAFE 

final rule, the Department of 

Transportation (DOT) used both a 

‘‘domestic’’ SCC value of $2 per ton of 

CO2 and a ‘‘global’’ SCC value of $33 per 

ton of CO2 for 2007 emission reductions 

(in 2007$), increasing both values at 2.4 

percent per year. It also included a 

sensitivity analysis at $80 per ton of 

CO2. See Average Fuel Economy 

Standards Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks Model Year 2011, 74 FR 14196 

(March 30, 2009) (Final Rule); Final 

Environmental Impact Statement 

Corporate Average Fuel Economy 

Standards, Passenger Cars and Light 

Trucks, Model Years 2011–2015 at 3–90 

(Oct. 2008) (Available at: http:// 

www.nhtsa.gov/fuel-economy). A 

domestic SCC value is meant to reflect 

the value of damages in the United 

States resulting from a unit change in 

carbon dioxide emissions, while a 

global SCC value is meant to reflect the 

value of damages worldwide. 

A 2008 regulation proposed by DOT 

assumed a domestic SCC value of $7 per 

ton of CO2 (in 2006$) for 2011 emission 

reductions (with a range of $0 to $14 for 

sensitivity analysis), also increasing at 

2.4 percent per year. See Average Fuel 

Economy Standards, Passenger Cars 

and Light Trucks, Model Years 2011– 

2015, 73 FR 24352 (May 2, 2008) 

(Proposed Rule); Draft Environmental 

Impact Statement Corporate Average 

Fuel Economy Standards, Passenger 

Cars and Light Trucks, Model Years 

2011–2015 at 3–58 (June 2008) 

(Available at: http://www.nhtsa.gov/ 

fuel-economy). A regulation for 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

packaged terminal heat pumps finalized 

by DOE in October of 2008 used a 

domestic SCC range of $0 to $20 per ton 

CO2 for 2007 emission reductions (in 

2007$). 73 FR 58772, 58814 (Oct. 7, 

2008). In addition, EPA’s 2008 Advance 

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on 

Regulating Greenhouse Gas Emissions 

Under the Clean Air Act identified what 

it described as ‘‘very preliminary’’ SCC 

estimates subject to revision. 73 FR 

44354 (July 30, 2008). EPA’s global 

mean values were $68 and $40 per ton 

CO2 for discount rates of approximately 

2 percent and 3 percent, respectively (in 

2006$ for 2007 emissions). 

In 2009, an interagency process was 

initiated to offer a preliminary 

assessment of how best to quantify the 

benefits from reducing carbon dioxide 

emissions. To ensure consistency in 

how benefits are evaluated across 

agencies, the Administration sought to 

develop a transparent and defensible 

method, specifically designed for the 

rulemaking process, to quantify avoided 

climate change damages from reduced 

CO2 emissions. The interagency group 

did not undertake any original analysis. 

Instead, it combined SCC estimates from 

the existing literature to use as interim 

values until a more comprehensive 

analysis could be conducted. The 

outcome of the preliminary assessment 

by the interagency group was a set of 

five interim values: global SCC 

estimates for 2007 (in 2006$) of $55, 

$33, $19, $10, and $5 per ton of CO2. 

These interim values represent the first 

sustained interagency effort within the 

U.S. government to develop an SCC for 

use in regulatory analysis. The results of 

this preliminary effort were presented in 

several proposed and final rules and 

were offered for public comment in 

connection with proposed rules, 

including the joint EPA–DOT fuel 

economy and CO2 tailpipe emission 

proposed rules. 

c. Current Approach and Key 

Assumptions 

Since the release of the interim 

values, the interagency group 

reconvened on a regular basis to 

generate improved SCC estimates, 

which were considered for this 

proposed rule. Specifically, the group 

considered public comments and 

further explored the technical literature 

in relevant fields. The interagency group 

relied on three integrated assessment 

models (IAMs) commonly used to 

estimate the SCC: the FUND, DICE, and 

PAGE models.56 These models are 

frequently cited in the peer-reviewed 

literature and were used in the last 

assessment of the Intergovernmental 

Panel on Climate Change. Each model 

was given equal weight in the SCC 

values that were developed. 

Each model takes a slightly different 

approach to model how changes in 

emissions result in changes in economic 

damages. A key objective of the 

interagency process was to enable a 

consistent exploration of the three 

models while respecting the different 

approaches to quantifying damages 

taken by the key modelers in the field. 

An extensive review of the literature 

was conducted to select three sets of 

input parameters for these models: 

climate sensitivity, socio-economic and 

emissions trajectories, and discount 

rates. A probability distribution for 

climate sensitivity was specified as an 

input into all three models. In addition, 

the interagency group used a range of 

scenarios for the socio-economic 

parameters and a range of values for the 

discount rate. All other model features 

were left unchanged, relying on the 

model developers’ best estimates and 

judgments. 

The interagency group selected four 

SCC values for use in regulatory 

analyses. Three values are based on the 

average SCC from three integrated 

assessment models, at discount rates of 

2.5 percent, 3 percent, and 5 percent. 

The fourth value, which represents the 

95th-percentile SCC estimate across all 

three models at a 3-percent discount 

rate, is included to represent higherthan-expected impacts from temperature 

change further out in the tails of the 

SCC distribution. For emissions (or 

emission reductions) that occur in later 

years, these values grow in real terms 

over time, as depicted in Table VII.1. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2401 

57Table A1 presents SCC values through 2050. 

For DOE’s calculation, it derived values after 2050 

using the 3-percent per year escalation rate used by 

the interagency group. 

58For additional information, refer to U.S. Office 

of Management and Budget, Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, 2006 Report to Congress on 

the Costs and Benefits of Federal Regulations and 

Unfunded Mandates on State, Local, and Tribal 

Entities, Washington, DC. 

59OMB, Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis (Sept. 

17, 2003). 

TABLE VII.1—SOCIAL COST OF CO2, 2010–2050 

[In 2007 dollars per metric ton] 

Year 

Discount rate (%) 

5 3 2.5 3 

Average Average Average 95th percentile 

2010 ......................................................................................... 4.7 21.4 35.1 64.9 

2015 ......................................................................................... 5.7 23.8 38.4 72.8 

2020 ......................................................................................... 6.8 26.3 41.7 80.7 

2025 ......................................................................................... 8.2 29.6 45.9 90.4 

2030 ......................................................................................... 9.7 32.8 50.0 100.0 

2035 ......................................................................................... 11.2 36.0 54.2 109.7 

2040 ......................................................................................... 12.7 39.2 58.4 119.3 

2045 ......................................................................................... 14.2 42.1 61.7 127.8 

2050 ......................................................................................... 15.7 44.9 65.0 136.2 

It is important to recognize that a 

number of key uncertainties remain, and 

that current SCC estimates should be 

treated as provisional and revisable 

since they will evolve with improved 

scientific and economic understanding. 

The interagency group also recognizes 

that the existing models are imperfect 

and incomplete. The National Research 

Council report mentioned above points 

out that there is tension between the 

goal of producing quantified estimates 

of the economic damages from an 

incremental ton of carbon and the limits 

of existing efforts to model these effects. 

There are a number of concerns and 

problems that should be addressed by 

the research community, including 

research programs housed in many of 

the Federal agencies participating in the 

interagency process to estimate the SCC. 

DOE recognizes the uncertainties 

embedded in the estimates of the SCC 

used for cost-benefit analyses. As such, 

DOE and others in the U.S. Government 

intend to periodically review and 

reconsider those estimates to reflect 

increasing knowledge of the science and 

economics of climate impacts, as well as 

improvements in modeling. In this 

context, statements recognizing the 

limitations of the analysis and calling 

for further research take on exceptional 

significance. 

In summary, in considering the 

potential global benefits resulting from 

reduced CO2 emissions, DOE used the 

most recent values identified by the 

interagency process, adjusted to 2010$ 

using the GDP price deflator. For each 

of the four cases specified, the values 

used for emissions in 2010 were $4.9, 

$22.3, $36.5, and $67.6 per metric ton 

avoided (values expressed in 2010$).57

To monetize the CO2 emissions 

reductions expected to result from new 

or amended standards for the product 

classes in today’s NOPR, DOE used the 

values identified in Table A1 of the 

‘‘Social Cost of Carbon for Regulatory 

Impact Analysis Under Executive Order 

12866,’’ which is reprinted in appendix 

16–A of the NOPR TSD, appropriately 

escalated to 2010$. To calculate a 

present value of the stream of monetary 

values, DOE discounted the values in 

each of the four cases using the specific 

discount rate that had been used to 

obtain the SCC values in each case. 

2. Valuation of Other Emissions 

Reductions 

DOE investigated the potential 

monetary benefit of reduced NOX

emissions from the efficiency levels it 

considered. As noted above, DOE has 

taken into account how new or 

amended energy conservation standards 

would reduce NOX emissions in those 

22 States not affected by the CAIR. DOE 

estimated the monetized value of NOX

emissions reductions resulting from 

each of the efficiency levels considered 

for today’s NOPR based on 

environmental damage estimates found 

in the relevant scientific literature. 

Available estimates suggest a very wide 

range of monetary values, ranging from 

$370 per ton to $3,800 per ton of NOX

from stationary sources, measured in 

2001$ (equivalent to a range of $450 to 

$4,623 per ton in 2010$).58 In 

accordance with OMB guidance, DOE 

conducted two calculations of the 

monetary benefits derived using each of 

the economic values used for NOX, one 

using a real discount rate of 3 percent 

and the other using a real discount rate 

of 7 percent.59

DOE is aware of multiple agency 

efforts to determine the appropriate 

range of values used in evaluating the 

potential economic benefits of reduced 

Hg emissions. DOE has decided to await 

further guidance regarding consistent 

valuation and reporting of Hg emissions 

before it once again monetizes Hg in its 

rulemakings. 

VIII. Analytical Results 

A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed 

1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Products 

The methodology for water-cooled 

and evaporatively-cooled products was 

presented in the May 2011 NODA. 76 

FR 25622, 25637–40 (May 5, 2011). 

Table VIII.1 presents the baseline 

efficiency level and the higher 

efficiency levels analyzed for each 

equipment class of water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled products subject to 

today’s proposed rule. The baseline 

efficiency levels correspond to the 

lowest efficiency levels currently 

available on the market. The efficiency 

levels above the baseline represent 

efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 and higher 

efficiency levels where equipment is 

currently available on the market. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2402 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.1—EFFICIENCY LEVELS ANALYZED FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED PRODUCTS

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

(tons) 

Efficiency 

levels 

analyzed 

(EER) 

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

ASHRAE—12.1 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.4 

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

ASHRAE—11.9 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16. 4 

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

ASHRAE—12.5 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.1 

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

ASHRAE—12.3 

13.0 

14.0 

15.0 

Max-Tech—16.1 

Very Large Water-Cooled Air Conditioners, Electric or No Heat, ≥240,000–<760,000 Btu/h .................... 35 Baseline—11.0 

ASHRAE—12.4 

13.0 

14.0 

Max-Tech—14.8 

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

ASHRAE—12.2 

13.0 

14.0 

Max-Tech—14.8 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioner, Electric or No Heat, ≥240,000–<760,000 Btu/h .......... 40 Baseline—11.0 

ASHRAE—11.9 

12.5 

Max-Tech—13.1 

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

ASHRAE—11.7 

12.5 

Max-Tech—13.1 

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

Table VIII.2 presents the baseline 

efficiency level and the higher 

efficiency levels analyzed for each 

equipment class of VRF water-source 

heat pumps subject to today’s proposed 

rule and with equipment on the market. 

The baseline efficiency levels 

correspond to the lowest efficiency 

levels currently available on the market. 

The efficiency levels above the baseline 

represent efficiency levels specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 and 

higher efficiency levels where 

equipment is currently available on the 

market. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2403 

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

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency 

levels 

analyzed 

(EER) 

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

ASHRAE—10 

11 

12 

13 

Max-Tech—14.5 

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

ASHRAE—9.8 

11 

12 

13 

Max-Tech—14.5 

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners 

Table VIII.3 presents the market 

baseline efficiency level and the higher 

efficiency levels analyzed for each 

equipment class of computer room air 

conditioners subject to today’s proposed 

rule. The market baseline efficiency 

levels correspond to the lowest 

efficiency levels currently available on 

the market. The efficiency levels above 

the baseline represent efficiency levels 

specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 and efficiency levels above those 

specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 where equipment is currently 

available on the market. Note that for 

the economic analysis, efficiency levels 

above those specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 are compared to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 as the 

baseline rather than the market baseline. 

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

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency 

levels 

analyzed 

(SCOP–127) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h .................................................................................................. 40 Market Baseline— 

2.00 

ASHRAE—2.20 

2.40 

2.60 

Max-Tech—2.80 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................................. 100 Market Baseline— 

2.10 

ASHRAE—2.10 

2.35 

2.60 

2.85 

Max-Tech—3.10 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ................................................................................................ 280 Market Baseline— 

1.90 

ASHRAE—1.90 

2.15 

2.40 

2.65 

Max-Tech—2.90 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................. 30 Market Baseline— 

2.40 

ASHRAE—2.60 

2.80 

3.00 

3.10 

Max-Tech—3.30 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2404 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

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

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency 

levels 

analyzed 

(SCOP–127) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ........................................................................ 106 Market Baseline— 

2.30 

ASHRAE—2.50 

2.70 

2.90 

3.10 

Max-Tech—3.30 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ........................................................................................... 260 Market Baseline— 

2.20 

ASHRAE—2.40 

2.60 

2.80 

3.00 

Max-Tech—3.20 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................ 30 Market Baseline— 

2.35 

ASHRAE—2.55 

2.75 

2.95 

3.15 

Max-Tech—3.35 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ................................... 118 Market Baseline— 

2.25 

ASHRAE—2.45 

2.65 

2.85 

3.05 

Max-Tech—3.25 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...................................................... 280 Market Baseline— 

2.15 

ASHRAE—2.35 

2.55 

2.75 

2.95 

Max-Tech—3.15 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................ 32 Market Baseline— 

2.30 

ASHRAE—2.50 

2.70 

2.90 

3.10 

Max-Tech—3.30 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ........................................................................ 100 Market Baseline— 

1.95 

ASHRAE—2.15 

2.35 

2.55 

2.75 

Max-Tech—2.95 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ........................................................................................... 260 Market Baseline— 

1.90 

ASHRAE—2.10 

2.30 

2.50 

2.70 

Max-Tech—2.90 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2405 

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

Equipment class 

Representative 

capacity 

kBtu/h 

Efficiency 

levels 

analyzed 

(SCOP–127) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ....................................................... 20 Market Baseline— 

2.25 

ASHRAE—2.45 

2.65 

2.85 

3.05 

Max-Tech—3.25 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ................................... 118 Market Baseline— 

1.90 

ASHRAE—2.10 

2.30 

2.50 

2.70 

Max-Tech—2.90 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...................................................... 280 Market Baseline— 

1.85 

ASHRAE—2.05 

2.25 

2.45 

2.65 

Max-Tech—2.85 

B. Energy Savings and Economic 

Justification 

1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Equipment 

DOE estimated the potential primary 

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

for each efficiency level considered 

within each equipment class analyzed. 

Table VIII.4 to Table VIII.11 show the 

potential energy savings resulting from 

the analyses conducted as part of the 

May 2011 NODA. 76 FR 25622, 25637 

(May 5, 2011). As mentioned in section 

IV.B.1 and IV.B.2, DOE did not conduct 

an economic analysis for this equipment 

category, because of the minimal energy 

savings. 

TABLE VIII.4—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR SMALL WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO

HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2406 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.6—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH ELECTRIC

RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

TABLE VIII.7—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR LARGE WATER-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH OTHER HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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

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

HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2407 

TABLE VIII.10—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH

ELECTRIC RESISTANCE OR NO HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

TABLE VIII.11—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS ESTIMATES FOR VERY LARGE EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED EQUIPMENT WITH

OTHER HEAT

Efficiency level 

Primary energy savings 

estimate * (quads) 

Historical 

shipment trend 

Shipments 

fixed to 2009 

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

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

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

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

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

DOE estimated the potential primary 

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

for each efficiency level considered 

within the two equipment classes of 

VRF water-source heat pumps at or 

greater than 135,000 Btu/h. Table 

VIII.12 and Table VIII.13 show the 

potential energy savings resulting from 

the analyses conducted as part of 

today’s NOPR (see section V). Because 

there appear to be no models on the 

market below ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010 levels, there are no energy savings 

from adopting ASHRAE. However, there 

are also extremely minimal energy 

savings from adopting a higher 

standard. As mentioned in section 

IV.B.3, DOE did not conduct an 

economic analysis for this equipment 

category. 

TABLE VIII.12—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS >135,000 BTU/H WITHOUT HEAT

RECOVERY

Efficiency level 

Primary 

energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

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

Level 2—11 EER ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0009 

Level 3—12 EER ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0174 

Level 4—13 EER ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0416 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.5 EER ................................................................................................................................................... 0.0761 

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

TABLE VIII.13—POTENTIAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR VRF WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS >135,000 BTU/H WITH HEAT

RECOVERY

Efficiency level 

Primary 

energy savings 

estimate * 

(quads) 

Level 1—ASHRAE—9.8 EER .......................................................................................................................................................... ............................

Level 2—11 EER ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0008 

Level 3—12 EER ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0083 

Level 4—13 EER ............................................................................................................................................................................. 0.0195 

Level 5—‘‘Max-Tech’’—14.5 EER ................................................................................................................................................... 0.0358 

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2408 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

60An LCC cost is shown as a negative savings in 

the results presented. 

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners 

a. Economic Impacts on Commercial 

Customers 

i. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

To evaluate the economic impact of 

the efficiency levels on commercial 

customers, DOE conducted an LCC 

analysis for each efficiency level. Moreefficient computer room air conditioners 

would affect these customers in two 

ways: (1) Annual operating expense 

would decrease; and (2) purchase price 

would increase. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC include total 

installed costs (i.e., equipment price 

plus installation costs), operating 

expenses (i.e., annual energy savings, 

energy prices, energy price trends, 

repair costs, and maintenance costs), 

equipment lifetime, and discount rates. 

The output of the LCC model is a 

mean LCC savings (or cost 60) for each 

equipment class, relative to the baseline 

computer room air conditioner 

efficiency level. The LCC analysis also 

provides information on the percentage 

of customers that are negatively affected 

by an increase in the minimum 

efficiency standard. 

DOE also performed a PBP analysis as 

part of the LCC analysis. The PBP is the 

number of years it would take for the 

customer to recover the increased costs 

of higher-efficiency equipment as a 

result of energy savings based on the 

operating cost savings. The PBP is an 

economic benefit-cost measure that uses 

benefits and costs without discounting. 

Chapter 5 of the NOPR TSD provides 

detailed information on the LCC and 

PBP analyses. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analyses 

provided five key outputs for each 

efficiency level above the baseline (i.e., 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010), 

as reported in Table VIII.14 through 

Table VIII.23 below. These outputs 

include the proportion of computer 

room air conditioner purchases in 

which the purchase of a computer room 

air conditioner that is compliant with 

the amended energy conservation 

standard creates a net LCC increase, no 

impact, or a net LCC savings for the 

customer. Another output is the average 

net LCC savings from standardcompliant equipment, as well as the 

average PBP for the customer 

investment in standard-compliant 

equipment. 

TABLE VIII.14—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AIR-COOLED, <65,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 11,982 32,039 44,021 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ..................................... 13,471 29,822 43,294 809 3 89 8 8.5 

2 ..................................... 15,222 28,140 43,362 212 17 68 14 10.2 

3 ..................................... 17,281 26,756 44,037 (587 ) 65 23 12 12.1 

4 ..................................... 19,700 25,623 45,323 (1,761 ) 90 5 6 14.5 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 

TABLE VIII.15—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AIR-COOLED, ≥65,000 TO

<240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ........................... 39,412 121,532 160,945 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 41,651 110,885 152,536 9,334 0 98 2 2.6 

2 ....................................... 44,063 102,936 146,999 6,406 0 78 22 3.0 

3 ....................................... 46,664 96,523 143,187 5,895 0 33 67 3.5 

4 ....................................... 49,467 91,289 140,756 6,437 1 2 97 4.0 

TABLE VIII.16—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AIR-COOLED, ≥240,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ........................... 56,879 286,458 343,337 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 60,102 258,403 318,505 27,198 0 98 2 1.4 

2 ....................................... 63,577 237,739 301,316 19,713 0 78 22 1.7 

3 ....................................... 67,322 221,326 288,648 19,071 0 33 67 1.9 

4 ....................................... 71,358 208,099 279,458 22,152 0 2 98 2.2 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2409 

TABLE VIII.17—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED, <65,000 

BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ........................... 23,748 29,266 53,014 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 20,311 27,237 47,548 5,455 0 72 28 (21.5) 

2 ....................................... 17,527 25,621 43,148 7,389 0 49 51 (20.9) 

3 ....................................... 15,273 24,215 39,488 8,003 0 13 87 (20.3) 

4 ....................................... 13,447 22,984 36,430 10,213 0 3 97 (19.7) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels. 

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

TO <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ........................... 22,983 109,615 132,598 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 28,614 104,631 133,245 (672) 20 72 8 15.4 

2 ....................................... 36,183 101,867 138,049 (5,118) 54 42 4 22.4 

3 ....................................... 46,355 100,831 147,186 (12,844) 79 20 1 35.9 

4 ....................................... 60,027 101,734 161,761 (25,278) 96 4 0 64.6 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 

TABLE VIII.19—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED, 

≥240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 42,217 239,903 282,120 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ..................................... 52,902 227,027 279,929 2,133 13 72 15 11.1 

2 ..................................... 67,262 219,010 286,272 (5,292 ) 49 42 9 15.4 

3 ..................................... 86,562 214,580 301,142 (18,696 ) 77 20 3 22.4 

4 ..................................... 112,498 214,030 326,528 (40,964 ) 96 4 0 36.0 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 

TABLE VIII.20—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED WITH FLUID ECONOMIZERS, 

<65,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 25,059 19,565 44,624 .................... .................... .................... .................... ......................

1 ..................................... 21,422 18,442 39,864 4,759 0 72 28 (40.3 ) 

2 ..................................... 18,476 17,541 36,017 6,459 0 49 51 (39.3 ) 

3 ..................................... 16,090 16,763 32,853 6,960 0 13 87 (38.3 ) 

4 ..................................... 14,158 16,086 30,244 8,832 0 3 97 (37.3 ) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2410 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.21—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, WATER-COOLED WITH

FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥65,000 TO <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 24,169 73,475 97,645 .................... .................... .................... .................... ......................

1 ..................................... 30,129 71,967 102,095 (4,439) 25 72 3 41.5 

2 ..................................... 38,138 71,937 110,075 (10,105) 58 42 0 34.1 

3 ..................................... 48,903 73,290 122,193 (19,437) 80 20 0 (66.1 ) 

4 ..................................... 63,372 76,298 139,669 (33,672) 96 4 0 (75.0 ) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs. 

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

FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 44,469 157,416 201,886 .................... .................... .................... .................... ......................

1 ..................................... 55,777 152,704 208,481 (6,568) 25 72 3 30.5 

2 ..................................... 70,973 151,095 222,068 (16,717) 57 42 1 40.7 

3 ..................................... 91,397 152,234 243,631 (33,664) 80 20 0 43.1 

4 ..................................... 118,844 156,568 275,412 (59,831) 96 4 0 (57.8 ) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate either negative LCC savings or show a negative payback due to increased annual operating costs. 

TABLE VIII.23—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED, 

<65,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 24,353 29,757 54,110 .................... .................... .................... .................... ......................

1 ..................................... 20,916 27,643 48,559 5,540 0 72 28 (20.2 ) 

2 ..................................... 18,132 25,962 44,094 7,501 0 49 51 (19.7 ) 

3 ..................................... 15,878 24,509 40,387 8,117 0 13 87 (19.2 ) 

4 ..................................... 14,052 23,241 37,293 10,350 0 3 97 (18.6 ) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels. 

TABLE VIII.24—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED, 

≥65,000 TO <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 24,377 123,088 147,465 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ..................................... 30,001 116,846 146,847 594 15 72 13 11.9 

2 ..................................... 37,559 113,489 151,048 (3,901 ) 52 42 6 17.8 

3 ..................................... 47,717 112,428 160,145 (11,921 ) 78 20 2 29.1 

4 ..................................... 61,368 113,891 175,258 (25,047 ) 96 4 0 50.4 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2411 

TABLE VIII.25—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED, 

≥240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 42,217 266,128 308,345 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ..................................... 52,902 250,960 303,862 4,429 10 72 18 9.2 

2 ..................................... 67,262 242,073 309,336 (3,308 ) 44 42 14 13.2 

3 ..................................... 86,562 238,019 324,581 (17,633 ) 76 20 4 20.2 

4 ..................................... 112,498 239,151 351,650 (41,761 ) 95 4 1 35.1 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 

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

ECONOMIZERS, <65,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 25,664 24,815 50,479 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ..................................... 22,027 23,156 45,183 5,295 0 72 28 (28.2) 

2 ..................................... 19,081 21,851 40,932 7,159 0 49 51 (27.6) 

3 ..................................... 16,695 20,727 37,422 7,717 0 13 87 (26.9) 

4 ..................................... 14,763 19,751 34,514 9,808 0 3 97 (26.3) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative payback period due to a declining installed cost at higher efficiency levels. 

TABLE VIII.27—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED WITH

FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥65,000 TO <240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ......................... 25,563 102,580 128,143 ...................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ..................................... 31,514 98,451 129,965 (1,802 ) 23 72 5 21.0 

2 ..................................... 39,512 96,813 136,325 (7,200 ) 55 42 3 33.4 

3 ..................................... 50,261 97,235 147,496 (16,388 ) 79 20 1 40.8 

4 ..................................... 64,708 99,990 164,697 (30,857 ) 96 4 0 22.4 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 

TABLE VIII.28—SUMMARY LCC AND PBP RESULTS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, GLYCOL-COOLED WITH

FLUID ECONOMIZERS, ≥240,000 BTU/H

Efficiency level 

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

period 

(years) Installed 

cost 

Discounted 

operating 

cost 

LCC Average 

savings 

% of consumers that experience 

Net cost No impact Net benefit Median 

Baseline ........................... 44,469 220,328 264,797 .................... .................... .................... .................... ....................

1 ....................................... 55,777 209,958 265,735 (891) 21 72 7 15.4 

2 ....................................... 70,973 204,967 275,941 (10,569) 53 42 5 23.3 

3 ....................................... 91,397 204,265 295,662 (27,375) 77 20 3 32.3 

4 ....................................... 118,844 208,311 327,156 (54,306) 95 4 1 34.8 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative LCC savings. 

b. National Impact Analysis 

i. Amount and Significance of Energy 

Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

through 2041 or 2042 due to amended 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

compared the energy consumption of 

computer room air conditioners under 

the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

efficiency levels to energy consumption 

of computer room air conditioners 

under higher efficiency standards. DOE 

also compared the energy consumption 

of computer room air conditioners 

under the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

efficiency levels to energy consumption 

of computer room air conditioners 

under the current market base case. DOE 

examined up to four efficiency levels 

higher than those of ASHRAE Standard 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2412 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

90.1–2010. Table VIII.29 shows the 

forecasted national energy savings at 

each of the considered standard levels. 

(See chapter 8 of the NOPR TSD.) As 

mentioned in section VI.B, DOE 

adjusted the efficiency rating (SCOP) 

upward for all upflow units in order to 

analyze the energy savings from only 15 

classes of computer room air 

conditioners, with upflow and 

downflow units combined. 

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

[Energy savings for units sold from 2012 to 2041 or 2013 to 2042] 

Equipment class 

National energy savings (quads) * 

ASHRAE 

level 

Efficiency 

level 1 

Efficiency 

level 2 

Efficiency 

level 3 

Efficiency 

level 4 

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

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

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ........................................... ¥** 0.004 0.034 0.112 0.206 

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................... 0.0009 0.0088 0.0246 0.0435 0.0634 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ....................................... 0.0008 0.0079 0.0220 0.0388 0.0565 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ... 0.00001 0.00004 0.00011 0.00021 0.00031 

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

<240,000 Btu/h ..................................................................................... 0.0004 0.0038 0.0106 0.0187 0.0273 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .. 0.0002 0.0016 0.0043 0.0076 0.0111 

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................... 0.001 0.011 0.031 0.054 0.078 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...................................... 0.0008 0.0080 0.0220 0.0384 0.0554 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ... 0.00002 0.0001 0.0002 0.0005 0.0007 

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

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h 0.0005 0.0054 0.0147 0.0257 0.0369 

* All energy savings from efficiency levels above ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 are calculated with those ASHRAE levels as a baseline. 

** For these equipment classes, no models were identified below the efficiency levels shown in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, so there are no 

energy savings for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 efficiency levels. 

ii. Net Present Value 

The NPV analysis is a measure of the 

cumulative benefit or cost of standards 

to the Nation. In accordance with 

OMB’s guidelines on regulatory analysis 

(OMB Circular A–4, section E (Sept. 17, 

2003)), DOE calculated NPV using both 

a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. The 7-percent rate is an 

estimate of the average before-tax rate of 

return on private capital in the U.S. 

economy, and reflects the returns to real 

estate and small business capital, as 

well as corporate capital. DOE used this 

discount rate to approximate the 

opportunity cost of capital in the private 

sector, because recent OMB analysis has 

found the average rate of return on 

capital to be near this rate. DOE also 

used the 3-percent rate to capture the 

potential effects of standards on private 

customers’ consumption (e.g., reduced 

purchasing of equipment due to higher 

prices for equipment and purchase of 

reduced amounts of energy). This rate 

represents the rate at which society 

discounts future consumption flows to 

their present value. This rate can be 

approximated by the real rate of return 

on long-term government debt (e.g., 

yield on Treasury notes minus annual 

rate of change in the Consumer Price 

Index), which has averaged about 3 

percent on a pre-tax basis for the last 30 

years. Table VIII.30 and Table VIII.31 

provide an overview of the NPV results. 

(See chapter 7 of the NOPR TSD for 

further detail.) 

TABLE VIII.30—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

[Discounted at seven percent] 

Equipment class 

Net present value (billion 2011$) 

Efficiency 

level 1 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 2 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 3 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 4 

($) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................. 0.0003 (0.0005 ) (0.0060 ) (0.0174 ) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ......................................... 0.01 0.10 0.29 0.44 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ........................................................... 0.01 0.07 0.22 0.37 

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................................... (0.008 ) (0.053 ) (0.166 ) (0.377 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ....................................................... (0.001 ) (0.026 ) (0.097 ) (0.239 ) 

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h (0.02 ) (0.08 ) (0.20 ) (0.41 ) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .................. (0.005 ) (0.023 ) (0.061 ) (0.127 ) 

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h .................................... (0.003 ) (0.044 ) (0.157 ) (0.375 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ...................................................... 0.002 (0.017 ) (0.077 ) (0.200 ) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, <65,000 Btu/h ................... 0.001 0.003 0.005 0.008 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h (0.01 ) (0.08 ) (0.24 ) (0.53 ) 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2413 

TABLE VIII.30—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued 

[Discounted at seven percent] 

Equipment class 

Net present value (billion 2011$) 

Efficiency 

level 1 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 2 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 3 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 4 

($) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ................. (0.004 ) (0.031 ) (0.10 ) (0.23 ) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV. 

TABLE VIII.31—SUMMARY OF CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

(Discounted at three percent) 

Equipment class 

Net present value (Billion 2011$) 

Efficiency 

level 1 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 2 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 3 

($) 

Efficiency 

level 4 

($) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ..................................................................... 0.001 0.002 (0.004) (0.021) 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ................................................. 0.03 0.26 0.76 1.25 

Air conditioners, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h ................................................................... 0.02 0.18 0.54 0.93 

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................ (0.006) (0.079) (0.280) (0.671) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .............................................................. 0.006 (0.028) (0.150) (0.407) 

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ....... (0.03) (0.14) (0.37) (0.77) 

Air conditioners, water-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h .......................... (0.008) (0.039) (0.110) (0.235) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, <65,000 Btu/h ................................................................ 0.002 0.006 0.011 0.016 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ............................................ 0.004 (0.058) (0.258) (0.665) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h .............................................................. 0.01 (0.01) (0.12) (0.34) 

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥65,000 to <240,000 Btu/h ....... (0.02) (0.14) (0.43) (0.97) 

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with fluid economizers, ≥240,000 Btu/h ......................... (0.003) (0.047) (0.17) (0.41) 

* Numbers in parentheses indicate negative NPV. 

C. Need of the Nation to Conserve 

Energy 

Enhanced energy efficiency, where 

economically justified, improves the 

Nation’s energy security, strengthens the 

economy, and reduces the 

environmental impacts or costs of 

energy production. Reduced electricity 

demand from energy conservation 

standards is also likely to reduce the 

cost of maintaining the reliability of the 

electricity system, particularly during 

peak-load periods. As a measure of this 

reduced demand, Table VIII.32 presents 

the estimated reduction in generating 

capacity in 2042 attributable to the 

efficiency levels that DOE considered in 

this rulemaking. 

TABLE VIII.32—REDUCTION IN NATIONAL ELECTRIC GENERATING CAPACITY IN 2042 UNDER EVALUATED EFFICIENCY

LEVELS

Efficiency level 

ASHRAE 

(baseline) 1 2 3 4 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products ................................. 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.02 

VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps ............................................................. 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.12 0.23 

Computer Room Air Conditioners ............................................................ 0.01 0.12 0.47 1.09 1.81 

Energy savings from standards for the 

product classes covered in today’s 

NOPR could also produce 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases associated with 

electricity production. Table VIII.33 

provides DOE’s estimate of cumulative 

CO2, NOX, and Hg emissions reductions 

projected to result from the efficiency 

levels considered in this rulemaking. 

DOE reports annual CO2, NOX, and Hg 

emissions reductions for each efficiency 

level in chapter 9 of the NOPR TSD. 

As discussed in section VII.A, DOE 

did not report SO2 emissions reductions 

from power plants because there is 

uncertainty about the effect of energy 

conservation standards on the overall 

level of SO2 emissions in the United 

States due to SO2 emissions caps. DOE 

also did not include NOX emissions 

reduction from power plants in States 

subject to CAIR, because an energy 

conservation standard would not affect 

the overall level of NOX emissions in 

those States due to the emissions caps 

mandated by CAIR. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2414 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE VIII.33—SUMMARY OF EMISSIONS REDUCTION ESTIMATED FOR PRODUCT EFFICIENCY LEVELS

[Cumulative in 2012 or 2013 through 2042 or 2043] 

Efficiency level 

ASHRAE 

(baseline) 1 2 3 4 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................. 0.10 0.10 0.25 0.36 0.37 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................ 0.08 0.08 0.21 0.30 0.31 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................... 0.001 0.001 0.003 0.004 0.004 

VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps: 

CO2 (million metric tons) .................................................................. 0.00 0.05 0.82 1.96 3.58 

NOX (thousand tons) ........................................................................ 0.00 0.04 0.68 1.60 2.93 

Hg (tons) ........................................................................................... 0.000 0.001 0.009 0.022 0.040 

Computer Room Air Conditioners:.

CO2 (million metric tons) .......................................................................... 0.18 2.14 8.06 18.7 31.1 

NOX (thousand tons) ............................................................................... 0.14 1.76 6.62 15.4 25.6 

Hg (tons) .................................................................................................. 0.001 0.023 0.087 0.203 0.337

As part of the analysis for this 

proposed rule, DOE estimated monetary 

benefits likely to result from the 

reduced emissions of CO2 and NOX that 

DOE estimated for each of the efficiency 

levels considered. As discussed in 

section VII.B, DOE used values for the 

SCC developed by an interagency 

process. The four values for CO2

emissions reductions resulting from that 

process (expressed in 2010$) are $4.9/ 

ton (the average value from a 

distribution that uses a 5-percent 

discount rate), $22.3/ton (the average 

value from a distribution that uses a 3- 

percent discount rate), $36.5/ton (the 

average value from a distribution that 

uses a 2.5-percent discount rate), and 

$67.6/ton (the 95th-percentile value 

from a distribution that uses a 3-percent 

discount rate). These values correspond 

to the value of emission reductions in 

2010; the values for later years are 

higher due to increasing damages as the 

magnitude of climate change increases. 

Table VIII.34 presents the global value 

of CO2 emissions reductions at each 

efficiency level. For each of the four 

cases, DOE calculated a present value of 

the stream of annual values using the 

same discount rate as was used in the 

studies upon which the dollar-per-ton 

values are based. DOE calculated 

domestic values as a range from 7 

percent to 23 percent of the global 

values, and these results are presented 

in chapter 10 of the NOPR TSD. 

TABLE VIII.34—ESTIMATES OF GLOBAL PRESENT VALUE OF CO2 EMISSIONS REDUCTION UNDER PRODUCT EFFICIENCY

LEVELS

Eff level 5% Discount rate, 

average 

3% Discount rate, 

average 

2.5% Discount 

rate, average 

3% Discount rate, 

95th percentile 

Million 2011$ 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products: 

ASHRAE (baseline) .......................................................... 0.5 2.4 4.1 7.4 

1 ........................................................................................ 0.5 2.5 4.3 7.7 

2 ........................................................................................ 1.2 6.3 10.6 19.1 

3 ........................................................................................ 1.8 9.0 15.2 27.4 

4 ........................................................................................ 1.8 9.2 15.6 28.1 

VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps: 

ASHRAE (baseline) .......................................................... 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 

1 ........................................................................................ 0.3 1.4 2.3 4.2 

2 ........................................................................................ 4.3 22.5 38.1 68.4 

3 ........................................................................................ 10.3 53.7 91.1 163.4 

4 ........................................................................................ 18.9 98.1 166.5 298.5 

Computer Room Air Conditioners: 

ASHRAE (baseline) .......................................................... 0.9 4.7 7.9 14.4 

1 ........................................................................................ 11.2 57.5 97.4 175.2 

2 ........................................................................................ 48.2 246.7 417.5 751.4 

3 ........................................................................................ 119.9 613.9 1038.7 1869.3 

4 ........................................................................................ 214.6 1099.0 1859.6 3346.6 

DOE is well aware that scientific and 

economic knowledge about the 

contribution of CO2 and other GHG 

emissions to changes in the future 

global climate and the potential 

resulting damages to the world economy 

continues to evolve rapidly. Thus, any 

value placed in this rulemaking on 

reducing CO2 emissions is subject to 

change. DOE, together with other 

Federal agencies, will continue to 

review various methodologies for 

estimating the monetary value of 

reductions in CO2 and other GHG 

emissions. This ongoing review will 

consider the comments on this subject 

that are part of the public record for this 

and other rulemakings, as well as other 

methodological assumptions and issues. 

However, consistent with DOE’s legal 

obligations, and taking into account the 

uncertainty involved with this 

particular issue, DOE has included in 

this NOPR the most recent values and 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2415 

analyses resulting from the ongoing 

interagency review process. 

DOE also estimated a range for the 

cumulative monetary value of the 

economic benefits associated with NOX

emissions reductions anticipated to 

result from amended standards for the 

equipment that is the subject of today’s 

NOPR. The low and high dollar-per-ton 

values that DOE used are discussed in 

section VII.B.2. Table VIII.35 presents 

the cumulative present values of NOX

emissions reductions for each efficiency 

level calculated using seven-percent and 

three-percent discount rates. 

TABLE VIII.35—ESTIMATES OF PRESENT VALUE OF NOX EMISSIONS REDUCTION IN 2012–2042 UNDER PRODUCT

EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Efficiency level 3% Discount 

rate 

7% Discount 

rate 

Million 2011$ 

Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Products: 

ASHRAE (baseline) .................................................................................................................................... 0.02 to 0.25 ...... 0.01 to 0.12. 

1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.02 to 0.24 ...... 0.01 to 0.10. 

2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.06 to 0.64 ...... 0.03 to 0.28. 

3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.09 to 0.92 ...... 0.04 to 0.40. 

4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.09 to 0.95 ...... 0.04 to 0.42. 

VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps: 

ASHRAE (baseline) .................................................................................................................................... 0.0 to 0.0 .......... 0.0 to 0.0. 

1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.01 to 0.13 ...... 0.01 to 0.05. 

2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.2 to 2.2 .......... 0.1 to 0.9. 

3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.5 to 5.2 .......... 0.2 to 2.2. 

4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.9 to 9.5 .......... 0.4 to 4.0. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners: 

ASHRAE (baseline) .................................................................................................................................... 0.04 to 0.46 ...... 0.02 to 0.22. 

1 .................................................................................................................................................................. 0.6 to 6.1 .......... 0.3 to 2.7. 

2 .................................................................................................................................................................. 2.4 to 24.6 ........ 1.0 to 10.7. 

3 .................................................................................................................................................................. 6.0 to 61.4 ........ 2.6 to 26.6. 

4 .................................................................................................................................................................. 10.7 to 109.8 .... 4.6 to 47.6. 

D. Proposed Standards 

1. Water-Cooled and EvaporativelyCooled Equipment 

EPCA specifies that, for any 

commercial and industrial equipment 

addressed under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an 

energy conservation standard more 

stringent than the level for such 

equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

as amended, only if ‘‘clear and 

convincing evidence’’ shows that a 

more-stringent standard would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

In evaluating more-stringent 

efficiency levels for water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled equipment than 

those specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, DOE reviewed the results in 

terms of the significance of their energy 

savings. For the reasons discussed in 

section IV.B, DOE agrees with 

commenters that the energy savings 

from increasing national energy 

conservation standards for water-cooled 

and evaporatively-cooled equipment 

above the levels specified by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 would be very 

minimal. As such, DOE does not have 

‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ that 

significant additional conservation of 

energy would result from adoption of 

more-stringent standard levels. 

Therefore, DOE did not examine 

whether the levels are economically 

justified, and DOE is proposing to adopt 

the energy efficiency levels for these 

products as set forth in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. Table VIII.36 

presents the proposed energy 

conservation standards and compliance 

dates for water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled equipment. 

TABLE VIII.36—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED

EQUIPMENT

Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) 

Efficiency 

level 

(EER) 

Compliance 

date 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2416 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

61For other classes of VRF systems introduced by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE is not 

proposing new standards but is clarifying that 

existing standards for air-cooled or water-source 

heat pumps continue to apply. In addition, DOE is 

tentatively proposing a new test procedure for all 

classes of VRF equipment. The proposed changes to 

the Code of Federal Regulations are found at the 

end of this NOPR. 

TABLE VIII.36—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED

EQUIPMENT—Continued 

Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) 

Efficiency 

level 

(EER) 

Compliance 

date 

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

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

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air 

Conditioners.

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

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled Air 

Conditioners.

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

* ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 specifies this efficiency level as 12.2 EER. However, as explained in section IV.B.2 of this NOPR, DOE has 

determined that this level was mistakenly reported and that the correct level is 11.7 EER. 

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps 

As noted previously, EPCA specifies 

that, for any commercial and industrial 

equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an 

energy conservation standard more 

stringent than the level for such 

equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

as amended, only if ‘‘clear and 

convincing evidence’’ shows that a 

more-stringent standard would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

In evaluating more-stringent 

efficiency levels for VRF water-source 

heat pumps than those specified by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE 

reviewed the results in terms of the 

significance of their energy savings. For 

the reasons discussed in section 

VIII.B.2, the energy savings for morestringent efficiency levels for VRF 

water-source heat pumps greater than 

135,000 Btu/h would be minimal. In 

addition, there are no models on the 

market of VRF water-source heat pumps 

less than 17,000 Btu/h, so there are no 

energy savings predicted for this 

product class. As such, DOE does not 

have ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ 

that significant additional conservation 

of energy would result from adoption of 

more-stringent efficiency levels than 

those specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010. Therefore, DOE did not 

examine whether the levels are 

economically justified, and DOE is 

proposing to adopt the energy efficiency 

levels for these products as set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010.61 Table 

VIII.37 presents the proposed amended 

energy conservation standards and 

compliance dates for VRF water-source 

heat pumps. 

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

Equipment type Subcategory Size category (input) Efficiency level Compliance date ** 

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

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

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

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

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

Without Heat Recovery ........ ≥135,000 Btu/h ..................... 10.0 EER 3.9 COP .............. October 29, 2013. 

VRF Water-Source Heat 

Pumps.

With Heat Recovery ............. ≥135,000 Btu/h ..................... 9.8 EER 3.9 COP ................ October 29, 2013. 

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

** ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 did not provide an effective date for these products, so it is assumed to be publication of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, or October 29, 2010. As discussed in Section V.D.3, compliance dates for Federal standards would be two or three years after the 

effective date in ASHRAE, depending on product size. 

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners 

As noted previously, EPCA specifies 

that, for any commercial and industrial 

equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an 

energy conservation standard more 

stringent than the level for such 

equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 

as amended, only if ‘‘clear and 

convincing evidence’’ shows that a 

more-stringent standard would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

In evaluating more-stringent 

efficiency levels for computer room air 

conditioner than those specified by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, DOE 

reviewed the results in terms of their 

technological feasibility, significance of 

energy savings, and economic 

justification. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

all of the SCOP levels considered by 

DOE are technologically feasible, as 

units with equivalent efficiency 

appeared to be available in the current 

market at all levels examined. As noted 

in section VI.B.4, manufacturers are 

currently not reporting CRAC 

equipment efficiencies in terms of SCOP 

as defined and tested for in ASHRAE 

127–2007. As a result, the efficiency 

data used to determine the SCOP levels 

for analysis were obtained using a ruleof-thumb method to convert EER (as 

determined using ASHRAE Standard 

127–2001) to an estimate of the SCOP 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2417 

(as determined by ASHRAE Standard 

127–2007), which lends some 

uncertainty to the SCOP ratings of 

computer room air conditioners. 

However, based on this mapping 

between EER and SCOP, DOE believes 

that all SCOP levels analyzed are 

technically feasible. 

DOE examined the potential energy 

savings that would result from the 

efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 and compared these 

to the potential energy savings that 

would result from efficiency levels more 

stringent than those in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010. DOE estimates that 

0.01 quads of energy would be saved if 

DOE adopts the efficiency levels set in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 for each 

computer room air conditioner 

equipment class specified in that 

standard. If DOE were to adopt 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

those specified by ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, the potential additional 

energy savings range from 0.07 quads to 

0.98 quads. Associated with proposing 

more-stringent efficiency levels is a 

three-and-a-half to four-and-a-half-year 

delay in implementation (depending on 

equipment size) compared to the 

adoption of energy conservation 

standards at the levels specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 (see 

section VI.G.1). This delay in 

implementation of amended energy 

conservation standards would result in 

a small amount of energy savings being 

lost in the first years (2012 through 

2016) compared to the savings from 

adopting the levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 (approximately 

0.0001 quad); however, this loss may be 

compensated for by increased savings in 

later years. Taken in isolation, the 

energy savings associated with morestringent standards might be considered 

significant enough to warrant adoption 

of such standards. However, as noted 

above, energy savings are not the only 

factor which DOE must consider. 

In considering whether potential 

standards are economically justified, 

DOE also examined the NPV that would 

result from adopting efficiency levels 

more stringent than those set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010. With a 

7-percent discount rate, all of the 

efficiency levels examined by DOE 

resulted in negative NPV. With a 3- 

percent discount rate, Level 1 creates 

positive NPV, while Levels 2 through 4 

create negative NPV. These results 

indicate that adoption of efficiency 

levels more stringent than those in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 as Federal 

energy conservation standards would 

likely lead to negative economic 

outcomes for the nation. Consequently, 

this criterion for adoption of morestringent standard levels does not 

appear to have been met. 

Furthermore, although DOE based it 

analyses on the best available data when 

examining the potential energy savings 

and the economic justification of 

efficiency levels more stringent than 

those specified in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010, DOE believes there are 

several limitations regarding that data 

which should be considered before 

proposing amended energy conservation 

standards for computer room air 

conditioners. As explained below, none 

of these concerns are likely to run in the 

direction of more-stringent standards. 

First, DOE reexamined the 

uncertainty in its analysis of computer 

room air conditioners. As noted in 

section VI.B.4, due to the lack of current 

coverage and certification requirements, 

no manufacturers currently test for the 

SCOP of their computer room air 

conditioner models, nor do they all 

report such information in their 

literature. DOE’s efficiency information 

used in the analysis was the result of a 

‘‘rule-of-thumb’’ method that provides 

an approximation of SCOP, but DOE did 

not obtain any actual SCOP efficiency 

information that resulted from testing, 

leading to uncertainty over whether the 

levels considered (particularly at the 

max-tech level) are technologically 

feasible and also adding uncertainty in 

the energy savings estimates. In 

addition, for certain equipment classes, 

DOE was unable to obtain enough 

information even to estimate SCOP for 

a useful portion of the models on the 

market. For those equipment classes, 

DOE had to analyze various efficiency 

levels above the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 levels using SCOP levels that 

were estimated based on the SCOP 

differences established by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 between the different 

equipment classes. The combination of 

these factors leads to concerns about the 

viability of using the estimated SCOP 

data for the basis of this analysis. Such 

concerns are heightened the further one 

moves away from the efficiency levels 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 in the 

context of this rulemaking. 

Second, to assess the cost of 

increasing efficiency, DOE conducted a 

pricing survey in which DOE collected 

contractor price data across a range of 

efficiency levels, and examined the 

trend in price as efficiency increased. 

As noted in section VI.B.1, the primary 

drawback to this approach is that 

contractor pricing can be based on a 

variety of factors, some of which have 

little or nothing to do with changes in 

equipment efficiency (e.g., differences 

in manufacturer markups). This leads to 

unexpected results for certain 

equipment classes, including an 

observed trend of decreasing price with 

increasing efficiency for small watercooled equipment based on the data 

collected, which reduces the certainty of 

the analysis in terms of economic 

justification. Therefore, the trends 

developed through such analyses may 

not be representative of the actual 

relationship between manufacturer cost 

and efficiency, or of what DOE would 

find if it used a design option approach 

with reverse engineering analysis 

(which is more time-intensive). Further, 

although there was generally a trend of 

increasing price with increased 

efficiency across all manufacturers for 

most product classes, there was little 

discernable trend between price and 

efficiency for each individual 

manufacturer, leading to additional 

doubts about the role of equipment 

efficiency in determining pricing. As a 

result, DOE believes the results of this 

analysis are highly uncertain, and that 

a more in-depth analysis of the 

relationship between cost of 

manufacturing and efficiency could lead 

to different results. 

Third, due to the limited data on the 

existing distribution of shipments by 

efficiency level or historical efficiency 

trends, DOE was not able to assess 

possible future changes in either the 

available efficiencies of equipment in 

the computer room air conditioner 

market or the sales distribution of 

shipments by efficiency level in the 

absence of setting more-stringent 

standards. DOE recognizes that 

manufacturers may continue to make 

future improvements in the computer 

room air conditioner efficiencies even in 

the absence of mandated energy 

conservation standards. This possibility 

increases the uncertainty of the energy 

savings estimates. To the extent that 

manufacturers improve product 

efficiency and customers choose to 

purchase improved products in the 

absence of standards, the energy savings 

estimates would likely be reduced. 

Fourth, as a result of a lack of 

shipment information for the United 

States, DOE’s shipment analysis rests 

primarily on a single market report from 

Australia. While DOE attempted to use 

an appropriate inflator to adjust 

Australian shipments to the United 

States market, DOE recognizes the 

uncertainty inherent in this approach. 

DOE also based its equipment class 

allocations on market share for a few 

classes from the Australian report, as 

well as model availability in the United 

States. It is unknown whether the 

United States market mirrors the 

Australian market or whether model 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2418 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

availability approximates shipment 

distributions. Any inaccuracy in the 

shipment forecast in total or by product 

class contributes to the uncertainty of 

the energy savings results and thus 

makes it difficult for DOE to determine 

that any energy savings are significant. 

In light of the above, DOE would 

again restate the statutory test for 

adopting energy conservation standards 

more stringent than the levels in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. DOE must have 

‘‘clear and convincing’’ evidence in 

order to propose efficiency levels more 

stringent than those specified in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010, and for 

the reasons explained in this notice, the 

totality of information does not meet the 

level necessary to support these morestringent efficiency levels for computer 

room air conditioners. Consequently, 

DOE has tentatively decided to propose 

the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010 as amended energy 

conservation standards for all 30 

computer room air conditioner 

equipment classes. Table VIII.38 

presents the proposed energy 

conservation standards for computer 

room air conditioners. 

By proposing to adopt the efficiency 

levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2010 

as amended energy conservation 

standards, DOE would be setting a 

minimum floor for these previously 

unregulated products. This would allow 

the industry time to transition to 

coverage of these products, would 

require manufacturers to begin 

submitting efficiency data, and would 

spur the tracking of shipments. These 

data would improve DOE’s future 

analysis of computer room air 

conditioners. DOE notes that it will be 

able to undertake such an analysis 

without waiting for the trigger of a 

subsequent amendment of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, because of the six-year 

look back provision in the relevant EISA 

2007 amendments to EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) 

DOE seeks comments from interested 

parties on its proposed amended energy 

conservation standards for computer 

room air conditioners, as well as the 

other efficiency levels considered. 

Although DOE currently believes that it 

would be appropriate to adopt the 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2010 for computer room air 

conditioners, DOE may consider the 

possibility of setting standards at morestringent efficiency levels if public 

comments and additional data supply 

clear and convincing evidence in 

support of such an approach. 

TABLE VIII.38—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS

Equipment type Subcategory Size category 

(Input) 

Efficiency 

level 

(SCOP– 

127) 

Compliance date 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, water-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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

Air conditioners, glycol-cooled with 

fluid economizer.

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


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2419 

62For more information see: http://www.hoovers.

com/. 

IX. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), 

requires each agency to identify the 

problem that it intends to address, 

including, where applicable, the failures 

of private markets or public institutions 

that warrant new agency action, as well 

as to assess the significance of that 

problem. The problems that the 

standards in this rule address are as 

follows: 

(1) There is a lack of consumer 

information and/or information 

processing capability about energy 

efficiency opportunities in the 

commercial equipment market. 

(2) There is asymmetric information 

(one party to a transaction has more and 

better information than the other) and/ 

or high transactions costs (costs of 

gathering information and effecting 

exchanges of goods and services). 

(3) There are external benefits 

resulting from improved energy 

efficiency of water-cooled and 

evaporatively-cooled commercial 

package air conditioners, variable 

refrigerant flow air conditioners, and 

computer room air conditioners that are 

not captured by the users of such 

equipment. These benefits include 

externalities related to environmental 

protection and energy security that are 

not reflected in energy prices, such as 

reduced emissions of greenhouse gases. 

In addition, DOE has determined that 

today’s regulatory action is not an 

‘‘economically significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f)(1) of 

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, 

DOE has not prepared a regulatory 

impact analysis (RIA) for today’s rule, 

and the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) has 

not reviewed this rule. 

DOE has also reviewed this regulation 

pursuant to Executive Order 13563, 

issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 

(Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 

is supplemental to and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, agencies 

are required by Executive Order 13563 

to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation 

only upon a reasoned determination 

that its benefits justify its costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 

regulations to impose the least burden 

on society, consistent with obtaining 

regulatory objectives, taking into 

account, among other things, and to the 

extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

DOE emphasizes as well that 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs has 

emphasized that such techniques may 

include identifying changing future 

compliance costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, DOE believes 

that today’s NOPR is consistent with 

these principles, including the 

requirement that, to the extent 

permitted by law, agencies adopt a 

regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs and select, in choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, those 

approaches maximize net benefits. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

13563, and the range of impacts 

analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy 

conservation standards proposed in this 

NOPR maximize net benefits to the 

extent permitted by EPCA. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 

preparation of an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis (IRFA) for any rule 

that by law must be proposed for public 

comment and a final regulatory 

flexibility analysis (FRFA) for any such 

rule that an agency adopts as a final 

rule, unless the agency certifies that the 

rule, if promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. As 

required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s Web site: (www.gc.doe.gov). 

For manufacturers of water-cooled 

and evaporatively-cooled air 

conditioners, computer room air 

conditioners, and VRF water-source 

heat pumps with a cooling capacity 

equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h, 

the Small Business Administration 

(SBA) has set a size threshold, which 

defines those entities classified as 

‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of 

the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small 

business size standards to determine 

whether any small entities would be 

subject to the requirements of the rule. 

65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as 

amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 

5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part 

121. The size standards are listed by 

North American Industry Classification 

System (NAICS) code and industry 

description and are available at http:// 

www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/Size_

Standards_Table.pdf. The ASHRAE 

equipment covered by this rule are 

classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating 

Equipment and Commercial and 

Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 

Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a 

threshold of 750 employees or fewer for 

an entity to be considered as a small 

business for this category. 

DOE examined each of the 

manufacturers it found during its 

market assessment and used publiclyavailable information to determine if 

any manufacturers identified qualify as 

a small business under the SBA 

guidelines discussed above. (For a list of 

all manufacturers of ASHRAE 

equipment covered by this rule, see 

Chapter 2 of the TSD.) DOE’s research 

involved individual company Web sites, 

marketing research tools (e.g., Hoovers 

reports 62), and contacting individual 

companies to create a list of companies 

that manufacture the types of ASHRAE 

equipment affected by this rule. DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

have domestic manufacturing 

operations for ASHRAE equipment (i.e., 

manufacturers that produce all of their 

ASHRAE equipment internationally). 

DOE also did not consider 

manufacturers which are subsidiaries of 

parent companies that exceed the 750- 

employee threshold set by the SBA to be 

small businesses. DOE identified 3 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2420 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

manufacturers that qualify as a small 

business: 2 computer room air 

conditioner manufacturers (out of the 5 

total identified) and 1 water-cooled air 

conditioner manufacturer (of the 8 total 

identified). DOE did not identify any 

small business manufacturers of 

evaporatively-cooled air conditioners or 

water-source VRF heat pump 

manufacturers. 

DOE has reviewed today’s proposed 

rule under the provisions of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. 68 FR 7990. As part 

of this rulemaking, DOE examined not 

only the impacts on manufacturers of 

revised standard levels, but also the 

existing compliance costs manufacturers 

already bear as compared to the revised 

compliance costs, based on the 

proposed revisions to the test 

procedures. Since DOE is proposing to 

adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2010, which are part of 

the prevailing industry standard, DOE 

believes that manufacturers of watercooled and evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment, computer room 

air conditioners, and VRF water-source 

heat pumps with a cooling capacity 

equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h 

are already producing equipment at 

these efficiency levels. For VRF watersource heat pumps with a cooling 

capacity below 17,000 Btu/h, DOE 

believes the efficiency levels being 

proposed in today’s NOPR are also part 

of the prevailing industry standard and 

that manufacturers would experience no 

impacts, because no such equipment is 

currently manufactured. Furthermore, 

DOE believes the industry standard was 

developed through a process which 

would attempt to mitigate the impacts 

on manufacturers, including any 

impacted small business manufacturers, 

while increasing the efficiency of this 

equipment. 

In addition, DOE does not find that 

the costs associated with the adoption of 

updated test procedures for commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment, commercial water heating 

equipment, or commercial warm-air 

furnaces in this document would result 

in any significant increase in testing or 

compliance costs. For these types of 

equipment, DOE already has testing 

requirements, which have only minor 

differences from those being adopted in 

this notice. DOE notes that this 

document proposes adoption of new test 

procedures for VRF systems and 

computer room air conditioners. 

However, VRF systems currently must 

be tested using the DOE test procedures 

for commercial package air conditioners 

and heating equipment. The procedure 

proposed for adoption in this NOPR is 

tailored to VRF systems, and DOE does 

not believe this procedure is more 

burdensome than the currently 

applicable test procedures. For 

computer room air conditioners, this 

notice proposes the use of a new test 

procedure where none was previously 

required. However, for all equipment 

types (including computer room air 

conditioners) the proposed test 

procedures are part of the prevailing 

industry standard to test and rate 

equipment. DOE believes that 

manufacturers generally already use the 

accepted industry test procedures when 

testing their equipment, and that given 

its inclusion in ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2010, they would continue to use it in 

the future. Therefore, DOE does not 

believe the additional burden imposed 

by today’s proposal will have a 

significant adverse impact on a large 

number of small manufacturers. DOE 

requests public comment on the impact 

of this proposed rule on small entities. 

This is identified as issue 18 in section 

X.E, ‘‘Issues on Which DOE Seeks 

Comment.’’ 

For the reasons stated above, DOE 

certifies that the proposed rule, if 

promulgated, would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Therefore, DOE did not prepare an 

initial regulatory flexibility analysis for 

the proposed rule. DOE will transmit its 

certification and a supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the SBA for review 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 

Manufacturers of the ASHRAE 

equipment addressed in today’s NOPR 

must certify to DOE that their 

equipment comply with any applicable 

energy conservation standards. In 

certifying compliance, manufacturers 

must test their equipment according to 

the applicable DOE test procedures for 

the given equipment type, including any 

amendments adopted for those test 

procedures. DOE has established 

regulations for the certification and 

recordkeeping requirements for all 

covered consumer products and 

commercial equipment, including the 

ASHRAE equipment at issue in this 

NOPR. (76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011)). 

The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement 

has been approved by OMB under OMB 

control number 1910–1400. Public 

reporting burden for the certification is 

estimated to average 20 hours per 

response, including the time for 

reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.), DOE has 

determined that the proposed rule fits 

within the category of actions included 

in Categorical Exclusion (CX) B5.1 and 

otherwise meets the requirements for 

application of a CX. See 10 CFR part 

1021, App. B, B5.1(b); 1021.410(b), and 

Appendix B, B(1)–(5). The proposed 

rule fits within the category of actions 

because it is a rulemaking that 

establishes energy conservation 

standards for consumer products or 

industrial equipment, and for which 

none of the exceptions identified in CX 

B5.1(b) apply. Therefore, DOE has made 

a CX determination for this rulemaking, 

and DOE does not need to prepare an 

Environmental Assessment or 

Environmental Impact Statement for 

this proposed rule. DOE’s CX 

determination for this proposed rule is 

available at http://cxnepa.energy.gov/. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2421 

examined this proposed rule and has 

tentatively determined that it would not 

have a substantial direct effect on the 

States, on the relationship between the 

national government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the equipment that are the subject of 

today’s proposed rule. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, as set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6297(d) and 6316(b)(2)(D)) No further 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform’’ (61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996)) 

imposes on Federal agencies the general 

duty to adhere to the following 

requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting 

errors and ambiguity; (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation; (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard and promote simplification 

and burden reduction. With regard to 

the review required by section 3(a), 

section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 

specifically requires that Executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any; 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation; 

(3) provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction; 

(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; 

(5) adequately defines key terms; and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires 

Executive agencies to review regulations 

in light of applicable standards in 

sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine 

whether they are met or it is 

unreasonable to meet one or more of 

them. DOE has completed the required 

review and determined that, to the 

extent permitted by law, the proposed 

rule meets the relevant standards of 

Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments. On March 18, 

1997, DOE published a statement of 

policy on its process for 

intergovernmental consultation under 

UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE’s policy 

statement is also available at 

www.gc.doe.gov. 

Today’s proposed rule contains 

neither an intergovernmental mandate 

nor a mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

in any year. Accordingly, no assessment 

or analysis is required under the UMRA. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

rule would not have any impact on the 

autonomy or integrity of the family as 

an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 

concluded that it is not necessary to 

prepare a Family Policymaking 

Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

DOE has determined, under Executive 

Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions 

and Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 

(March 18, 1988), that this regulation 

would not result in any takings that 

might require compensation under the 

Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516, note) 

provides for Federal agencies to review 

most disseminations of information to 

the public under guidelines established 

by each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed 

today’s NOPR under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a 

Statement of Energy Effects for any 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866, or any successor order; and (2) 

is likely to have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, or (3) is designated by the 

Administrator of OIRA as a significant 

energy action. For any significant energy 

action, the agency must provide a 

detailed statement of any adverse effects 

on energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

DOE has tentatively concluded that 

today’s regulatory action, which sets 

forth energy conservation standards for 

certain types of ASHRAE equipment, is 

not a significant energy action because 

the proposed standards are not a 

significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866 and are not 

likely to have a significant adverse effect 

on the supply, distribution, or use of 

energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects on the 

proposed rule. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (OSTP), issued 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2422 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

its Final Information Quality Bulletin 

for Peer Review (the Bulletin). 70 FR 

2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). The Bulletin 

establishes that certain scientific 

information shall be peer reviewed by 

qualified specialists before it is 

disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions. 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal in-progress peer 

reviews of the energy conservation 

standards development process and 

analyses and has prepared a Peer 

Review Report pertaining to the energy 

conservation standards rulemaking 

analyses. Generation of this report 

involved a rigorous, formal, and 

documented evaluation using objective 

criteria and qualified and independent 

reviewers to make a judgment as to the 

technical/scientific/business merit, the 

actual or anticipated results, and the 

productivity and management 

effectiveness of programs and/or 

projects. The ‘‘Energy Conservation 

Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 

Report’’ dated February 2007 has been 

disseminated and is available at the 

following Web site: www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

peer_review.html. 

X. Public Participation 

A. Attendance at the Public Meeting 

The time, date, and location of the 

public meeting are listed in the DATES

and ADDRESSES sections at the beginning 

of this notice. If you plan to attend the 

public meeting, please notify Ms. 

Brenda Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or 

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. As 

explained in the ADDRESSES section, 

foreign nationals visiting DOE 

Headquarters are subject to advance 

security screening procedures. Any 

foreign national wishing to participate 

in the meeting should advise DOE of 

this fact as soon as possible by 

contacting Ms. Brenda Edwards to 

initiate the necessary procedures. 

In addition, you can attend the public 

meeting via webinar. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

Web site at: http://www1.eere.energy.

gov/buildings/appliance_standards/

commercial/ashrae_products_docs_

meeting.html. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Request To 

Speak and Prepared General Statements 

for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this notice, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the public 

meeting. Such persons may handdeliver requests to speak to the address 

show in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice between 9 a.m. 

and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, 

except Federal holidays. Requests may 

also be sent by mail or email to Ms. 

Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Building Technologies Program, 

Mailstop EE–2J, 1000 Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585– 

0121, or Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov. 

Persons who wish to speak should 

include in their request a computer 

diskette or CD–ROM in WordPerfect, 

Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file 

format that briefly describes the nature 

of their interest in this rulemaking and 

the topics they wish to discuss. Such 

persons should also provide a daytime 

telephone number where they can be 

reached. 

DOE requests persons selected to 

make an oral presentation to submit an 

advance copy of their statements at least 

one week before the public meeting. 

DOE may permit persons who cannot 

supply an advance copy of their 

statement to participate, if those persons 

have made advance alternative 

arrangements with the Building 

Technologies Program. As necessary, 

request to give an oral presentation 

should ask for such alternative 

arrangements. 

Any person who has plans to present 

a prepared general statement may 

request that copies of his or her 

statement be made available at the 

public meeting. Such persons may 

submit requests, along with an advance 

electronic copy of their statement in 

PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 

Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file 

format, to the appropriate address 

shown in the ADDRESSES section at the 

beginning of this notice. The request 

and advance copy of statements must be 

received at least one week before the 

public meeting and may be emailed, 

hand-delivered, or sent by mail. DOE 

prefers to receive requests and advance 

copies via email. Please include a 

telephone number to enable DOE staff to 

make follow-up contact, if needed. 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the public meeting and may 

also use a professional facilitator to aid 

discussion. The meeting will not be a 

judicial or evidentiary-type public 

hearing, but DOE will conduct it in 

accordance with section 336 of EPCA 

(42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will 

be present to record the proceedings and 

prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the 

right to schedule the order of 

presentations and to establish the 

procedures governing the conduct of the 

public meeting. There shall not be 

discussion of proprietary information, 

costs or prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the public meeting, 

interested parties may submit further 

comments on the proceedings, as well 

as on any aspect of the rulemaking, until 

the end of the comment period. 

The public meeting will be conducted 

in an informal, conference style. DOE 

will present summaries of comments 

received before the public meeting, 

allow time for prepared general 

statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

rulemaking. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will allow, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly and 

comment on statements made by others. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this 

rulemaking. The official conducting the 

public meeting will accept additional 

comments or questions from those 

attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

public meeting. 

A transcript of the public meeting will 

be posted on the DOE Web site and will 

be included in the docket, which can be 

viewed as described in the Docket 

section at the beginning of this notice. 

In addition, any person may buy a copy 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2423 

of the transcript from the transcribing 

reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

rule before or after the public meeting, 

but no later than the date provided in 

the DATES section at the beginning of 

this proposed rule. Interested parties 

may submit comments, data, and other 

information using any of the methods 

described in the ADDRESSES section at 

the beginning of this notice. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov Web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies staff only. Your 

contact information will not be publicly 

viewable except for your first and last 

names, organization name (if any), and 

submitter representative name (if any). 

If your comment is not processed 

properly because of technical 

difficulties, DOE will use this 

information to contact you. If DOE 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, DOE may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

However, your contact information 

will be publicly viewable if you include 

it in the comment itself or in any 

documents attached to your comment. 

Any information that you do not want 

to be publicly viewable should not be 

included in your comment, nor in any 

document attached to your comment. 

Otherwise, persons viewing comments 

will see only first and last names, 

organization names, correspondence 

containing comments, and any 

documents submitted with the 

comments. 

Do not submit to www.regulations.gov 

information for which disclosure is 

restricted by statute, such as trade 

secrets and commercial or financial 

information (hereinafter referred to as 

Confidential Business Information 

(CBI)). Comments submitted through 

www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed 

as CBI. Comments received through the 

Web site will waive any CBI claims for 

the information submitted. For 

information on submitting CBI, see the 

Confidential Business Information 

section below. 

DOE processes submissions made 

through www.regulations.gov before 

posting. Normally, comments will be 

posted within a few days of being 

submitted. However, if large volumes of 

comments are being processed 

simultaneously, your comment may not 

be viewable for up to several weeks. 

Please keep the comment tracking 

number that www.regulations.gov 

provides after you have successfully 

uploaded your comment. 

Submitting comments via email, hand 

delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and 

documents submitted via email, hand 

delivery, or mail also will be posted to 

www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 

your personal contact information to be 

publicly viewable, do not include it in 

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. If you 

submit via mail or hand delivery/ 

courier, please provide all items on a 

compact disc (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 including 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). 

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment 

Although DOE welcomes comment on 

any aspect of this proposal, DOE is 

particularly interested in receiving 

comments and views of interested 

parties concerning the following issues: 

1. How manufacturers currently 

differentiate commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment 

used solely for manufacturing and 

industrial processes from that 

equipment of the same type that is used 

in buildings. 

2. Any aspect of the test procedures 

affected by this rule as part of DOE’s 

comprehensive 7-year-review 

requirement. 

3. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI 

210/240–2008 as the test procedure for 

small (<65,000 Btu/h) commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. DOE is also interested in 

receiving comment on the need for an 

optional ‘‘break-in’’ period for this 

equipment, and whether 16 hours is an 

appropriate maximum length for the 

break-in period. 

4. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI 

340/360–2007 as the test procedure for 

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

h), large, and very large commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment. DOE is also interested in 

receiving comment on the need for an 

optional ‘‘break-in’’ period for this 

equipment, and whether 16 hours is an 

appropriate maximum length for the 

break-in period. 

5. DOE’s proposed adoption of ANSI 

Z21.10.3–2006 for commercial water 

heating equipment, and DOE’s finding 

that the updated test method will not 

impact measured efficiency. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2424 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

6. DOE’s proposed adoption of 

ASHRAE Standard 127–2007 for 

computer room air conditioners. DOE is 

also interested in receiving comment on 

how to treat the draft revisions that 

ASHRAE has made to standard 127, and 

on any shortcomings with the test 

procedure that may require 

modification. 

7. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI 

1230–2010 with Amendment 1 for VRF 

systems. DOE is also interested in 

receiving comment on the need for an 

optional ‘‘break-in’’ period for this 

equipment, and whether 16 hours is an 

appropriate maximum length for the 

break-in period. 

8. DOE’s proposed adoption of AHRI 

390–2003 as the test procedure for 

single package vertical air conditioners 

and single package vertical heat pumps. 

DOE is also interested in receiving 

comment on the need for an optional 

‘‘break-in’’ period for this equipment, 

and whether 16 hours is an appropriate 

maximum length for the break-in 

period. 

9. The testing conditions, the basic 

model operating points, and set-up for 

variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioners and heat pumps. 

10. DOE’s proposed definitions of 

‘‘variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioner,’’ ‘‘variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split heat pump,’’ and ‘‘heat 

recovery.’’ 

11. DOE’s proposed definition of 

‘‘computer room air conditioner.’’ DOE 

is specifically interested in whether 

there are any physical features or 

components that could allow DOE to 

differentiate between computer room air 

conditioners and commercial package 

air conditioners used for comfort 

conditioning 

12. The results of DOE’s pricing 

analysis, and any data or information on 

the price-efficiency relationship for 

computer room air conditioners 

13. Does computer room air 

conditioner installation cost increase as 

a function of increased efficiency? If so, 

how should the increase in cost be 

estimated or derived? 

14. Is there a rebound effect in 

computer room air conditioner 

equipment energy use as a result of 

improvements in the efficiency of such 

units? 

15. Would shipments of computer 

room air conditioners change with 

higher standard levels? 

16. The NES-forecasted base-case 

distribution of efficiencies and DOE’s 

prediction of how amended energy 

conservation standards might affect the 

distribution of efficiencies in the 

standards case. 

17. The need for an optional ‘‘breakin’’ period for computer room air 

conditioners, similar to the period being 

proposed for other types of commercial 

air conditioning and heating equipment. 

18. The impact of DOE’s proposed 

standards on small business 

manufacturers. 

XI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of today’s notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Confidential business 

information, Energy conservation, 

Incorporation by reference, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements. 

Issued in Washington, DC, on December 

20, 2011. 

Kathleen B. Hogan, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy 

Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable 

Energy. 

For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, DOE proposes to amend part 

431 of Chapter II, Subchapter D, of Title 

10 of the Code of Federal Regulations to 

read as set forth below: 

PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY 

PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN 

COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL 

EQUIPMENT 

1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317. 

2. Section 431.2 is amended by 

revising the definition of ‘‘Commercial 

HVAC & WH product’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Commercial HVAC & WH product 

means any small, large, or very large 

commercial package air-conditioning 

and heating equipment, packaged 

terminal air conditioner, packaged 

terminal heat pump, single package 

vertical air conditioner, single package 

vertical heat pump, computer room air 

conditioner, variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split air conditioner, variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump, 

commercial packaged boiler, hot water 

supply boiler, commercial warm air 

furnace, instantaneous water heater, 

storage water heater, or unfired hot 

water storage tank. 

* * * * * 

3. Section 431.75 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.75 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. DOE incorporates by 

reference the following test procedures 

into subpart D of part 431. The materials 

listed have been approved for 

incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to the listed materials by 

the standard-setting organization will 

not affect the DOE regulations unless 

and until amended by DOE. Materials 

are incorporated as they exist on the 

date of the approval and a notice of any 

changes in the materials will be 

published in the Federal Register. All 

approved materials are available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federalregulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Also, these materials 

are available for inspection at U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/. The 

referenced test procedure standards are 

listed below by relevant standard-setting 

organization, along with information on 

how to obtain copies from those 

sources. 

(b) ANSI. American National 

Standards Institute. 25 W. 43rd Street, 

4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 

642–4900, or go to http://www.ansi.org. 

(1) ANSI Z21.47–2006, ‘‘Gas-Fired 

Central Furnaces,’’ approved on July 27, 

2006, IBR approved for § 431.76. 

(2) Reserved. 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers Inc., 1791 Tullie 

Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329, 

(404) 636–8400, or go to http:// 

www.ashrae.org. 

(1) ASHRAE Standard 103–1993, 

sections 7.2.2.4, 7.8, 9.2, and 11.3.7, 

‘‘Method of Testing for Annual Fuel 

Utilization Efficiency of Residential 

Central Furnaces and Boilers,’’ 

approved on June 26, 1993, IBR 

approved for § 431.76. 

(2) Reserved. 

(d) HI. Hydronics Institute Division of 

AHRI, 35 Russo Place, P.O. Box 218, 

Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922, (703) 600– 

0350, or go to http://www.ahrinet.org/ 

hydronics+institute+section.aspx. 

(1) HI BTS–2000, sections 8.2.2, 

11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 11.1.6.2, ‘‘Method to 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2425 

Determine Efficiency of Commercial 

Space Heating Boilers,’’ approved 

January 2001, IBR approved for 

§ 431.76. 

(2) Reserved. 

(e) UL. Underwriters Laboratories, 

Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 

60062, (847) 272–8800, or go to http:// 

www.ul.com. 

(1) UL Standard 727–2006, ‘‘Standard 

for Safety Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,’’ 

approved April 7, 2006, IBR approved 

for § 431.76. 

(2) Reserved. 

4. Section 431.76 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.76 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial warm air furnaces. 

(a) This section covers the test 

procedures you must follow if, pursuant 

to EPCA, you are measuring the steadystate thermal efficiency of a gas-fired or 

oil-fired commercial warm air furnace 

with a rated maximum input of 225,000 

Btu per hour or more. Where this 

section prescribes use of ANSI Standard 

Z21.47–2006 or UL Standard 727–2006, 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.75), perform only the procedures 

pertinent to the measurement of the 

steady-state efficiency. 

(b) Test setup. (1) Test setup for gasfired commercial warm air furnaces. 

The test setup, including flue 

requirement, instrumentation, test 

conditions, and measurements for 

determining thermal efficiency is as 

specified in sections 1.1 (Scope), 2.1 

(General), 2.2 (Basic Test 

Arrangements), 2.3 (Test Ducts and 

Plenums), 2.4 (Test Gases), 2.5 (Test 

Pressures and Burner Adjustments), 2.6 

(Static Pressure and Air Flow 

Adjustments), 2.39 (Thermal Efficiency), 

and 4.2.1 (Basic Test Arrangements for 

Direct Vent Control Furnaces) of ANSI 

Standard Z21.47–2006 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.75). The thermal 

efficiency test must be conducted only 

at the normal inlet test pressure, as 

specified in Section 2.5.1 of ANSI 

Standard Z21.47–2006, and at the 

maximum hourly Btu input rating 

specified by the manufacturer for the 

product being tested. 

(2) Test setup for oil-fired commercial 

warm air furnaces. The test setup, 

including flue requirement, 

instrumentation, test conditions, and 

measurement for measuring thermal 

efficiency is as specified in sections 1 

(Scope), 2 (Units of Measurement), 3 

(Glossary), 37 (General), 38 and 39 (Test 

Installation), 40 (Instrumentation, 

except 40.4 and 40.6.2 through 40.6.7, 

which are not required for the thermal 

efficiency test), 41 (Initial Test 

Conditions), 42 (Combustion Test— 

Burner and Furnace), 43.2 (Operation 

Tests), 44 (Limit Control Cutout Test), 

45 (Continuity of Operation Test), and 

46 (Air Flow, Downflow or Horizontal 

Furnace Test), of UL Standard 727–2006 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.75). You must conduct a fuel oil 

analysis for heating value, hydrogen 

content, carbon content, pounds per 

gallon, and American Petroleum 

Institute (API) gravity as specified in 

Section 8.2.2 of HI BTS–2000 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.75). The steady-state combustion 

conditions, specified in Section 42.1 of 

UL Standard 727–2006, are attained 

when variations of not more than 5 °F 

in the measured flue gas temperature 

occur for three consecutive readings 

taken 15 minutes apart. 

(c) Additional test measurements. (1) 

Measurement of flue CO2 (carbon 

dioxide) for oil-fired commercial warm 

air furnaces. In addition to the flue 

temperature measurement specified in 

Section 40.6.8 of UL Standard 727– 

2006, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.75) you must locate one or two 

sampling tubes within six inches 

downstream from the flue temperature 

probe (as indicated on Figure 40.3 of UL 

Standard 727–2006). If you use an open 

end tube, it must project into the flue 

one-third of the chimney connector 

diameter. If you use other methods of 

sampling CO2, you must place the 

sampling tube so as to obtain an average 

sample. There must be no air leak 

between the temperature probe and the 

sampling tube location. You must 

collect the flue gas sample at the same 

time the flue gas temperature is 

recorded. The CO2 concentration of the 

flue gas must be as specified by the 

manufacturer for the product being 

tested, with a tolerance of ±0.1 percent. 

You must determine the flue CO2 using 

an instrument with a reading error no 

greater than ±0.1 percent. 

(2) Procedure for the measurement of 

condensate for a gas-fired condensing 

commercial warm air furnace. The test 

procedure for the measurement of the 

condensate from the flue gas under 

steady state operation must be 

conducted as specified in sections 

7.2.2.4, 7.8 and 9.2 of ASHRAE 

Standard 103–1993 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.75) under the 

maximum rated input conditions. You 

must conduct this condensate 

measurement for an additional 30 

minutes of steady state operation after 

completion of the steady state thermal 

efficiency test specified in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(d) Calculation of thermal efficiency. 

(1) Gas-fired commercial warm air 

furnaces. You must use the calculation 

procedure specified in Section 2.39, 

Thermal Efficiency, of ANSI Standard 

Z21.47–2006 (incorporated by reference, 

see § 431.75). 

(2) Oil-fired commercial warm air 

furnaces. You must calculate the 

percent flue loss (in percent of heat 

input rate) by following the procedure 

specified in sections 11.1.4, 11.1.5, and 

11.1.6.2 of the HI BTS–2000 

(incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.75). The thermal efficiency must 

be calculated as: 

Thermal Efficiency (percent) = 100 

percent ¥ flue loss (in percent). 

(e) Procedure for the calculation of 

the additional heat gain and heat loss, 

and adjustment to the thermal 

efficiency, for a condensing commercial 

warm air furnace. (1) You must 

calculate the latent heat gain from the 

condensation of the water vapor in the 

flue gas, and calculate heat loss due to 

the flue condensate down the drain, as 

specified in sections 11.3.7.1 and 

11.3.7.2 of ASHRAE Standard 103– 

1993, (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 431.75), with the exception that in the 

equation for the heat loss due to hot 

condensate flowing down the drain in 

section 11.3.7.2, the assumed indoor 

temperature of 70 °F and the 

temperature term TOA must be replaced 

by the measured room temperature as 

specified in Section 2.2.8 of ANSI 

Standard Z21.47–2006 (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.75). 

(2) Adjustment to the Thermal 

Efficiency for Condensing Furnace. You 

must adjust the thermal efficiency as 

calculated in paragraph (d)(1) of this 

section by adding the latent gain, 

expressed in percent, from the 

condensation of the water vapor in the 

flue gas, and subtracting the heat loss 

(due to the flue condensate down the 

drain), also expressed in percent, both 

as calculated in paragraph (e)(1) of this 

section, to obtain the thermal efficiency 

of a condensing furnace. 

5. Section 431.92, is amended by 

adding the definitions ‘‘Computer room 

air conditioner,’’ ‘‘Heat Recovery,’’ 

‘‘Sensible Coefficient of Performance, or 

SCOP,’’ ‘‘Variable Refrigerant Flow 

Multi-Split Air Conditioner’’ and 

‘‘Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split 

Heat Pump,’’ in alphabetical order to 

read as follows: 

§ 431.92 Definitions concerning 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

* * * * * 

Computer Room Air Conditioner 

means a unit of commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2426 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

that is advertised, marketed, and/or sold 

specifically for use in computer rooms, 

data processing rooms, or other 

precision cooling applications, and is 

rated for performance using ASHRAE 

Standard 127, (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.95). Such 

equipment may not be marketed or 

advertised as equipment for any other 

space conditioning applications, and 

may not be rated for performance using 

AHRI Standard 210/240 or AHRI 

Standard 340/360. (incorporated by 

reference, see § 431.95). 

* * * * * 

Heat Recovery (in the context of 

variable refrigerant flow multi-split air 

conditioners or variable refrigerant flow 

multi-split heat pumps) means that the 

air conditioner or heat pump is also 

capable of providing simultaneous 

heating and cooling operation, where 

recovered energy from the indoor units 

operating in one mode can be 

transferred to one or more other indoor 

units operating in the other mode. A 

variable refrigerant flow multi-split heat 

recovery heat pump is a variable 

refrigerant flow multi-split heat pump 

with the addition of heat recovery 

capability. 

* * * * * 

Sensible Coefficient of Performance, 

or SCOP means the net sensible cooling 

capacity in watts divided by the total 

power input in watts (excluding 

reheaters and humidifiers). 

* * * * * 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split 

Air Conditioner means a unit of 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment that is 

configured as a split system airconditioner incorporating a single 

refrigerant circuit, with one or more 

outdoor units, at least one variablespeed compressor or an alternate 

compressor combination for varying the 

capacity of the system by three or more 

steps, and multiple indoor fan coil 

units, each of which is individually 

metered and individually controlled by 

an integral control device and common 

communications network and which 

can operate independently in response 

to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable 

refrigerant flow implies three or more 

steps of capacity control on common, 

inter-connecting piping. 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split 

Heat Pump means a unit of commercial 

package air conditioning and heating 

equipment that is configured as a split 

system heat pump that uses reverse 

cycle refrigeration as its primary heating 

source and which may include 

secondary supplemental heating by 

means of electrical resistance, steam, 

hot water, or gas. The equipment 

incorporates a single refrigerant circuit, 

with one or more outdoor units, at least 

one variable-speed compressor or an 

alternate compressor combination for 

varying the capacity of the system by 

three or more steps, and multiple indoor 

fan coil units, each of which is 

individually metered and individually 

controlled by a control device and 

common communications network and 

which can operate independently in 

response to multiple indoor thermostats. 

Variable refrigerant flow implies three 

or more steps of capacity control on 

common, inter-connecting piping. 

* * * * * 

6. Section 431.95 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.95 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. DOE incorporates by 

reference the following test procedures 

into subpart F of part 431. The materials 

listed have been approved for 

incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 

CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to the listed materials by 

the standard-setting organization will 

not affect the DOE regulations unless 

and until amended by DOE. Materials 

are incorporated as they exist on the 

date of the approval and a notice of any 

changes in the materials will be 

published in the Federal Register. All 

approved materials are available for 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/ 

federal_register/ 

code_of_federalregulations/ 

ibr_locations.html. Also, this material is 

available for inspection at U.S. 

Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency and Renewable Energy, 

Building Technologies Program, 6th 

Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW., 

Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–2945, 

or go to: http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/. The 

referenced test procedure standards are 

listed below by relevant standard-setting 

organization, along with information on 

how to obtain copies from those 

sources. 

(b) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, 

and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson 

Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, 

(703) 524–8800, or go to http:// 

www.ahrinet.org. 

(1) AHRI Standard 210/240–2008, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary AirConditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 

Equipment,’’ approved April 21, 2008, 

IBR approved for § 431.96. 

(2) AHRI Standard 310/380–2004 

(CSA C744–04), ‘‘Standard for Packaged 

Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ approved September 2004, IBR 

approved for § 431.96. 

(3) AHRI Standard 340/360–2007, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial 

and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning 

and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ approved 

September 2007, IBR approved for 

§ 431.96. 

(4) AHRI Standard 390–2003, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package 

Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat 

Pumps,’’ approved December 2003, IBR 

approved for § 431.96. 

(5) AHRI Standard 1230–2010, 

‘‘Performance Rating of Variable 

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

Equipment,’’ approved August 2, 2010 

and updated by addendum 1 in March 

2011, IBR approved for § 431.96. 

(6) Reserved. 

(c) ASHRAE. American Society of 

Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie 

Circle NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404) 

636–8400, or go to http:// 

www.ashrae.org. 

(1) ASHRAE Standard 127–2007, 

‘‘Method of Testing for Rating Computer 

and Data Processing Room Unitary Air 

Conditioners,’’ approved on June 28, 

2007, IBR approved for § 431.96. 

(2) Reserved. 

(d) ISO. International Organization for 

Standardization, 1, ch. De la VoieCreuse, Case Postale 56, CH–1211 

Geneva 20, Switzerland, +41 22 749 01 

11 or http://www.iso.ch/. 

(1) ISO Standard 13256–1, ‘‘Watersource heat pumps—Testing and rating 

for performance—Part 1: Water-to-air 

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

1998, IBR approved for § 431.96. 

(2) Reserved. 

7. Section 431.96 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial air conditioners and heat 

pumps. 

(a) Scope. This section contains test 

procedures for measuring, pursuant to 

EPCA, the energy efficiency of any 

small, large, or very large commercial 

package air-conditioning and heating 

equipment, packaged terminal air 

conditioners and packaged terminal 

heat pumps, computer room air 

conditioners, and variable refrigerant 

flow systems. 

(b) Testing and calculations. 

Determine the energy efficiency of each 

covered product by conducting the test 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2427 

procedure(s) listed in the rightmost 

column of Table 1 of this section, that 

apply to the energy efficiency descriptor 

for that product, category, and cooling 

capacity. 

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

Product Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use tests, conditions and 

procedures 1 in 

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment.Air-Cooled, 3 

Phase, AC and 

HP.

<65,000 Btu/h ......... SEER and HSPF .... AHRI Standard 210/240–2008 

Air-Cooled AC and 

HP.

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ........ AHRI Standard 340/360–2004 

Water-Cooled and 

EvaporativelyCooled.

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

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

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

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

AHRI Standard 210/240–2008 

AHRI Standard 340/360–2004 

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

Large Commercial Packaged Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment.Air-Cooled AC and 

HP.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ........ AHRI Standard 340/360–2004 

Water-Cooled and 

EvaporativelyCooled AC.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

EER ........................ AHRI Standard 340/360–2004 

Very Large Commercial Packaged AirConditioning and Heating Equipment.Air-Cooled AC and 

HP.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER and COP ........ AHRI Standard 340/360–2004 

Water-Cooled and 

EvaporativelyCooled AC.

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

EER ........................ AHRI Standard 340/360–2004 

Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 

Heat Pumps.

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

Computer Room Air Conditioners ........... AC .......................... <760,000 Btu/h ....... SCOP ..................... ASHRAE Standard 127–2007 

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems.AC and HP ............. <760,000 Btu/h ....... EER and COP ........ AHRI Standard 1230–2010 

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners 

and Single Package Vertical Heat 

Pumps.

AC and HP ............. <760,000 Btu/h ....... EER and COP ........ AHRI Standard 390–2003 

1 Incorporated by reference, see § 431.95. 

(c) Optional break-in period for tests 

conducted using AHRI 210/240–2008, 

AHRI 340/360–2004, AHRI 1230–2010, 

and AHRI 390–2003. Manufacturers 

may optionally specify a ‘‘break-in’’ 

period, not to exceed 16 hours, to 

operate the equipment under test prior 

to conducting the test method specified 

by AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 340/360– 

2004, AHRI 1230–2010, or AHRI 390– 

2003. 

8. Section 431.97 is revised to read as 

follows: 

§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and 

their compliance dates. 

(a) Each commercial air conditioner or 

heat pump (not including single 

package vertical air conditioners and 

single package vertical heat pumps, 

packaged terminal air conditioners and 

packaged terminal heat pumps, 

computer room air conditioners, and 

variable refrigerant flow systems) 

manufactured on or after the 

compliance date listed in the 

corresponding table must meet the 

applicable minimum energy efficiency 

standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1, 2, 

and 3 of this section. 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

(NOT INCLUDING SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS, 

PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS, COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AND VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS) 

Product Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured 

on and after 

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 16, 2008. 

June 16, 2008. 

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <135,000 

Btu/h.

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.2 ......... January 1, 2010. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2428 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

(NOT INCLUDING SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS, 

PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS, COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AND VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS)—Continued 

Product Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured 

on and after 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 11.0 ......... January 1, 2010. 

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.0 ......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 10.8 ......... January 1, 2010. 

Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h.

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.0 ......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 10.8 ......... January 1, 2010. 

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 10.6 ......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 10.4 ......... January 1, 2010. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged 

Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 10.0 ......... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 9.8 ........... January 1, 2010. 

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 9.5 ........... January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 9.3 ........... January 1, 2010. 

Small Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Water-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, and WaterSource).

<17,000 Btu/h ..... AC ....................... All ........................ EER = 12.1 ......... October 29, 2003. 

HP ....................... All ........................ EER = 11.2 ......... October 29, 2003. 

≥17,000 Btu/h 

and <65,000 

Btu/h.

AC ....................... All ........................ EER = 12.1 ......... October 29, 2003. 

HP ....................... All ........................ EER = 12.0 ......... October 29, 2003. 

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <135,000 

Btu/h.

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.5 ......... October 29, 2003 1. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 11.3 ......... October 29, 20031. 

HP ....................... All ........................ EER = 12.0 ......... October 29, 2003 1. 

Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Water-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, and WaterSource).

≥135,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h.

AC ....................... All ........................ EER = 11.0 ......... October 29, 2004 2. 

HP ....................... All ........................ EER = 11.0 ......... October 29, 2004 2. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged 

Air Conditioning and Heating 

Equipment (Water-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, and WaterSource).

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h.

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.0 ......... January 10, 2011 2. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 10.8 ......... January 10, 2011 2. 

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

Electric Resistance Heating.

EER = 11.0 ......... January 10, 2011 2. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2429 

TABLE 1 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

(NOT INCLUDING SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS, 

PACKAGED TERMINAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND PACKAGED TERMINAL HEAT PUMPS, COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS, AND VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS)—Continued 

Product Cooling capacity Sub-category Heating type Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured 

on and after 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 10.8 ......... January 10, 2011 2. 

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

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

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

(HEAT PUMPS) 

Product Cooling capacity Efficiency level Compliance date: Products 

manufactured on and after 

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled, 3 Phase).

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

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

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

Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

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

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning 

and Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

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

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and 

Heating Equipment (Water-Source).

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

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

EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

Product Cooling capacity Heating type Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured on 

and after 

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (WaterCooled).≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

EER = 12.1 .............. June 1, 2013. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 11.9 .............. June 1, 2013. 

Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (WaterCooled).≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

EER = 12.5 .............. June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 12.3 .............. June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Water-Cooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

EER = 12.4 .............. June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 12.2 .............. June 1, 2014. 

Small Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

EER = 12.1 .............. June 1, 2013. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 11.9 .............. June 1, 2013. 

Large Commercial Packaged Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment (Evaporatively-Cooled).≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

EER = 12.0 .............. June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 11.8 .............. June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Commercial Packaged Air 

Conditioning and Heating Equipment 

(Evaporatively-Cooled).

≥240,000 Btu/h and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

EER = 11.9 .............. June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

EER = 11.7 .............. June 1, 2014. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2430 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(b) Each packaged terminal air 

conditioner (PTAC) and packaged 

terminal heat pump (PTHP) 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

1994, and before October 8, 2012 (for 

standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and 

before October 7, 2010 (for non-standard 

size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the 

applicable minimum energy efficiency 

standard level(s) set forth in Table 4 of 

this section. Each PTAC and PTHP 

manufactured on or after October 8, 

2012 (for standard size PTACs and 

PTHPs) and on or after October 7, 2010 

(for non-standard size PTACs and 

PTHPs) must meet the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency standard 

level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this 

section. 

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

Product Cooling capacity Efficiency level 

Compliance date: Products 

manufactured on and after 

* * * 

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

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

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

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

COP = 2.72 

January 1, 1994. 

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

COP = 1.3 + (0.16 × EER) 2

January 1, 1994. 

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

COP = 2.52 .................................................

January 1, 1994. 

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

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

Product Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level Compliance date: Products manufactured 

on and after * * * 

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

≥7,000 Btu/h and 

<15,000 Btu/h.

EER = 13.8¥(0.3 × Cap 1) ..... October 8, 2012. 

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

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

≥7,000 Btu/h and 

<15,000 Btu/h.

EER = 10.9¥(0.213 × Cap 1) October 7, 2010. 

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

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

COP = 3.3 

October 8, 2012. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and 

<15,000 Btu/h.

EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1) .....

COP = 3.7¥(0.052 × Cap 1) 

October 8, 2012. 

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

COP = 2.9 

October 8, 2012. 

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

COP = 2.7 

October 7, 2010. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and 

<15,000 Btu/h.

EER = 10.8¥(0.213 × Cap 1)

COP = 2.9¥(0.026 × Cap 1) 

October 7, 2010. 

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

COP = 2.5 

October 7, 2010. 

1 Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

(c) Each single package vertical air 

conditioner and heat pump 

manufactured on or after January 1, 

2010, must meet the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency standard 

level(s) set forth in this section. 

TABLE 6 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND

SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS

Product Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured on 

and after * * * 

Single package vertical air conditioners and 

single package vertical heat pumps, singlephase and three-phase.

<65,000 Btu/h ............. AC ................ EER = 9.0 ................... January 1, 2010. 

HP ................ EER = 9.0 ...................

COP = 3.0 

January 1, 2010. 

Single package vertical air conditioners and 

single package vertical heat pumps.

≥65,000 Btu/h and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

AC ................ EER = 8.9 ................... January 1, 2010. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2431 

TABLE 6 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND

SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS—Continued 

Product Cooling capacity Sub-category Efficiency level 

Compliance date: 

Products manufactured on 

and after * * * 

HP ................ EER = 8.9 ...................

COP = 3.0 

January 1, 2010. 

Single package vertical air conditioners and 

single package vertical heat pumps.

≥135,000 Btu/h and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

AC ................ EER = 8.6 ................... January 1, 2010. 

HP ................ EER = 8.6 ...................

COP = 2.9 

January 1, 2010. 

(d) Each computer room air 

conditioner with a net sensible cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h 

manufactured on or after October 29, 

2012, and each computer room air 

conditioner with a net sensible cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 

Btu/h manufactured on or after October 

29, 2013, must meet the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency standard 

level(s) set forth in this section. 

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

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum SCOP efficiency 

Compliance date: Products 

Downflow manufactured on and after 

unit Upflow unit 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled ........ <65,000 Btu/h ......................... 2.20 2.09 October 29, 2012. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

1.90 1.79 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled ... <65,000 Btu/h ......................... 2.60 2.49 October 29, 2012. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.50 2.39 October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

2.40 2.29 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled 

with a Fluid Economizer.

<65,000 Btu/h ......................... 2.55 2.44 October 29, 2012. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.45 2.34 October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

2.35 2.24 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled ... <65,000 Btu/h ......................... 2.50 2.39 October 29, 2012. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.15 2.04 October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

Computer Room Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled 

with a Fluid Economizer.

<65,000 Btu/h ......................... 2.45 2.34 October 29, 2012. 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.10 1.99 October 29, 2013. 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

2.05 1.94 October 29, 2013. 

(e) Each variable refrigerant flow air 

conditioner or heat pump manufactured 

on or after the effective date listed in 

this table must meet the applicable 

minimum energy efficiency standard 

level(s) set forth in this section. 

TABLE 8 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR

CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS

Product Cooling capacity Heating type 1 Efficiency level Compliance date: Products 

manufactured and after 

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (AirCooled).<65,000 Btu/h .......... All ............................. 13.0 SEER ............... June 16, 2008. 

≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.2 EER ................. January 1, 2010. 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
2432 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 8 TO § 431.97—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR

CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued 

Product Cooling capacity Heating type 1 Efficiency level Compliance date: Products 

manufactured and after 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

11.0 EER ................. January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.0 EER ................. January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

10.8 EER ................. January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.0 EER ................. January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

9.8 EER ................... January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) .. <65,000 Btu/h .......... All ............................. 13.0 SEER ...............

7.7 HSPF 

June 16, 2008. 

≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

11.0 EER .................

3.3 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

10.8 EER .................

3.3 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

≥135,000 and 

<240,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

10.6 EER .................

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

10.4 EER .................

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

≥240,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

No Heating or Electric Resistance 

Heating.

9.5 EER ...................

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

All Other Types of 

Heating.

9.3 EER ...................

3.2 COP 

January 1, 2010. 

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (WaterSource).<17,000 Btu/h .......... Without heat recovery.12.0 EER ................. October 29, 2012. 

4.2 COP ................... October 29, 2003. 

With heat recovery .. 11.8 EER ................. October 29, 2012. 

4.2 COP ................... October 29, 2003. 

≥17,000 and 

<65,000 Btu/h.

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

4.2 COP 

October 29, 2003. 

≥65,000 and 

<135,000 Btu/h.

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

4.2 COP 

October 29, 2003. 

≥135,000 and 

<760,000 Btu/h.

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

3.9 COP 

October 29, 2013. 

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

3.9 COP 

October 29, 2013. 

1VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have 

electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’ 

9. Add a new section 431.104 to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.104 Sources for information and 

guidance. 

(a) General. The standards listed in 

this paragraph are referred to in the DOE 

test procedures and elsewhere in this 

part but are not incorporated by 

reference. These sources are given here 

for information and guidance. 

(b) ASTM. American Society for 

Testing and Materials, 100 Barr Harbor 

Drive, PO Box C700, West 

Conshohocken, PA, 19438–2959, 1 (877) 

909–2786, or go to http://www.astm.org/ 

index.shtml. 

(1) ASTM Standard Test Method 

C177–97, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements 

and Thermal Transmission Properties 

by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate 

Apparatus.’’ 

(2) ASTM Standard Test Method 

C518–91, ‘‘Standard Test Method for 

Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements 

and Thermal Transmission Properties 

by Means of the Heat Flow Meter 

Apparatus.’’ 

(3) ASTM Standard Test Method 

D2156–80, ‘‘Method for Smoke Density 

in Flue Gases from Burning Distillate 

Fuels.’’ 

10. Section 431.105 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.105 Materials incorporated by 

reference. 

(a) General. DOE incorporates by 

reference the following test procedures 

into subpart G of part 431. The materials 

listed have been approved for 

incorporation by reference by the 

Director of the Federal Register in 

accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 

1 CFR part 51. Any subsequent 

amendment to the listed materials by 

the standard-setting organization will 

not affect the DOE regulations unless 

and until amended by DOE. Materials 

are incorporated as they exist on the 

date of the approval and a notice of any 

change in the materials will be 

published in the Federal Register. All 

approved materials are available for 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 10 / Tuesday, January 17, 2012 / Proposed Rules 2433 

inspection at the National Archives and 

Records Administration (NARA). For 

information on the availability of this 

material at NARA, call (202) 741–6030, 

or go to http://www.archives.gov/

federal_register/code_of_

federalregulations/ibr_locations.html. 

Also, this material is available for 

inspection at U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Program, 6th Floor, 950 

L’Enfant Plaza SW., Washington, DC 

20024, (202) 586–2945, or go to: 

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

appliance_standards/. The referenced 

test procedure standards are listed 

below by relevant standard-setting 

organization, along with information on 

how to obtain copies from those 

sources. 

(b) ANSI. American National 

Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 

4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 

642–4900, or go to http://www.ansi.org. 

(1) ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, CSA 4.3– 

2004, Sections 2.1.7, 2.3.3, 2.3.4, 2.30, 

Figure 3, and Exhibit G, Volume III, 

‘‘Storage Water Heaters With Input 

Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, 

Circulating and Instantaneous,’’ 

approved on July 2, 2004, IBR approved 

for § 431.106. 

(2) Reserved. 

11. Section 431.106 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 431.106 Uniform test method for the 

measurement of energy efficiency of 

commercial water heaters and hot water 

supply boilers (other than commercial heat 

pump water heaters). 

(a) Scope. This section covers the test 

procedures you must follow if, pursuant 

to EPCA, you are measuring the thermal 

efficiency or standby loss, or both, of a 

storage or instantaneous water heater or 

hot water supply boiler (other than a 

commercial heat pump water heater). 

(b) Testing and Calculations. 

Determine the energy efficiency of each 

covered product by conducting the test 

procedure(s), set forth in the two 

rightmost columns of the following 

table, that apply to the energy efficiency 

descriptor(s) for that product: 

Product Energy efficiency 

descriptor 

Use test setup, equipment and 

procedures in subsection labeled 

‘‘Method of Test’’ of 

With these additional stipulations 

Gas-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water 

Heaters and Hot Water 

Supply Boilers.* 

Oil-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water 

Heaters and Hot Water 

Supply Boilers.* 

Electric Storage and instantaneous Water 

Heaters 

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

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

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

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

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

ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G1 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G2 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G1 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G2 

ANSI Z21.10.3–2004, Exhibit G2 

A. For all products, the duration of the standby loss 

test shall be until whichever of the following occurs first after you begin to measure the fuel and/ 

or electric consumption: (1) The first cutout after 

24 hours or (2) 48 hours, if the water heater is not 

in the heating mode at that time. 

B. For oil and gas products, the standby loss in Btu 

per hour must be calculated as follows: SL (Btu 

per hour) = S (% per hour) × 8.25 (Btu/gal-F) × 

Measured Volume (gal) × 70 (degrees F). 

C. For oil-fired products, apply the following in conducting the thermal efficiency and standby loss 

tests: (1) Venting Requirements—Connect a 

vertical length of flue pipe to the flue gas outlet of 

sufficient height so as to meet the minimum draft 

specified by the manufacturer. (2) Oil Supply—Adjust the burner rate so that: (a) The hourly Btu 

input rate lies within ± 2 percent of the manufacturer’s specified input rate, (b) the CO2 reading 

shows the value specified by the manufacturer, (c) 

smoke in the flue does not exceed No. 1 smoke 

as measured by the procedure in ASTM–D–2156– 

80, and (d) fuel pump pressure lies within ±10 percent of manufacturer’s specifications. 

D. For electric products, apply the following in conducting the standby loss test: 

(1) Assume that the thermal efficiency (Et) of electric 

water heaters with immersed heating elements is 

98 percent. 

(2) Maintain the electrical supply voltage to within ± 5 

percent of the center of the voltage range specified on the water heater nameplate. 

(3) If the set up includes multiple adjustable thermostats, set the highest one first to yield a maximum 

water temperature in the specified range as measured by the topmost tank thermocouple. Then set 

the lower thermostat(s) to yield a maximum mean 

tank temperature within the specified range. 

* As to hot water supply boilers with a capacity of less than 10 gallons, these test methods become mandatory on October 21, 2005. Prior to 

that time, you may use for these products either (1) these test methods if you rate the product for thermal efficiency, or (2) the test methods in 

Subpart E if you rate the product for combustion efficiency as a commercial packaged boiler. 

** Incorporated by reference, see § 431.105. 

[FR Doc. 2012–327 Filed 1–13–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2