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

Federal RegisterMay 16, 2012

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029]

RIN 1904-AC47

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

AGENCY:

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

ACTION:

Final rule.

SUMMARY:

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

DATES:

This rule is effective July 16, 2012.

Compliance Dates:

See Table 1 of section II.C of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this final rule for the compliance dates associated with the new/amended test procedures, the new/amended energy conservation standards, and the representation requirements by equipment type.

The incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this rule was approved by the Director of the Federal Register on July 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES:

The docket for this rulemaking is available for review at

www.regulations.gov,

including

Federal Register

notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials. All documents in the docket are listed in the

www.regulations.gov

index. However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.

A link to the docket Web page can be found at:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;dct=FR%252BPR%252BN%252BO%252BSR%252BPS;rpp=25;po=0;D=EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029.

The

www.regulations.gov

Web page contains simple instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.

For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:

Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Mohammed Khan, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Mailstop EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7892. Email:

Mohammed.Khan@ee.doe.gov.

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-71, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9507. Email:

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

This final rule incorporates by reference into part 431 the following standards:

• American National Standards Institute Z21.47-2006 (ANSI Z21.47-2006), “

Gas-Fired Central Furnaces,

” approved on July 27, 2006.

• American National Standards Institute Z21.10.3-2011, (ANSI Z21.10.3-2011), “

Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters With Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous,

” approved on March 7, 2011.

Copies of ANSI Z21.47-2006 and ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 can be obtained from the American National Standards Institute, 25 W. 43rd Street, 4th Floor, New York, NY 10036, (212) 642-4900, or go to

http://www.ansi.org.

• Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 210/240-2008 (AHRI 210/240-2008), “

Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,

” approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in June 2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012.

• Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 340/360-2007 (AHRI 340/360-2007), “

Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,

” approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 2011.

• Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 390-2003 (AHRI 390-2003), dated 2003, “

Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps.

”

• Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute Standard 1230-2010 (AHRI 1230-2010), “

Performance Rating of Variable Refrigerant Flow (VRF) Multi-Split Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,

” approved by ANSI on August 2, 2010 and updated by addendum 1 in March 2011.

Copies of AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 390-2003, and AHRI 1230-2010 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to

http://www.ahrinet.org.

• American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 127-2007, (ASHRAE 127-2007), “

Method of Testing for Rating Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air

Conditioners,

” approved on June 28, 2007

Copies of ASHRAE 127-2007 can be obtained from American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle, NE., Atlanta, Georgia 30329, (404) 636-8400, or go to

http://www.ashrae.org.

• Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. Standard 727-2006 (UL 727-2006), “

Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces,

” approved April 7, 2006.

Copies of UL 727-2006 can be obtained from Underwriters Laboratories, Inc., 333 Pfingsten Road, Northbrook, IL 60062, (847) 272-8800, or go to

http://www.ul.com.

Table of Contents

I. Summary of the Final Rule

II. Introduction

A. Authority

B. Background

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010

2. Previous Rulemaking Documents

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

III. General Discussion of Comments Received

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

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

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

D. The Proposed Energy Conservation Standards

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

F. Definitions for Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems

IV. Test Procedure Amendments and Discussion of Related Comments

A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

B. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters

C. Computer Room Air Conditioners

D. Variable Refrigerant Flow Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

E. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

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

A. Market Assessment

1. Definition of “Computer Room Air Conditioner”

2. Equipment Classes

3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners

a. Trade Association Information

b. Manufacturer Information

c. Market Data

B. Engineering Analysis

1. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis

2. Baseline Equipment

3. Identification of Efficiency Information and Efficiency Levels for Analysis

4. Pricing Data

5. Equipment Classes for Analysis and Extrapolation to Unanalyzed Equipment Classes

6. Engineering Analysis Results

C. Markups To Determine Equipment Price

D. Energy Use Characterization

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analyses

1. Approach

2. Life-Cycle Cost Inputs

a. Equipment Prices

b. Installation Costs

c. Annual Energy Use

d. Electricity Prices

e. Maintenance Costs

f. Repair Costs

g. Equipment Lifetime

h. Discount Rate

3. Payback Period

F. National Impact Analysis

1. Approach

2. Shipments Analysis

3. Base-Case and Standards-Case Forecasted Distribution of Efficiencies

G. Emissions Analysis

H. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide and Other Emissions Impacts

1. Social Cost of Carbon

a. Monetizing Carbon Dioxide Emissions

b. Social Cost of Carbon Values Used in Past Regulatory Analyses

c. Current Approach and Key Assumptions

2. Valuation of Other Emissions Reductions

I. Other Issues

1. Compliance Dates of the Amended and New Energy Conservation Standards

VI. Analytical Results

A. Efficiency Levels Analyzed

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners

B. Energy Savings and Economic Justification

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners

a. Economic Impacts on Commercial Customers

b. National Impact Analysis

C. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy

D. Amended and New Energy Conservation Standards

1. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

2. VRF Water-Source Heat Pumps

3. Computer Room Air Conditioners

VII. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

M. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review

N. Congressional Notification

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA) (42 U.S.C. 6291

et seq.

), as amended, requires DOE to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for certain types of listed commercial and industrial equipment (generally, commercial water heaters, commercial packaged boilers, commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment, and packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps) each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1,

Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,

is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended,

DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the efficiency levels specified in the

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) ASHRAE officially released ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 on October 29, 2010, thereby triggering DOE's above-referenced obligations pursuant to EPCA to determine for those equipment with efficiency level changes beyond the current Federal standard, whether: (1) The amended industry standard should be adopted; or (2) clear and convincing evidence exists to justify more-stringent standard levels.

Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on March 7, 2007 (hereafter referred to as the “March 2007 final rule”). 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type.

Id.

at 10042. In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). DOE subsequently reiterated this position in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on July 22, 2009. 74 FR 36312, 36313.

DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking on January 17, 2012 (January 2012 NOPR), in the

Federal Register

describing DOE's determination of scope for considering new and amended energy conservation standards with respect to certain heating, ventilating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment addressed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 77 FR 2356, 2366-79. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 amended its efficiency levels for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners and variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity less than 17,000 Btu/h, and adopted new efficiency levels for variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h,with and without heat recovery. In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 expanded its scope to include certain process cooling equipment, namely “air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms” (hereafter referred to as “computer room air conditioners”). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test procedures for several equipment types.

In determining the scope of the rulemaking, DOE is statutorily required to ascertain whether the revised ASHRAE efficiency levels have become more stringent than the current Federal energy conservation standard, thereby ensuring that any new amended national standard would not result in “backsliding,” which is prohibited under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1). For those equipment classes for which ASHRAE set more-stringent or new efficiency levels (

i.e.,

small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners), DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of amended national energy conservation standards (at both the new ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels and more-stringent efficiency levels) in the May 5, 2011 notice of data availability (NODA) (76 FR 25622) and the January 17, 2012 NOPR (77 FR 2356). For equipment where more-stringent standard levels than the ASHRAE efficiency levels would result in significant energy savings (

i.e.,

computer room air conditioners), DOE analyzed the economic justification for more-stringent levels in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2382-98 (Jan. 17, 2012).

The energy conservation standards being adopted in today's final rule, which apply to small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners, satisfy all applicable requirements of EPCA and will achieve the maximum improvements in energy efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A)) DOE has concluded that, based on the information presented and its analyses, there is not clear and convincing evidence justifying adoption of more-stringent efficiency levels for this equipment.

Thus, in accordance with the criteria discussed in this notice, DOE is amending the energy conservation standards (or for certain equipment adopting new standards) for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps with a cooling capacity either less than 17,000 Btu/h or equal to or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners by adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Pursuant to EPCA, the compliance date for amended energy conservation standards based upon the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is either two or three years after the effective date of the requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard, depending on the type and size of the equipment. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) In the present case, the amended standards apply to equipment manufactured on and after the date either 2 or 3 years after the effective date specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, depending on the type of equipment. Table I.1 presents the energy conservation standards that DOE is adopting in today's final rule and their respective compliance dates.

Table I.1—Current and Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Certain ASHRAE Equipment

Equipment class

Current Federal energy

conservation

standard

Amended or new Federal energy conservation standard

Compliance date of amended/new Federal energy conservation standard

Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Water-Cooled

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.5 EER

12.1 EER

6/1/2013

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

11.3 EER

11.9 EER

6/1/2013

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

12.5 EER

6/1/2014

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

11.0 EER

12.3 EER

6/1/2014

Water-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

12.4 EER

6/1/2014

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

10.8 EER

12.2 EER

6/1/2014

Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment—Evaporatively-Cooled

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.5 EER

12.1 EER

6/1/2013

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

11.3 EER

11.9 EER

6/1/2013

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

12.0 EER

6/1/2014

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

11.0 EER

11.8 EER

6/1/2014

Evaporatively-cooled Air Conditioner, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h, Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating

11.0 EER

11.9 EER

6/1/2014

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

10.8 EER

11.7 EER

6/1/2014

Variable Refrigerant Flow Water-Source Heat Pumps

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

11.2 EER

12.0 EER, 4.2 COP

10/29/2012

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

11.2 EER

11.8 EER, 4.2 COP

10/29/2012

VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 and <760,000 Btu/h, without heat recovery

N/A

10.0 EER, 3.9 COP

10/29/2013

VRF Mulit-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥135,000 and <760,000 Btu/h, with heat recovery

N/A

9.8 EER, 3.9 COP

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioners

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

N/A

2.20 SCOP (downflow), 2.09 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2012

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.10 SCOP (downflow), 1.99 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

N/A

1.90 SCOP (downflow), 1.79 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

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

N/A

2.60 SCOP (downflow), 2.49 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2012

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.50 SCOP (downflow), 2.39 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.40 SCOP (downflow), 2.29 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled with fluid economizer, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.55 SCOP (downflow), 2.44 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2012

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.45 SCOP (downflow), 2.34 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, water-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.35 SCOP (downflow), 2.24 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

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

N/A

2.50 SCOP (downflow), 2.39 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2012

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.15 SCOP (downflow), 2.04 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.10 SCOP (downflow), 1.99 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, <65,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.45 SCOP (downflow), 2.34 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2012

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.10 SCOP (downflow), 1.99 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, glycol-cooled with fluid economizer, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

N/A

2.05 SCOP (downflow), 1.94 SCOP (upflow)

10/29/2013

In addition, DOE is adopting amendments to its test procedures for a number of ASHRAE equipment types, which manufacturers will be required to use to certify compliance with energy conservation standards mandated under EPCA.

See

42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4) and 10 CFR parts 429 and 431. Specifically, these amendments, which were proposed in the January 2012 NOPR, update the citations and incorporations by reference to the most recent version of the following industry standards: (1) AHRI 210/240-2008 (Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment); (2) AHRI 340/360-2007 (Performance Rating of Unitary Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment); (3) UL 727-2006 (Standard for Safety for Oil-Fired Central Furnaces); (4) ANSI Z21.47-2006 (Standard for Gas-Fired Central Furnaces); and (5) ANSI Z21.10.3-2011

(Gas Water Heaters, Volume III, Storage Water Heaters with Input Ratings Above 75,000 Btu Per Hour, Circulating and Instantaneous). DOE is also adopting three new test procedures for VRF equipment (AHRI 1230-2010), computer room air conditioners (ASHRAE 127-2007), and single package vertical units (AHRI 390-2003). In addition to harmonizing the test procedures with the latest versions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE also reviewed each of these test procedures in their totality as part of DOE's seven-year review required by EPCA. DOE is including several additional provisions in its test procedures based on a review of AHRI operations manuals. The additional provisions include an optional “break-in” period for testing for commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment, which was proposed in the January 2012 NOPR (77 FR 2356, 2374 and 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012)), as well as provisions for setting up the equipment (determining refrigerant charge and indoor air flow quantity), allowing for manufacturer involvement and for the use of correction factors for refrigerant line length in VRF testing, which were proposed in DOE's March 2012 supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNOPR). 77 FR 16769, 16777-79 (March 22, 2012).

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

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

Title III, Part C

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.

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).

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

All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, Public Law 110-140.

EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks.

Id.

In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 24, 1992 (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a). The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007) amended EPCA by adding definitions and setting minimum energy conservation standards for single-package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and single-package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)) The efficiency standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs established by EISA 2007 correspond to the levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004, which originated as addendum “d” to ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2001.

In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for each type of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must publish in the

Federal Register

an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards within 180 days of the amendment of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) EPCA further directs that DOE must adopt amended standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-stringent level would produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is justified under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II), then it must establish such more-stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) (In addition, DOE notes that pursuant to the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), the agency must periodically review its already-established energy conservation standards for ASHRAE equipment. Under this requirement, the next review that DOE would need to conduct must occur no later than six years from the issuance of a final rule establishing or amending a standard for a covered type of equipment.)

EISA 2007 also amended EPCA to require that DOE review the most recently published ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (

i.e.,

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010) with respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance with the procedures established for ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C.

6313(a)(10)(B)) However, DOE believes that this one-time requirement is separate and independent from the requirement described in the paragraph above for all ASHRAE products and that it requires DOE to evaluate potential standards higher than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 level for single-package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, even if the efficiency levels for SPVACs and SPVHPs have not changed since the last version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1.

DOE is conducting a separate rulemaking to further evaluate the efficiency levels for this equipment class.

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

EPCA also requires that if a test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is updated, DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended test procedure in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated operating costs of the ASHRAE equipment during a representative average use cycle. In addition, DOE must determine that the amended test procedure is not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (4))

Additionally, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007; Pub. L. 110-140) amended EPCA to require that at least once every 7 years, DOE must conduct an evaluation of each test procedure for any covered equipment and either amend the test procedure (if the Secretary determines that the amended test procedure would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish notice in the

Federal Register

of any determination not to amend a test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) Under this requirement, DOE must review each test procedure for the various types of ASHRAE equipment not later than December 19, 2014 (

i.e.,

7 years after the enactment of EISA 2007). Thus, the final rule resulting from this rulemaking will satisfy the requirement to review the test procedures for the certain types of ASHRAE equipment addressed in this rulemaking (

i.e.,

those equipment for which DOE has been triggered) within seven years.

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE officially released and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. This action triggered DOE's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), as outlined above.

When considering the possibility of a more-stringent standard, DOE's more typical rulemaking requirements under EPCA apply (

i.e.,

a determination of technological feasibility, economic justification, and significant energy savings). For example, EPCA provides that in deciding whether such a standard is economically justified, DOE must determine, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:

(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and consumers of the products subject to the standard;

(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average life of the product in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses of the products likely to result from the standard;

(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result directly from the standard;

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products likely to result from the standard;

(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the standard;

(6) The need for national energy conservation; and

(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.

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

EPCA, as codified, also contains what is known as an “anti-backsliding” provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence that such standard would likely result in the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as those generally available in the United States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))

Further, EPCA, as codified, establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(a))

Additionally, when a type or class of covered equipment such as ASHRAE equipment, has two or more subcategories, DOE often specifies more than one standard level. DOE generally will adopt a different standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class of products for any group of covered products that have the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other products within such type (or class) do not have and which justifies a higher or lower standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a)) In determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different standard for a group of products, DOE generally considers such factors as the utility to the consumer of the feature and other factors DOE deems appropriate. In a rule prescribing such a standard, DOE includes an explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was established. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2); 6316(a)) DOE followed a similar process in the context of today's rulemaking.

DOE has also reviewed this regulation pursuant to Executive Order 13563, issued on January 18, 2011 (76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011)). Executive Order 13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by Executive Order 13563 to: (1) Propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other

advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public.

DOE emphasizes as well that Executive Order 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE believes that today's final rule is consistent with these principles, including the requirement that, to the extent permitted by law, benefits justify costs and that net benefits are maximized.

Consistent with Executive Order 13563, and the range of impacts analyzed in this rulemaking, the energy efficiency standard adopted herein by DOE achieves maximum net benefits.

B. Background

1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010

As noted above, ASHRAE released a new version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on October 29, 2010. The ASHRAE standard addresses efficiency levels for many types of commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC), and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 revised its efficiency levels for certain commercial equipment and revised its scope to include additional equipment, but for the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left in place the preexisting levels (

i.e.,

the efficiency levels specified in EPCA or the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007). Specifically, DOE determined in the January 2012 NOPR that ASHRAE updated its efficiency levels for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; and VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 also revised its scope to include certain commercial equipment used for industrial and process cooling, namely “air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms.” 77 FR 2356, 2361-63 (Jan. 17, 2012).

In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 updated the following referenced test procedures to the most recent version of the industry standards: AHRI 210/240-2008 (small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment); AHRI 340/360-2007 (large and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment); Underwriters Laboratories (UL) 727-2006 (oil-fired commercial warm-air furnaces); ANSI Z21.47-2006 (gas-fired commercial warm-air furnaces); and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004

(commercial water heaters). Lastly, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 specified new test procedures for certain equipment, including: ASHRAE 127-2007 (computer room air conditioners); and AHRI 1230-2010 (variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps).

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

2. Previous Rulemaking Documents

Subsequent to the release of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, DOE published a notice of data availability (NODA) in the

Federal Register

on May 5, 2011 (May 2011 NODA) and requested public comment as a preliminary step required pursuant to EPCA when DOE considers amended energy conservation standards for certain types of commercial equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 76 FR 25622. Specifically, in the May 2011 NODA, DOE presented a discussion of the changes found in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, which included a description of DOE's evaluation of each ASHRAE equipment type in order for DOE to determine whether the amendments in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 have increased efficiency levels.

Id.

at 25630-37. As an initial matter, DOE sought to determine which requirements for covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, if any, were revised solely to reflect the level of the current Federal energy conservation standard (where ASHRAE is merely “catching up” to the current national standard), were revised but lowered, were revised to include design requirements without changes to the efficiency level, or were revised to include any other revisions made that did not increase the standard level, in which case, DOE was not triggered to act under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) for that particular equipment type. For those types of equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for which ASHRAE actually increased efficiency levels above the current Federal standard (

i.e.,

water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners; two classes of VRF water-source heat pumps with and without heat recovery; and computer room air conditioners (which were not previously covered)), DOE subjected that equipment to the potential energy savings analysis for amended national energy conservation standards based on: (1) The modified efficiency levels contained within ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; and (2) more-stringent efficiency levels. DOE presented its methodology, data, and results for the preliminary energy savings analysis developed for the water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment classes in the May 2011 NODA for public comment.

Id.

at 25637-46. For the remaining equipment classes, DOE requested data and information that would allow it to accurately assess the energy savings potential of those equipment classes. Additionally, for single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, although the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 were unchanged, DOE performed an analysis of their potential energy savings as required by 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B). Lastly, DOE presented an initial assessment of the test procedure changes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010.

Id.

at 25644-47.

Following the NODA, DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking in the

Federal Register

on January 17, 2012 (the January 2012 NOPR), and requested public comment. 77 FR 2356. In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed amended energy conservation standards for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners; variable refrigerant flow (VRF) water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h; VRF water-source heat pumps at or greater than 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h; and new energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners. DOE presented its methodology, data, and results for its analysis of two classes of variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps and for its analysis of computer room air conditioners.

In addition, DOE's NOPR also proposed the adoption of amended test procedures for small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment; large and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment; commercial warm-air furnaces; and commercial water heaters. Furthermore, DOE proposed to adopt new test procedures

for variable refrigerant flow equipment, single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, and computer room air conditioners. Following the publication of the NOPR, DOE held a public meeting on February 14, 2012, to receive feedback from interested parties on its proposals and analyses.

At the public meeting, a variety of issues were discussed, including DOE's proposed definition for “computer room air conditioner,” DOE's proposed adoption of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 efficiency levels for computer room air conditioners and other equipment, and DOE's proposed adoption of the most recent industry test methods. In response to concerns raised at the public meeting regarding DOE's proposed definition of “computer room air conditioner” and recommendations to include in DOE's test procedures certain provisions in AHRI operations manuals, DOE published an SNOPR on March 22, 2012, which proposed a refined definition of “computer room air conditioner” and proposed to adopt several clarifications to its test procedures based on information found in AHRI operations manuals. 77 FR 16769.

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

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

Table 1—Compliance Dates for Amended/New Federal Test Procedures, Amended/New Federal Energy Conservation Standards, and Representations for Certain ASHRAE Equipment

Equipment class

Compliance with the amended/new test procedure is required on or after:

All representations of energy use/efficiency must be made using the amended test procedures on or after:

Compliance with the amended/new standard is required on or after:

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces

Gas-fired and Oil-fired Commercial Warm Air Furnaces

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

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

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

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

May 13, 2013

6/1/2013

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

May 13, 2013

6/1/2014

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

May 13, 2013

6/1/2014

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

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

May 13, 2013

6/1/2013

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

May 13, 2013

6/1/2014

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

May 13, 2013

6/1/2014

Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

May 13, 2013

N/A

Variable Refrigerant Flow Equipment *

VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, Air-Cooled, <760,000 Btu/h

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

October 29, 2012

May 13, 2013

10/29/2012

VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps, Water-source, ≥17,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h

May 13, 2013

N/A

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

May 13, 2013

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioners

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

October 29, 2012

May 13, 2013

10/29/2012

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled/water-cooled/water-cooled with fluid economizer/glycol-cooled, ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

May 13, 2013

10/29/2013

Computer Room Air Conditioner, air-cooled/water-cooled/water-cooled with fluid economizer/glycol-cooled, ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

May 13, 2013

10/29/2013

Single Package Vertical Units

Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

July 16, 2012

May 13, 2013

N/A

Commercial Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers

Gas-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers, Oil-fired Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers, and Electric Storage and Instantaneous Water Heaters

May 13, 2013

N/A

* For those basic models of variable refrigerant flow equipment currently being tested using a test procedure waiver, the methods prescribed by the test procedure waiver may continue to be used until the mandatory compliance date of the amended test procedure prescribed by this final rule.

III. General Discussion of Comments Received

In response to its request for comment on the January 2012 NOPR and March 2012 SNOPR, DOE received nine written comments from manufacturers, trade associations, utilities, and energy efficiency advocates. As discussed above, these comments are available in the docket for this rulemaking and are available for review by following the instructions in the

ADDRESSES

section. The following sections summarize the issues raised in these comments, along with DOE's responses.

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

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE reiterated its position about what constitutes an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, thereby triggering DOE review. 77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE maintained its position originally taken in the July 22, 2009 final rule for ASHRAE equipment (74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 22, 2009)) that the trigger to review the Federal standard levels for ASHRAE equipment is an increase in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level, and that other changes do not qualify as a trigger for review.

Id.

Further, DOE noted that because EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

on March 7, 2007. 72 FR 10038. In that rule, DOE stated that the statutory trigger requiring DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to change a standard for any of the equipment listed in EPCA section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) by increasing the energy efficiency level for that equipment type.

Id.

at 10042. DOE noted in the January 2012 NOPR that the section cited above refers to “the minimum level * * * specified in the amended ASHRAE standard,” which DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level. 77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012). Consequently, DOE did not review the standard levels for commercial warm-air furnaces because the incorporation of design requirements did not meet DOE's interpretation of an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that would trigger DOE action.

Id.

Earthjustice stated that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has amended levels for warm-air furnaces requiring incorporation of an interrupted or intermittent ignition device, a maximum level of jacket losses, and either power venting or a flue damper, and that this amendment triggers DOE to review the efficiency levels for commercial warm-air furnaces. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3) Earthjustice stated that DOE's reasoning for why no review of commercial warm-air furnaces is needed is flawed, because there is nothing in the language of EPCA that suggests that only amendments that alter a numeric performance metric trigger DOE's obligation for review. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3)

Earthjustice commented that in the NOPR, DOE's view that “the minimum level” only refers to the numeric value of an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 performance standard ignores the fact that EPCA frequently uses “level” and “standard” interchangeably. It stated that the language of section 342(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) shows that Congress meant for the total content of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 to serve as the baseline for DOE's amended standards, and not for any ASHRAE Standard 90.1 numeric performance metric alone to be definitive. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 4) Earthjustice also stated that EPCA uses the word “level” to characterize both performance standards and design requirements, arguing that section 342(a)(5) specifies “standard levels” for storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired water storage tanks, and includes under this heading design requirements for tank insulation and ignition devices. Earthjustice also stated that section 325(o)(2)(B)(iii) of EPCA provides that there is a rebuttable presumption that a “standard level” is justified if its costs to the consumer can be recouped in three years, and that DOE has applied this provision when evaluating design requirements for gas cooking products. Earthjustice commented that these other uses of “level” in EPCA indicates that Congress did not intend to withhold DOE's obligation to review the standards for warm-air furnaces when ASHRAE increases the stringency of Standard 90.1 while leaving the existing thermal efficiency level unchanged. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 4-5)

Earthjustice stated that even if DOE adopts the position that it cannot adopt the particular standards contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE still is

obligated to examine potential standards for warm-air furnaces. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3) Earthjustice also asserted that DOE's view that EPCA bars it from adopting standards that impose multiple metric requirements has been refuted in multiple analyses and is erroneous, and attached a memorandum on the central air conditioner rule as an example and justification of why multiple metrics are allowable. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 5) Earthjustice argued that DOE's refusal to grant any weight to the acceptance of multiple design requirements for warm-air furnaces into ASHRAE Standard 90.1 contrasts with the Department's recognition in the residential furnace rulemaking that consensus recommendations enabling the achievement of the congressional objectives underlying EPCA should be given special consideration when resolving ambiguities in the statutory language. The commenter stated that DOE has recognized in the NOPR that the “efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 are the result of a consensus process” (77 FR 2356, 2364 (Jan. 17, 2012)) and that “EPCA generally directs DOE to follow ASHRAE Standard 90.1 when it is amended” (77 FR 2356, 2372 (Jan. 17, 2012)). (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 5)

DOE does not agree with Earthjustice's assertion that DOE is required to review changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 that do not increase the efficiency level when compared to the current Federal energy conservation standards for a given type of equipment. As it did in the July 2009 final rule for ASHRAE products, DOE views the trigger as attached to an increased efficiency level. 74 FR 36312, 36320 (July 22, 2009). Further, as noted above, since EPCA does not explicitly define the term “amended” in the context of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE provided its interpretation of what would constitute an “amended standard” in a final rule published in the

Federal Register

Id.

at 10042. The section cited above refers to “the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1,” which DOE interprets as referring to an energy efficiency level.

If ASHRAE adds a prescriptive requirement for equipment where an efficiency level is already specified, DOE has concluded that it does not have the authority to use a dual descriptor for a single equipment type. Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), the Secretary has authority to amend the energy conservation standards for specified equipment, but under 42 U.S.C. 6311(18), the statute's definition of the term “energy conservation standard” is limited to: (A) A performance standard that prescribes a minimum level of energy efficiency or a maximum quantity of energy use for a product; or (B) a design requirement for a product.

The language of EPCA authorizes DOE to establish a performance standard or a single design standard. As such, DOE maintains its position stated in the July 2009 final rule that a standard that establishes both a performance standard and a design requirement is beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority, as would be a standard that included more than one design requirement. 74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22, 2009). In this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 recommends three design requirements, which goes beyond EPCA's limit of one design requirement for the specified covered equipment.

In summary, the statutory scheme envisions DOE being triggered by ASHRAE action which provides DOE with a regulatory choice between increased ASHRAE levels and even more stringent levels. If ASHRAE has not changed the standard level, the regulatory choice contemplated under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) cannot be made. Furthermore, DOE disagrees with the suggestion that Earthjustice's views on the issue of the ASHRAE trigger reflects the broad consensus of interested parties, thereby deserving special consideration; although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 may be the result of a consensus process, DOE believes Earthjustice's view does not represent a broad consensus position among all stakeholders, particularly among manufacturers. Moreover, in seeking greater deference for consensus recommendations, the commenter is alluding to a separate EPCA provision (codified at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)) in which Congress authorized publication of direct final rules upon DOE's receipt of a consensus agreement with recommended standards submitted by interested parties who are fairly representative of relevant points of view. However, that statutory provision is not applicable to the ASHRAE products at issue here. In light of the above, DOE maintains its position that if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers the standard, as compared to the level specified by the national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A).

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

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE noted that it plans to implement the six-year look back provision in EPCA prospectively and believes that the clock for the six-year look back does not commence until a final rule is published for a given product or equipment after the enactment of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). 77 FR 2356, 2365-66 (Jan. 17, 2012). For any type of ASHRAE equipment that has not been the subject of a final rule since the enactment of EISA 2007, review under the look back provision will not be required until after the next update of standards is completed following a trigger by updates to the corresponding ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels. After that point, if ASHRAE does not update standards within six years, DOE will be compelled to review the standards under the six-year look back provision.

Id.

ASAP and NRDC stated that DOE must consider updating standards for the ASHRAE products for which there was not a revision if DOE last set standards more than six years ago. The commenters referred to the Joint Comment on the NODA for the basis of the argument. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 35 at p. 1-2) Earthjustice also alleged that the NOPR failed to fulfill EPCA's legal mandates with respect to multiple products. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 1) Earthjustice stated that DOE's position that it has no authority to act pursuant to section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) to amend standards for ASHRAE equipment until ASHRAE first amends its own standards undermines the plain intent of Congress by insulating equipment from review, potentially in perpetuity. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2) Earthjustice stressed that “any final rule” in section 342(a)(6) includes all final rules for a covered product no matter when it was finalized. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2)

Earthjustice stated that Congress granted DOE the authority to proceed in the face of ASHRAE inaction through a provision added to EPCA by section 342(a)(6) of EPACT 2005, which gave DOE the ability to act on ASHRAE standards without a trigger. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), subsequently amended by EISA 2007) In the EISA 2007 amendments to EPCA, Earthjustice stated that Congress then directed DOE to review standards when ASHRAE left

them unaltered for too long. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Earthjustice asserted that the NOPR's reading of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6) rolls back the clock to 2004, leaving in limbo equipment as to which ASHRAE has been inattentive. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 2-3) Earthjustice expressed its view that DOE must abandon the NOPR's flawed rationale and commence a review of the standards for all products for which the existing standards are more than six years old. (Earthjustice, No. 34 at p. 3)

In response, DOE notes that it has determined previously that it plans to implement the six-year look back provision prospectively and believes that the clock for the six-year look back does not commence until a final rule is published for a given product or equipment after the enactment of EISA 2007 (which occurred on December 19, 2007). DOE does not believe it was Congress's intention to apply these requirements retroactively, so that DOE would immediately be in violation of its legal obligations upon passage of the statute, thereby failing from its inception.

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

As discussed above, before beginning an analysis of economic impacts and energy savings that would result from adopting the efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 or more-stringent efficiency levels, DOE first sought to determine whether the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal standard levels. DOE discussed each equipment class where these levels differ from the current Federal standard level, along with DOE's preliminary conclusion as to the action DOE would take with respect to that equipment in the January 2012 NOPR.

See

77 FR 2356, 2366-73 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE tentatively concluded from this analysis that the only efficiency levels that represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal standards were those for certain classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, VRF water-source heat pumps, and computer room air conditioners. For a more detailed discussion of this approach, readers should refer to the preamble to the January 2012 NOPR.

See Id.

DOE received two comments on this approach.

AHRI did not agree with DOE's conclusion that it cannot adopt separate minimum efficiency standards for three-phase Small Duct High-Velocity Heat Pumps. AHRI stated that these products are a unique subcategory of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment and that the removal of minimum efficiency standards for these products from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 was an error. Accordingly, AHRI recommended that DOE specify distinct minimum efficiency standards for these models. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2)

In response, DOE maintains its position as stated in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2370-71 (Jan. 17, 2012). More specifically, DOE notes that EPCA does not separate small-duct high-velocity (SDHV) heat pumps from other types of small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment in its definitions. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) Therefore, EPCA's definition of “small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” would include SDHV heat pumps. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) Furthermore, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 did not propose a higher standard for this equipment, and the minimum Federal efficiency standards for three-phase, less than 65,000 Btu/h small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, at 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF, are more stringent than the levels originally proposed for SDHV in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE cannot adopt lower efficiency levels due to the prohibition against “backsliding.” As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting the original ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007 SEER requirement for three-phase SDHVs as the Federal standard, and DOE has no requirement to consider higher levels for three-phase SDHV equipment.

Mitsubishi expressed its support for DOE's proposal to adopt the amended efficiency standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and especially for the two categories of VRF water-source heat pumps. However, Mitsubishi also recommended that DOE adopt the full range of capacities for both categories of VRF systems. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1)

In response, DOE reiterates its position as stated in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2368-69 (Jan. 17, 2012). The efficiency requirements in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for air-cooled VRF heat pumps with heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum energy conservation standards defined for air-cooled heat pumps with “all other heating system types that are integrated into the equipment,” and the efficiency requirements for air-cooled VRF heat pumps without heat recovery are equivalent to the Federal minimum standards for air-cooled heat pumps with electric resistance or no heating. The VRF systems with heat recovery specified by ASHRAE may also be provided with electric resistance heating systems as a back-up. For air-cooled VRF heat pump systems that have both electric resistance heating and heat recovery heating capability, the Department has concluded that these systems must meet the efficiency requirements contained in EPCA for small, large, and very large air-cooled central air-conditioning heat pumps with electric resistance heating, which are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9)) In addition, the Department has concluded that air-cooled VRF systems without electric resistance heating but with heat recovery can qualify as having an “other” means of heating, and that these systems must meet the efficiency requirements contained in EPCA for small, large, and very large air-cooled central air-conditioning heat pumps with other heating, which are codified at 10 CFR 431.97(b). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)-(9))

For water-source VRF heat pumps, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 generally maintains efficiency levels equivalent to the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standards for water-source heat pumps. DOE has decided that under the statutory scheme for commercial equipment standards, a water-source heat pump in which condenser heat is rejected to water, not air, is the corresponding existing product class for water-source VRF heat pumps. There are only two equipment classes for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 levels are not equivalent to the existing Federal minimum energy conservation standards: (1) For VRF water-source heat pumps under 17,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 raises the efficiency levels above current Federal energy conservation standards; (2) For VRF water-source heat pumps over 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE sets standards for products where DOE did not previously have standards.

In addition to the changes for the equipment classes discussed above, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 includes efficiency levels for VRF water-source heat pumps that provide for a 0.2 EER reduction in the efficiency requirement for systems with heat recovery. However, the current Federal minimum standards for water-source heat pumps do not provide for any reduction in the EER requirements for equipment with “other” heating types. Therefore, the 0.2

EER reduction below the current Federal standard levels for the VRF water-source heat pump equipment classes in which ASHRAE did not raise the standard from the existing Federal minimum for water-source heat pumps (

i.e.,

water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 17,000 Btu/h and less than 65,000 Btu/h and for water-source heat pumps with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h) would result in a decrease in stringency in comparison to current standards.

As such, DOE is prohibited from adopting an efficiency level lower than the current Federal standards for water-source heat pumps less than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity due to the “anti-backsliding” provision, regardless of the provision in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) providing for adoption of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels.

In summary, after considering the public comments, DOE has decided to retain its approach, as stated in the January 2012 NOPR, that the only efficiency levels that represented an increase in efficiency above the current Federal standards were those for certain classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps, VRF water-source heat pumps less than 17,000 Btu/h and at or above 135,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h in cooling capacity, and computer room air conditioners.

D. The Proposed Energy Conservation Standards

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps, and thirty classes of computer room air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2415-18 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE received several comments in response to its proposal.

EEI endorsed DOE's proposal to adopt the energy efficiency standards for the equipment that were updated and published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) AHRI and Mitsubishi supported DOE's adoption of the amended efficiency standards for small, large, and very large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and the two categories of variable refrigerant flow water-source heat pumps. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1; Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1) The Department of Justice (DOJ) concluded that the proposed standards are not likely to have an adverse effect on competition. (DOJ, No. 37 at p. 2) In reaching this conclusion, DOJ noted the absence of any competitive concerns raised by industry participants at the public meeting and that the proposed levels corresponded to the latest version of the relevant industry consensus standard.

Id.

Thus, for the reasons stated previously, in today's final rule, DOE is adopting efficiency levels at the levels published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for twelve classes of water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled air conditioners and four classes of VRF water-source heat pumps.

Regarding computer room air conditioners (CRACs), ASAP expressed concern that the levels set by DOE should not be weaker than the existing California energy conservation standards or lower than the levels for other commercial package air conditioners. (ASAP, NOPR Public Meeting Transcript at p. 78, 149) ASAP argued: (1) That significantly higher efficiency levels are technically feasible for CRACs; (2) that there are many models of CRACs on the market that exceed the levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010; and (3) that the potential energy savings associated with CRACs are significant and should be fully captured to the extent possible. (ASAP, NOPR Public Meeting Transcript at p. 132) ASAP and NRDC stated that DOE should evaluate whether greater cost-effective savings could be achieved through more-stringent standards for CRACs. These commenters suggested that the efficiency levels set by the California Energy Commission (CEC) may be higher than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for air-cooled CRACs. In particular, they urged DOE to further evaluate raising the standard for air-cooled CRACs ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240, 000 Btu/h and air-cooled CRACs ≥240,000 Btu/h, stating that according to DOE's analysis in the NOPR, efficiency level three for units at and above 65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h would be cost-effective and would save 0.20 quads, and that efficiency level four for units at and above 240,000 Btu/h would be cost-effective and would save 0.21 quads. (NRDC and ASAP, No. 35 at p. 2)

In response, DOE notes that the requirements for adopting Federal energy conservation standards for ASHRAE equipment are explicitly set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)) Of particular relevance here, DOE must determine if clear and convincing evidence exists that standards that are more stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would save a significant additional amount of energy and would be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE determined that more-stringent levels would save a significant amount of energy and are technologically feasible. 77 FR 2356, 2416-17 (Jan. 17, 2012). Accordingly, as required by EPCA, DOE undertook an analysis to examine the economic justification of more-stringent energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners. As explained in further detail in section VI.D.3 of this notice, due to the limited amount of data available regarding equipment cost and efficiency and shipments, and the resulting uncertainties in the economic analysis, DOE has concluded that it lacks clear and convincing evidence as would justify the adoption of more-stringent levels. In considering the comments from ASAP and NRDC, DOE examined the analysis leading to the adoption of the CEC computer room air conditioner standards. Upon reviewing the documentation of the CEC efficiency requirements, DOE did not discover any data or information that provided clear and convincing evidence that the levels set by the CEC were economically justified on a National level. Therefore, consistent with its earlier position, DOE has concluded that clear and convincing evidence does not exist that would allow the adoption of Federal energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners that are more stringent than the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. However, DOE anticipates that the adoption of CRAC energy conservation standards in today's final rule will lead to the generation of CRAC shipments data and other information that will be useful in considering more-stringent standards in DOE's next rulemaking related to computer room air conditioners.

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

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

determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts of the particular model in question, including how the model is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in buildings, the extent to which the equipment provides comfort conditioning to occupants, and how the equipment is designed and manufactured.

Id.

DOE requested comment on ways that manufacturers differentiate between equipment that is used solely for manufacturing and industrial processes and that used for comfort cooling in buildings.

In response, AHRI commented that manufacturers differentiate air conditioners used for manufacturing and industrial processing by: (1) Omission (by not rating the model to the Federal efficiency test procedure or not listing the model in the manufacturer's catalog of comfort cooling and heating products); (2) by incorporating special operation features which would not be appropriate for the purpose of comfort cooling or heating; or (3) by listing the equipment as complying with a safety standard specific for industrial uses and processes. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2) Carrier commented that it does not differentiate between commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment used in buildings versus those used solely for manufacturing and industrial processes. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3) Engineered Air stated that a unit for a single-focus, process-driven use should be exempt from standards, and the company provided the specific example of preconditioned air units that are used under jet bridges at airports to cool jet planes. (Engineered Air, No. 36 at p. 1)

DOE notes that none of the responses provide DOE with a set of feature(s) or characteristic(s) associated with the equipment, such as a physical characteristic or component, that would allow manufacturers and DOE to objectively and consistently differentiate between comfort-cooling equipment and equipment that is intended solely for industrial processes. But the comment responses, in particular Carrier's, point to the fact that some manufacturers use the same equipment to serve both markets. DOE believes the comment responses illustrate the importance for DOE to clearly explain the decision process for DOE and manufacturers to determine whether a given basic model is covered by DOE's regulatory program.

As mentioned in the March 2012 SNOPR, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 expanded the scope of its coverage as compared to previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 77 FR 16769, 16770 (March 22, 2012). Previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 did not apply to equipment and portions of building systems that use energy primarily to provide for industrial, manufacturing, or commercial processes (see ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2007, section 2.3(c)). As discussed in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE still believes it is ASHRAE's intent to continue to exclude most of those equipment types that are used for manufacturing and industrial processes, despite the fact that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 now applies to new equipment or building systems used in manufacturing or industrial processes that are specifically identified in the standard (

i.e.,

“air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms”).

Id.

at 16774. DOE did not receive any comments suggesting that ASHRAE intended a general, rather than limited, broadening of coverage regarding these types of equipment.

In order to aid regulated entities in determining whether their equipment falls within the scope of DOE's definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” and, thus, is subject to DOE's regulatory requirements, DOE is providing the following guidance. If the equipment meets the definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” in 10 CFR 431.92, is used exclusively for manufacturing and/or industrial processes, and is not listed as one of the equipment types specifically added to ASHRAE Standard 90.1's scope, then DOE does not consider such equipment to be covered under DOE's regulatory program. Manufacturers need to make this determination by comparing the characteristics of each basic model to DOE's regulatory definitions. Just like manufacturers, DOE will make this determination on a case-by-case basis after considering the facts of the particular basic model in question if questions arise regarding coverage. In making such determination, DOE will consider factors such as how the model is advertised, marketed, and/or sold for use in buildings, the extent to which the equipment provides comfort conditioning to occupants, and how the equipment is designed and manufactured. For equipment that is used in commercial or industrial buildings, that has a design similar to that of equipment used in manufacturing processes, but provides comfort conditioning, DOE considers such equipment to meet the definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” and consequently to be covered under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. DOE notes that the fact that equipment may be advertised, marketed, and/or sold as part of industrial or manufacturing processes is not a mutually exclusive determination that the models are exempt them from coverage by DOE's standards for equipment in buildings. In the example of identical equipment used to serve both markets, DOE would consider that covered under DOE's regulatory program unless a specific basic model had an attribute that would preclude it from meeting the definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.”

All equipment distributed in U.S. commerce that meets DOE's definition of “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” and is not subject to the Department's exclusion guidance set forth above must meet the applicable Federal energy conservation standards regardless of technology or design.

F. Definitions for Variable Refrigerant Flow Systems

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

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioner

means a unit of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that is configured as a split system air-conditioner incorporating a single refrigerant circuit, with one or more outdoor units, at least one variable-speed compressor or an alternate compressor combination for varying the capacity of the system by three or more steps, and multiple indoor fan coil units, each of which is individually metered and individually controlled by an integral control device and common communications network and which can operate independently in response to multiple indoor thermostats. Variable refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on common, inter-connecting piping.

Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Heat Pump

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

refrigerant flow implies three or more steps of capacity control on common, inter-connecting piping.

Heat Recovery

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

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

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

IV. Test Procedure Amendments and Discussion of Related Comments

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to update the DOE test procedures for several types of ASHRAE equipment by incorporating the most recent version of the industry test methods referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. For certain types of equipment that had not previously been subject to energy conservation standards, DOE proposed to adopt new test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. Additionally, DOE conducted a substantive review of all of the test procedures that were updated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 in their entirety in order to satisfy the 7-year review provision for test procedures discussed in section II.A. As part of its review, DOE proposed to allow for an optional break-in period to allow the unit to achieve optimal performance before testing for small, large, and very large commercial air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps, and single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. 77 FR 2356, 2424-33 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to include in its test procedures several clarifying provisions, along with certain provisions (with some modification) from AHRI operations manuals (AHRI OMs) that would harmonize equipment testing so that it is performed consistently at all test laboratories. 77 FR 16769, 16781-82 (March 22, 2012). The updates to the test procedures being adopted as part of today's rule are discussed in the subsections immediately below.

DOE received a general comment about the 7-year review process for test procedure updates from AHRI. AHRI commented that the 7-year review requirement is too infrequent, because most AHRI and ASHRAE standards are amended at intervals of 5 years or less. Therefore, AHRI asserted that DOE should conduct test procedure rulemakings to incorporate by reference new or revised industry test procedures once they are referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 2)

In response, DOE notes that the 7-year requirement stems from 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A), which requires that DOE shall conduct an evaluation of the test procedures for any covered equipment class and either amend the test procedures (if the Secretary determines that amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3)) or publish a notice in the

Federal Register

of any determination not to amend a test procedure. This requirement compels DOE to take action on any test procedure that has not been reviewed within a 7-year timeframe. For the test procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment, DOE is also guided by EPCA that if an industry test procedure referenced in DOE's regulations is updated, DOE must assess the updated industry procedure and amend the test procedure for the product as necessary to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure or rating procedure, unless DOE determines that the amended test procedure is not reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating costs of the ASHRAE product during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(4)) Thus, given that DOE has two triggers for reviewing the test procedures for covered ASHRAE equipment—the 7-year review requirement and the requirement for review subsequent to an update of the industry standard—DOE will consider any industry test procedure revisions in a timely manner.

As noted above, in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE examined the AHRI operations manuals to identify areas where potential clarification to the DOE test procedure for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment may be needed and proposed to include several clarifications in the Federal test procedures. 77 FR 16769, 16774-79 (March 22, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to omit section 6.5 from AHRI 210/240-2008, section 6.3 of AHRI 340/360-2007, section 5.11 from ASHRAE 127-2007, section 6.4 from AHRI 390-2003, and section 6.6 from AHRI 1230-2010 from its regulations at 10 CFR 431.96, which provide tolerance values for ratings of tested equipment to comply with that standard. Instead, DOE clarified that manufacturers must follow the equipment type-specific procedures in 10 CFR 429 when determining whether equipment ratings are within acceptable tolerance limits. DOE also issued guidance on various other aspects of testing, including defective samples, test set-up, enhancement devices, refrigerant charge, and rating air flow rates. 77 FR 16769, 16777-78 (March 22, 2012). DOE determines whether a unit is defective on a case-by-case basis as part of its certification and enforcement program as listed in 10 CFR 429.110(d)(3). As a general guidance for remaining topics, DOE will only consider information contained in the equipment's installation and operations manual (I&O manual) for conducting assessment and enforcement testing. That is, DOE will install the equipment for testing as is outlined in the I&O manual using any enhancement devices that are documented in the I&O manual as being a part of the equipment's basic model. If the I&O manual specifies a range of refrigerant charge or pressure, it will be valid for the equipment to be tested using any refrigerant charge within that range, unless the manufacturer specifies otherwise in the I&O manual. If the I&O manual does not specify a rating air flow rate for testing, DOE will use the nominal air flow rate (typically 400 scfm/ton) for testing.

In response to the SNOPR, stakeholders submitted comments on DOE's clarifications related to tolerances in its test procedures. Rheem did not support DOE's decision with regard to the tolerances. Rheem stated that the current DOE regulations clearly incorporate by reference the entire ARI Standard 340/360-2004, including section 6.3 relating to tolerances, and that DOE's attempt to excise this protocol is procedurally inappropriate and at odds with the congressional balancing or regulatory determination that resulted in the current energy conservation standards; and, thus, it is illegal. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2) EEI recommended that DOE not tighten the tolerance of test procedure results because this would increase costs to the manufacturers of testing equipment and to commercial customers. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 1) Carrier commented that the issue of AHRI 340/360 tolerances does not apply to initial ratings, and it also stated that AHRI is in the process of modifying

this requirement to adopt the note in section 6.5 of AHRI 210/240, which states that “[p]roducts covered by the National Appliance Energy Conservation Act (NAECA) shall be rated in accordance with 10 CFR Part 430, Section 24 m (1)(i)-(ii)” so that DOE will not have to make an exception to the AHRI procedure. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5) AHRI stated that the tolerances specified in AHRI 340/360 do not apply to ratings that are certified to DOE but applies only to verification testing conducted by AHRI. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) AHRI also commented that any issues pertaining to certification and enforcement should be addressed in a future NOPR for that topic. However, AHRI commented that DOE's policy of not applying a tolerance to the results of an assessment test is inconsistent with both DOE's certification procedures and the fundamental nature of any empirical test method. AHRI reasoned that is it wrong for DOE to employ a “zero tolerance” policy for assessment tests, arguing that DOE should try to harmonize the sampling plan probability levels between enforcement and assessment testing and further noting that the sampling plan for three-phase HVAC systems should not be more stringent than residential HVAC systems. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 6-8) Rheem also encouraged DOE to open a separate rulemaking, including public hearings and stakeholder discussions, with regard to the proposed changes related to testing and compliance with energy conservation standards. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 1)

In response, DOE reiterates what it stated in the March 2012 SNOPR, that it has its own tolerances as part of its certification and enforcement program that have been established since 2006. 77 FR 16769, 16777 (March 22, 2012). As AHRI notes in its comments, the tolerances in the AHRI standards do not apply to DOE's regulatory program and only apply to AHRI's verification program. Omitting the specific section on the tolerances used in AHRI's verification program from being incorporated by reference in the DOE test procedure does not change how manufacturers have to conduct testing for DOE's regulatory program and how DOE conducts verification or enforcement testing. Omission of the AHRI verification program tolerances only serves to clarify to manufacturers that DOE does not employ AHRI's verification tolerance, which is a flat 5-percent tolerance, in its regulatory program. DOE believes this will help alleviate any confusion that may be introduced from the different tolerances used as part of DOE's regulatory program and AHRI's verification program.

As to AHRI's specific comment regarding a tolerance associated with assessment testing conducted by DOE, DOE's regulations do not include a specific tolerance that is applied to an assessment test. DOE disagrees with commenters who suggest that DOE employs a zero-percent tolerance policy on any assessment test conducted. DOE specifically adopted provisions, which allow it to conduct enforcement testing if DOE has reason to believe that a basic model is not in compliance. 10 CFR 429.110. While DOE has the authority under the statute to, at any time, test a basic model to assess whether the basic model is in compliance with the applicable energy conservation standard(s), assessment testing is only one method DOE utilizes to better inform its decision making when deciding whether to pursue enforcement testing.

See

10 CFR 429.104; 76 FR 12422, 12495 (March 7, 2011). Should DOE decide to revisit its current approach for assessment testing, it would do so in the next certification, compliance, and enforcement rulemaking.

DOE also received other comments on its guidance on other aspects of testing as well. AHRI stated that the AHRI operation manuals only provide clarification and detailed instructions on how the AHRI certification program conducts those test procedures and do not counter or revise the Federal efficiency test methods. The commenter acknowledged that DOE is not required to consider including guidelines or checklists in AHRI operations manuals in the Federal test procedure, but it did encourage DOE to use the guidelines in any verification testing. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 6) Rheem commented that DOE should use the guidelines in the AHRI operations manual in any testing done by DOE to ensure proper and consistent testing and evaluation of a product's performance. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2) Rheem also commented that DOE's proposed changes in 10 CFR 431.96(e) are new and previously unannounced, and the company does not see the logic or utility in providing certification or testing specifications in installation and operations manuals used in the field. Rheem argued that the industry would need a minimum of 6 months to revise its technical literature if this requirement were to be imposed and that the industry should be allowed to supplement printed material through its Web site or other electronic means. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 2)

In response to these comments, DOE agrees that testing should be done in a consistent manner to achieve a level playing field for all manufacturers, as reflected in the proposed test procedure amendments which DOE published for notice and comment. By adopting some of the guidance in the AHRI OMs, DOE hopes to clarify what is and is not allowed during testing conducted by manufacturers for DOE's regulatory program and DOE-initiated testing. In certain cases, the AHRI OMs require manufacturers to provide information related to testing that is not publically disclosed. DOE reiterates its position in the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2012 SNOPR that if manufacturers have specific conditions or instructions used in generating their energy efficiency ratings, they must be clearly provided in the I&O manual shipped with the unit. 77 FR 2356, 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012); 77 FR 16769, 16778 (March 22, 2012). In DOE's view, the commercial customer has a right to know the operating conditions that are used to generate the certified efficiency values, including rated airflow and rated capacity.

Regarding Rheem's assertion that a minimum of 6 months would be required to update technical literature to accommodate this requirement, DOE notes that the compliance dates are as specified in the

DATES

section of this notice and any testing done after the compliance dates would incorporate all additions to the DOE test procedure in this final rule; these compliance dates generally provide 6 months or more for manufacturers to make any requisite changes to their I&O manuals. DOE may also reference online specification sheets for rated information prior to the compliance date of the test procedure amendments, provided that those specification sheets contain specific version numbers, revision dates, and rating information; however, DOE reiterates that it is adopting provisions that require manufacturers to disclose any rated conditions for testing in the information shipped with the units themselves in this final rule. DOE notes that when manufacturers are required to comply with the certification provisions for most types of the commercial equipment subject to this rulemaking, DOE will use the rated values certified by the manufacturers in addition to any information in the installation and operation manuals.

A. Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

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

updated industry test procedures referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 for small,

large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. 76 FR 25622, 25634-36 (May 5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2373-74 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI 210/240-2008 into the Federal test procedure for small (<65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment and AHRI 340/360-2007 into the Federal test procedure for small (≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity), large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment.

Id.

Additionally, in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE also proposed to add an optional “break-in” period (no more than 16 hours) for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.

Id.

EPCA defines “small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment” as “commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that is rated below 135,000 Btu/h (cooling capacity).” (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)) ASHRAE 90.1-2010 generally divides covered commercial package air conditioners into the following class sizes: (1) <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.

Mitsubishi and EEI supported DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 210/240-2008 and AHRI 340/360-2007. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1-2 and EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) Rheem and Engineered Air also supported DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 340/360-2007. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3 and Engineered Air, No. 36 at p. 2) AHRI recommended that DOE should also include addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 210/240-2008 as part of the review process and adopt them as appropriate. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) These addenda made several updates to the test standard, which are discussed in detail in the paragraphs immediately below. Carrier urged DOE to adopt addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 210/240-2008 as well. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2) Carrier also noted that DOE should also adopt addenda 1 and 2 to AHRI 340/360-2007, which specify tolerances on external static pressures and include a correction on the test method for integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), and encouraged DOE to check with AHRI regarding the latest addenda prior to finalizing its rulemaking. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2)

In response to stakeholder comments, DOE reviewed the addenda to AHRI 210/240-2008 and to AHRI 340/360-2007. The addenda to AHRI 210/240-2008 generally replace any references to the part-load metric (

i.e.,

integrated part load value (IPLV)) with references to the new part load metric (

i.e.,

IEER). The addenda to AHRI 340/360-2007 expand the scope of the standard to include air-cooled package unitary air conditioners with cooling capacities from 250,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 Btu/h, add a -0.00 inch H

O to a 0.05 inch H

O tolerance to the external static pressure test condition, and add an external static pressure equation and a tolerance to the leaving dry-bulb temperature to the IEER part-load test. Because DOE does not regulate part-load performance of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment and because the external static pressure tolerance update harmonizes the required measurements with those in the test procedure for residential air-conditioning equipment, DOE determined that the addenda would not impact the Federal energy efficiency ratings for small, large, and very large commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. As noted above, EPCA directs DOE to review and adopt the most recent version of industry test procedures for equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, provided that the industry test procedures are not unduly burdensome to conduct and provide an accurate assessment of the energy efficiency or energy use of the equipment. Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 210/240-2008 with addenda 1 and 2 and AHRI 340/360-2008 with addenda 1 and 2 in 10 CFR 431.96.

On the topic of compressor break-in periods, Rheem supported DOE's proposal of a break-in period of 16 hours for small commercial equipment and recommended the same amount of time for large and very large equipment. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3) Carrier also supported the inclusion of a compressor break-in period for small, large, and very large commercial air conditioners and heat pumps and stated that a 16- to 20-hour compressor break-in period at 95 °F would be sufficient. However, Carrier also commented that to reduce the time equipment is in the test room, the break-in run may sometimes be conducted outside the test room, in which case ambient air temperature may be lower than the 95 °F specified in the test method. When the ambient air temperature is lower than 95 °F, Carrier stated that longer break-in times of up to 50 hours may be necessary. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 2) AHRI also agreed that a compressor break-in period is necessary for small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, but it recommended, based on AHRI's experience, that the compressor break-in should be at minimum 16 hours. AHRI recommended that DOE allow a compressor break-in period to be the longer of 16 hours or the amount of time it takes for the system to achieve four consecutive 30-minute averages of cooling capacity that do not deviate more than 2 percent between each average and 1 percent from hour to hour. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 3) Mitsubishi supported the same approach as AHRI. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 1-2)

DOE believes that setting a minimum compressor break-in period, as suggested by AHRI and Mitsubishi, would unnecessarily increase testing cost to manufacturers whose equipment could stabilize in less than 16 hours. Interested parties did not provide additional data supporting how ambient temperatures may impact compressor break-in time and why a longer break-in time may be warranted. To Carrier's comment regarding the ambient conditions for the break-in period, DOE does not always perform the break-in period in a conditioned space at 95 °F. DOE believes that running the break-in period in a conditioned room adds unnecessary burden on both the industry and on DOE for testing, given the unknown impact on product performance. DOE is reluctant to add an ambient temperature requirement to the break-in period in absence of data suggesting there is a large impact on product performance. DOE's proposal in the NOPR matched the 16-hour maximum period used by AHRI in its Operations Manual for Unitary Large Equipment Certification Program, so DOE is puzzled by AHRI's comment suggesting deviation from this approach. Therefore, DOE is not adopting a minimum length for the break-in period. Rather, DOE is adopting a break-in period that will allow manufacturers to run equipment for any amount of time up to a maximum time limit of up to 20 hours, as suggested by Carrier, because DOE believes that the comments indicate that a break-in period of slightly longer than the 16 hours proposed in the NOPR may be required for certain equipment. DOE recognizes that different compressors will require different amounts of break-in time to achieve optimal performance and appreciates the suggestion by AHRI and Mitsubishi to determine the length of the break-in period based on the stabilization of equipment's cooling capacity. However, DOE notes that determining the break-in period using a method based on stabilizing cooling capacity would require the testing entity

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

B. Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces and Commercial Water Heaters

In the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, DOE examined and proposed to incorporate by reference the three updated test procedures for commercial warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010: UL 727-2006 for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces, ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces, and ANSI Z21.10.3-2004 for commercial water heaters. 76 FR 25622, 25636-37 (May 5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2374-76 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE tentatively determined that the changes in the updated test procedures do not substantially impact the measurement of energy efficiency for commercial warm-air furnaces or commercial water heaters. In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE also explained its position on tolerances and test-set up for conducting the tests for this equipment. 77 FR 16769, 16777-78 (March 22, 2012).

In response to the January 2012 NOPR, AHRI supported DOE's proposal for adopting UL 727-2006 and ANSI Z21.47-2006, but it recommended that DOE should incorporate the latest version of ANSI Z21.10.3 (

i.e.,

the 2011 version of the standard). AHRI added that the thermal efficiency and standby loss tests in that edition of the ANSI standard have not changed from the 2004 edition, which is the version that DOE had proposed to adopt in the NOPR. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1 and 3) Rheem also supported the adoption of ANSI Z21.10.3 for commercial water heating equipment but similarly urged DOE to adopt the 2011 version of that standard. (Rheem, No. 32 at p. 3) EEI endorsed DOE's adoption of all the proposed test procedures for commercial warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2)

DOE was triggered under EPCA to review and adopt the most recent version of the industry test methods for equipment covered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1, provided that the industry test method meets the requirements of EPCA for test procedures. In response to the comments from AHRI and Rheem, DOE reviewed the 2011 version of ANSI Z21.10.3. DOE agrees with Rheem and AHRI that adopting ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 would not alter the DOE test method or the energy efficiency ratings for commercial water heaters as compared to adopting ANSI Z21.10.3-2004, which was proposed for adoption in the NOPR. However, when reviewing ANSI Z21.10.3-2011, DOE discovered an apparent error in the text of Exhibit G,

Efficiency Test Procedures,

in section G.1,

Thermal Efficiency Test.

The relevant text states that “[w]ater-tube water heaters shall be installed as shown in Figure 3, Arrangement for Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters.” DOE notes that Figure 3 in ANSI Z1.10.3-2011 deals with direct vent terminal clearances, and that Figure 2 is titled “Arrangement for Testing Water-tube Type Instantaneous and Circulating Water Heaters,” and depicts the test set-up for water-tube water heaters. Therefore, DOE believes this was a drafting error and that the correct figure to reference would be Figure 2. DOE is adopting such correction in today's final rule. In all other regards, DOE has concluded that ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 meets the requirements of EPCA for incorporation into DOE's test procedures, and it is the most up-to-date version of the industry standard that is currently available. Thus, DOE is incorporating by reference ANSI Z21.10.3-2011 for commercial water heaters. DOE is also incorporating by reference UL 727-2006 for commercial oil-fired warm-air furnaces, ANSI Z21.47-2006 for commercial gas-fired warm-air furnaces, as proposed in the January 2012 NOPR.

DOE did not receive any comments specifically related to commercial warm-air furnaces and commercial water heaters on the issues of tolerances, defective units, and test set-up. For the same reasons explained in section IV.A, DOE is not adopting AHRI's tolerances, will determine if a unit is defective on a case-by-case basis according to 10 CFR 429.110(d)(3), and will set up equipment for testing using only the equipment's I&O manual shipped with the unit.

C. Computer Room Air Conditioners

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 127-2007 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for computer room air conditioners, which was the test procedure referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. 77 FR 2356, 2376 (Jan. 17, 2012). DOE believes that this industry test procedure is best suited to measure the energy efficiency of computer room air conditioners due to its emphasis on the sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) metric. SCOP emphasizes the computer room air conditioners' sensible cooling

ability, which is the predominant type of heating load in computer rooms. Energy efficiency ratio (EER), on the other hand, incorporates latent cooling, which could be detrimental in large quantities for computer rooms, because too much latent cooling could dry out the computer room, potentially causing harmful static discharges. DOE also asked for comment regarding the use of a compressor “break-in” period for this equipment, part-load performance and potential shortcomings of the SCOP metric, and how to treat the potential revisions of ASHRAE 127-2007 released as draft for public review on July 14, 2011 . The new ASHRAE 127-2012, officially released on February 24, 2012, introduces a new efficiency metric

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

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

DOE also notes that even though AHRI does not currently have a certification program or operations manual for this equipment, the same DOE guidance that applies to commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment for determining the appropriate test set-up, enhancement devices, refrigerant charge, rating air flow rates, and whether a test sample is defective (as explained in section IV.A) is applicable for this equipment.

In response to the January 2012 NOPR and the March 2012 SNOPR, EEI endorsed DOE's adoption of the ASHRAE 127 test procedures for computer room air conditioners. (EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) NEEA stated that DOE should review the possibility of adopting ASHRAE 127-2012 as the test procedure for computer room air conditioners because the updated test procedure has now been finalized. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1) AHRI and NEEA commented that there are significant improvements in the new draft of ASHRAE 127 (ASHRAE 127-2012) which would provide a more representative efficiency rating and allow for a better selection of models for any specific application and would provide some new efficiency metrics. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4 and NEEA, No. 31 at p. 1) AHRI suggested that DOE should delay the rulemaking in order to adopt the revised ASHRAE 127-2012 test procedure and not adopt the current ASHRAE 127-2007 test procedure. AHRI further commented that if DOE adopts the ASHRAE 127-2007 test procedure, it would be an injudicious use of resources and an unnecessary burden on manufacturers, because manufacturers would have to spend significant time and money to comply with the 2007 version of ASHRAE and then more time and money to retest all their models using ASHRAE 127-2012, when it is adopted in the next ASHRAE Standard 90.1 rulemaking. AHRI asserted that delaying the rulemaking in order to adopt the revised ASHRAE Standard 127 would not be a lost opportunity for energy savings but that it would provide a better opportunity for effective energy savings because of improved metrics, additional application classes, and added rating conditions. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4) In addition, ASAP commented that the SCOP metric (in ASHRAE 127-2007) does not reflect very well how computer room air conditioners perform in the field and that energy saving technologies such as variable speed fans are not captured in the SCOP metric. Instead, ASAP urged DOE to consider a test procedure with a metric that does capture part-load performance. (ASAP, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at pp. 43-44). Similarly, NEEA urged DOE to value part-load operation efficiency of CRACs more than full-load operation efficiency, because in the field, computer room air conditioners tend to be oversized and operate at part-load most or all of the time. (NEEA, No. 31 at p. 2)

In response, DOE notes that EPCA provides the requirements for adopting amended or new standards for ASHRAE equipment. When the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are updated with respect to covered equipment, DOE must either adopt those levels as Federal standards within 18 months of the publication of the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, or adopt more stringent Federal levels within 30 months. Once ASHRAE decides to act by amending Standard 90.1, EPCA does not provide DOE with discretion to delay the adoption of minimum standards pending test procedure updates as AHRI suggests. Because DOE must adopt energy conservation standards for computer room air conditioners within the time constraints laid out by EPCA, DOE must also adopt a test method for determining compliance with the minimum standard. DOE has found that ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 meets the statutory requirements for incorporation into DOE's test procedures and is appropriate for rating CRACs using the SCOP metric. In contrast, the new ASHRAE 127-2012 standard is not referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010, and, as a result, the efficiency levels that DOE considered were based on ASHRAE 127-2007. In order to justify the adoption of efficiency levels other than those contained in the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE notes that it would have to provide clear and convincing evidence that such levels are technologically feasible and economically justified. Due to the fact that ASHRAE 127-2012 has only been recently finalized, DOE was unable to find any test data showing the results of testing to this standard, and how the results compare to those obtained using the previous version of ASHRAE Standard 127. Therefore, there is no basis for DOE to adopt ASHRAE 127-2012 and corresponding standards at this time. DOE believes that pursuing the use of the updated industry test procedure standard would unnecessarily delay the rulemaking for computer room air conditioners, and ultimately, the result would be that not enough information is available to promulgate standards at levels other than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010. If the ASHRAE 127-2012 test method and corresponding efficiency levels using the new metric are included in the next version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE will review the amended test procedure and efficiency levels at that time, as required by EPCA.

For the above reasons, in today's rulemaking, DOE is adopting a test procedure for computer room air conditioners by incorporating by reference ASHRAE 127-2007.

Regarding the break-in period for computer room air conditioners, AHRI commented that computer room air conditioners should be allowed the same opportunity for a compressor break-in period as the other commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 6) At the February 14, 2012 NOPR public meeting, Emerson stated that for all compressors, the break-in period is essential to stabilize the compressor's performance and efficiency. (Emerson, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 20 at p. 49)

Because computer room air conditioners mainly use scroll compressors like other commercial package air conditioners, DOE agrees that computer room manufacturers should be allowed the same opportunity for an optional compressor “break-in” period. Thus, DOE is adopting the same provision for an optional compressor break-in as it is adopting for other commercial air-conditioning equipment. Manufacturers may opt to use a break-in period for computer room air conditioners for any length of time, up to a maximum time of 20 hours. Manufacturers who elect to use this optional compressor break-in period in its certification testing should record this information (including the duration) as part of the test data underlying the certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.

D. Variable Refrigerant Flow Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment

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

flow equipment and is adopting the use of an optional compressor break-in period for variable refrigerant flow equipment. DOE initially discussed its proposals for testing this equipment in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2377-78 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE asked for comment regarding the need for a compressor break-in period longer than 16 hours for this equipment class. 77 FR 16769, 16776-77 (March 22, 2012). Also in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to allow a manufacturer representative to witness assessment and enforcement testing and to adjust the compressor speed during testing, and DOE requested comment on these proposals.

Id.

at 16778-79. In the SNOPR, DOE also stated that manufacturers must document their certification set-up (including the fixed compressor speed) and maintain this documentation as part of their test data underlying certification so that DOE can request the documentation from the manufacturer on an as-needed basis.

Id.

Lastly, DOE proposed in the March 2012 SNOPR to adopt correction factors for the refrigerant line lengths for VRF systems only in instances where the physical constraints of the testing laboratory require a longer than minimum refrigerant line length.

Id.

at 16779. DOE also sought comment from stakeholders about its proposal to include these refrigerant line length correction factors.

Mitsubishi, Carrier, and EEI agreed with DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 1230-2010 with addenda 1 for VRF systems. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2, Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3, and EER, No. 29 at p. 2) There were no comments from stakeholders objecting to this proposal. DOE agrees with the submitted comments and is incorporating by reference AHRI 1230-2010 with addenda 1 into the Federal test procedure for VRF systems as part of today's final rule.

With respect to the break-in period for VRF systems, AHRI commented that VRF systems should be allowed the same compressor break-in period as it recommended for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps—the longer of 16 hour or the amount of time it takes for the system to complete 4 consecutive 30-minute cycles where the cooling capacity does not vary by more than 2 percent between each average and 1 percent from hour to hour. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4) Carrier stated that the compressor break-in period for VRF systems should be the same as for other commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps, as noted in section IV.A.

DOE agrees with these comments and believes that the break-in period for VRF equipment should be the same as that for other commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps. Thus, DOE is adopting an optional compressor break-in period that allows manufacturers to break in VRF equipment prior to testing for any length of time up to a maximum of 20 hours. Manufacturers who elect to use this optional compressor break-in period during certification testing should record this information (including the duration) as part of the test data underlying the certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.

DOE also received several comments regarding the limited manufacturer involvement in assessment and enforcement testing proposed in the SNOPR. AHRI agreed with DOE's proposal to allow limited manufacturer involvement in the testing of VRF systems. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 9) Carrier also supported allowing limited manufacturer involvement during testing of VRF systems in order to ensure that the system has been set up properly and to lock compressor speeds for regulatory testing. However, Carrier extended that logic, arguing that the need for limited manufacturer involvement is not unique to VRF systems and that all commercial equipment is typically commissioned by a factory-trained person and should be allowed limited manufacturer involvement during testing as well. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5) Mitsubishi agreed with DOE's proposal to allow limited manufacturer involvement but suggested that the language be revised to allow the manufacturer representative to adjust the “modulating components” and not just to fix the compressor speed in order to achieve stabilization. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 3) More specifically, Mitsubishi commented that permissible manufacturer involvement should be clarified to allow manufacturers to properly interface with the unit control and communication system, to modulate control equipment in response to test room cycles, and to require factory-trained and certified installation technicians. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2)

DOE believes that due to the unusually complicated nature of VRF systems, manufacturer involvement is necessary to ensure that the system operates properly during testing; however, DOE does not agree with Carrier's suggestion that the manufacturers also be allowed to assist in testing for other more typical commercial equipment. As noted in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE believes that, unlike the conventional unitary market, a representative from the VRF manufacturer's company will typically provide on-site expertise when a VRF system is installed in a building in order to help ensure proper operation. 77 FR 16769, 16779 (March 22, 2012). In the conventional unitary market, trained general contractors can set up the commercial unitary equipment in the field without direct involvement from a manufacturer representative, and, thus, it would be reasonable to assume that test laboratories will be able to set up and run the test procedure for commercial unitary equipment without manufacturer involvement. DOE agrees with Mitsubishi's comment that VRF manufacturers might need to adjust more than just the compressor speed and is revising the language to allow manufacturers to adjust only the “modulating components” during testing in the presence of a DOE representative in order to achieve steady-state operation. Thus, DOE will allow manufacturer involvement in the testing of VRF systems under the condition that the manufacturer representative adjust only the modulating components in the presence of a DOE representative and that the manufacturer documents the test set-up and fixed compressor speeds as part of the test data underlying the certified ratings.

Lastly, regarding the refrigerant line correction factors proposed in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE received several comments. AHRI and Mitsubishi agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate the refrigerant line length correction factors into the DOE test procedure for VRF equipment. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 9 and Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 3) Carrier also commented that all VRF equipment should be tested with the standard line lengths as defined by the appropriate rating standard for which minimum efficiency requirements were developed. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 5)

DOE agrees that manufacturers should be required to use the minimum refrigerant line lengths in AHRI 1230-2010 but also recognizes that there may be circumstances (

i.e.,

the physical limitations of the laboratory) where this is not possible. Only in such cases, DOE will allow manufacturers to use correction factors in their calculations. Thus, DOE is adopting the minimum refrigerant line length correction factors, which are only to be used in instances where it is not possible to set up the test using the line lengths listed in Table 3 of AHRI 1230-2010.

E. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps

In the January 2012 NOPR, DOE proposed to incorporate by reference AHRI 390-2003 as the basis for the Federal test procedure for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps and proposed to adopt an optional compressor “break-in” period of no more than 16 hours. 77 FR 2356, 2378 (Jan. 17, 2012). In the March 2012 SNOPR DOE asked for comment about the need for a longer break-in period for this equipment class. 77 FR 16769, 16776-77 (March 22, 2012).

Mitsubishi and EEI agreed with DOE's proposed adoption of AHRI 390-2003 for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2 and EEI, No. 29 at p. 2) Carrier commented that single package vertical equipment with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h should be rated according to AHRI 340/360-2007 with addenda 1 and 2 in order to ensure consistency in testing and rating vertical package and other commercial packaged equipment. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 3)

In response to stakeholder comment, DOE notes that EPCA directs DOE to review the test procedures as referenced in the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 references AHRI 390-2003 as the test method for all classes of SPVUs. Upon reviewing AHRI 390-2003, DOE believes that the standard is reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of all classes of single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, as required by EPCA for adoption. Accordingly, DOE is incorporating by reference AHRI 390-2003 as the Federal test procedure for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps as required by EPCA.

Regarding the break-in period for SPVUs, AHRI commented that SPVUs should be allowed the same compressor break-in period as AHRI recommended for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps, as noted in section IV.A (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 4) DOE agrees that the break-in period for SPVUs should be the same as for other air-conditioning and heating equipment, and, thus, DOE is adopting an optional compressor break-in period that allows the manufacturer to break in equipment for up to a maximum time of 20 hours before commencing testing.

Similar to commercial package air conditioners, as discussed in section IV.A, DOE reiterates that DOE will only use information contained in a manufacturer's I&O manual for setting up testing, using enhancement devices, setting refrigerant charges, and setting rating air flow rates.

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

A. Market Assessment

To begin its analysis on computer room air conditioners, DOE researched publicly-available information to provide an overall outlook in terms of the market for this type of equipment. DOE researched information on the structure of the industry, the purpose of the equipment, manufacturers, and market characteristics. This assessment included both quantitative and qualitative information. The topics discussed in this market assessment include definitions, equipment classes, manufacturers, and efficiencies. For more details on any of these subjects, see Chapter 2 of the final rule TSD.

1. Definition of “Computer Room Air Conditioner”

As discussed in the May 2011 NODA and the January 2012 NOPR, ASHRAE expanded the scope in Standard 90.1-2010 to include air conditioners and condensing units serving computer rooms. 76 FR 25622, 25633-34 (May 5, 2011); 77 FR 2356, 2382-83 (Jan. 17, 2012). Because of this expansion of scope, DOE has determined that it has the authority to consider and adopt standards for this equipment.

Id.

However, because DOE did not previously cover this equipment type and is only now considering standards for this equipment class, DOE does not currently have a definition for “computer room air conditioner” and must define this type of equipment. DOE initially proposed a definition of this term in the January 2012 NOPR and asked for comment on ways in which manufacturers differentiate commercial air conditioners used for manufacturing and industrial processes from commercial air conditioners used for comfort cooling. 77 FR 2356, 2383 (Jan. 17, 2012). Then, in light of stakeholder feedback at the NOPR public meeting, DOE published an SNOPR in the

Federal Register

on March 22, 2012, revising its proposed definition to read as follows:

Computer room air conditioner

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

77 FR 16769, 16773.

In response, Carrier commented that it does believe there is a basis to differentiate computer room air conditioners from commercial package air conditioners used for comfort conditioning because computer room units are designed to handle different load characteristics, most notably by focusing on sensible load and not latent cooling. (Carrier, No. 28 at p. 1) Panasonic commented that computer room air conditioners have a different operating range and that the tolerances on the relative humidity and temperature control is tighter. Panasonic stated that the very sophisticated computer rooms and data centers require 50 percent relative humidity, with a 10 percent tolerance, and a specific temperature; however, the commenter also said that 95 percent of data centers are less sensitive with regard to the operating ranges. (Panasonic, No. 20 at pp. 68-69) Mitsubishi commented that the DOE definition for “computer room air conditioner” should allow for dual ratings and certification for equipment and allow that products be used for multiple applications if they meet all applicable standards. (Mitsubishi, No. 33 at p. 2) At the NOPR public meeting, Danfoss commented that DOE should not restrict the use of a product and leave it up to competitive pressures to determine where manufacturers rate and market their products and that DOE's vigilance would prevent manufacturers from constantly switching equipment classes. (Danfoss, No. 20 at p. 64-66)

AHRI expressed disagreement with the proposed definition for “computer room air conditioner,” because the commenter argued that it is unnecessarily complex and overly broad. AHRI commented that the list of options that may be available with a computer room air conditioner is not necessary to the basic definition of the product and that the term “purpose-specific cooling application” is vague and confusing. AHRI recommended the following for a definition of “computer room air conditioner”: “Computer room air conditioners means a unit of commercial air conditioning equipment (packaged or split) that's intended by the manufacturer for use in computer

rooms, data processing rooms, or other information technology cooling applications, and is rated for sensible coefficient of performance (SCOP) using ASHRAE Standard 127.” (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 8)

In response, DOE notes that its authority to cover computer room air conditioners stems from the expansion of ASHRAE Standard 90.1's scope and DOE's obligations pursuant to EPCA with regards to ASHRAE equipment. DOE is not aware of, nor did commenters identify, any distinct physical characteristic(s) that would consistently differentiate computer room air conditioners from other comfort-cooling commercial package air conditioners. DOE agrees with AHRI's assertion that “purpose-specific cooling application is vague” and, therefore, is removing that term from the definition. DOE acknowledges that the list of illustrative features of computer room air conditioners is not essential to the definition; however, DOE is retaining that language, because DOE believes that a recitation of such characteristics would provide useful assistance to manufacturers, industry, and DOE in determining which equipment should be considered to meet the definition of “computer room air conditioner.” Furthermore, DOE agrees with Mitsubishi's comment that the “computer room air conditioner” definition should allow for dual rating and certification for equipment if the basic model meets all applicable Federal standards, and notes that the definition proposed in the SNOPR would not preclude dual rating. Although DOE agrees with several points made by commenters, and is modifying the definition of “computer room air conditioner” accordingly, DOE is not adopting AHRI's proposed definition wholesale because it lacks several important clarifications. First, as discussed above, DOE believes that the list of features of computer room air conditioners provides useful assistance to DOE and industry in distinguishing computer room air conditioners from other types of covered commercial air conditioners. Second, DOE believes that the definition must clarify that the unit is tested for SCOP, which must be determined in accordance with DOE's test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96. In addition, DOE believes the clarification that a computer room air conditioner cannot be a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292 is important to distinguish this equipment from residential products. Thus, DOE is adopting the following definition for “computer room air conditioner,”:

Computer Room Air Conditioner

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

DOE believes that this definition does not prohibit manufacturers of commercial package air conditioners used for comfort cooling from advertising equipment for use in computer rooms or from making representations using the SCOP rating for computer air conditioners. However, DOE notes that if manufacturers of commercial package air conditioners used for comfort cooling wish to make representations of SCOP ratings, they must do so using only the procedures established by DOE in 10 CFR 431.96 for computer room air conditioners.

In addition, in the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed to clarify that any basic model that meets the definition of “commercial package air-conditioning and heat equipment” must be classified as one of the equipment types (

e.g.,

small, large, or very large commercial package air-conditioning and heat equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners or heat pumps, variable refrigerant flow systems, computer room air conditioners, and single package vertical units) for the purposes of determining the primary applicable test procedure and energy conservation standard. 77 FR 16769, 16773-74 (March 22, 2012). DOE proposed adding a new section to the beginning of 10 CFR 431.97 to make it clear that each manufacturer of a basic model that meets this definition does have a regulatory obligation in terms of standards compliance. In the March 2012 SNOPR, DOE proposed a revision to 10 CFR 431.97 to read as follows:

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

Id.

In response to this proposed change, AHRI commented that it does not agree with the proposed amendments to 10 CFR 431.97(a), because AHRI believes it is unnecessary and does not provide added clarity, but rather, it simply repeats the basic concept of DOE's certification, compliance, and enforcement regulations. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 8)

DOE recognizes that the additional language in 10 CFR 431.97 repeats the basic concepts from DOE's certification compliance and enforcement regulations. However, DOE believes that including this statement in 10 CFR 431.97 will serve as a reminder to manufacturers of commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment that their basic models must be certified to one of the equipment classes according to the requirements set forth in 10 CFR part 429. In addition, the paragraph clarifies that all commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable test procedure in 10 CFR 431.96. DOE, therefore, believes that this statement will help clarify its requirements, and accordingly, DOE is adopting this change in the final rule.

Finally, with regard to the third part of its definition for computer room air conditioners, specifically, that the equipment cannot be a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 6292, manufacturers should compare the characteristics of each basic model to the definition of a “central air conditioner,” as specified in 42 U.S.C. 6291(21). If any basic model in question meets the definition of a “central air conditioner,” the onus is on the manufacturer to provide justification that the equipment is not a covered consumer product under 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and is instead subject to a different definition in DOE's regulatory program. In other words, all equipment meeting the definition of “central air conditioner” must be in compliance with the test procedure, standard, and certification provisions applicable to that product type. DOE will review the manufacturer's justification and make its own determination of coverage if questions arise regarding a given basic model.

2. Equipment Classes

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010 divides computer room air conditioners into 30 different equipment classes based on the net sensible cooling capacity (

i.e.,

<65,000 Btu/h; ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h; or ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h), orientation of airflow (

i.e.,

upflow or downflow), heat rejection method (

i.e.,

air-cooled, water-cooled, glycol-cooled), and the presence of a fluid economizer.

DOE generally

divides equipment and product classes by the type of energy used or by capacity or other performance-related features that affect efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may apply to different equipment classes. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) Because DOE believes that net sensible cooling capacity, orientation, heat rejection method, and use of a fluid economizer are all performance-related features that affect computer room air conditioner efficiency (

i.e.,

SCOP), DOE is dividing computer room air conditioners into the 30 equipment classes shown in Table V.1. These are the same equipment classes DOE proposed to adopt in the January 2012 NOPR. 77 FR 2356, 2383-84; 2431 (Jan. 17, 2012).

A “fluid economizer” is a system configuration potentially available where an external fluid-cooler

is utilized for heat rejection (

i.e.,

for glycol-cooled or water-cooled equipment). The fluid economizer utilizes a separate liquid-to-air cooling coil within the CRAC unit and the cooled water or glycol fluid returning from the external fluid cooler to cool return air directly, much like a chilled water air handling unit (

i.e.,

without the use of compressors). The “economizer” cooling can either augment or can take the place of compressor cooling, but only when returning water or glycol fluid temperatures are low enough to provide significant direct cooling from the liquid-to-air cooling coil.

Table V.1—Computer Room Air Conditioners Equipment Classes and Efficiency Levels

Equipment type

Net sensible cooling capacity

Minimum SCOP efficiency

Downflow units

Upflow units

Air Conditioners, Air-Cooled

<65,000 Btu/h

2.20

2.09

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

2.10

1.99

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

1.90

1.79

Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled

<65,000 Btu/h

2.60

2.49

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

2.50

2.39

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

2.40

2.29

Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer

<65,000 Btu/h

2.55

2.44

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

2.45

2.34

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

2.35

2.24

Air Conditioners, Glycol-Cooled

<65,000 Btu/h

2.50

2.39

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

2.15

2.04

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

2.10

1.99

Air Conditioner, Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer

<65,000 Btu/h

2.45

2.34

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h

2.10

1.99

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h

2.05

1.94

3. Review of Current Market for Computer Room Air Conditioners

DOE consulted a wide variety of sources, including manufacturer literature, manufacturer Web sites, and the California Energy Commission (CEC) Appliance Efficiency Database to obtain the information needed for the market assessment for computer room air conditioners. The information gathered from these sources serves as a basis for the analyses preformed in this rulemaking. The sections below provide a general overview of the computer room air conditioner market. More detail, including citations to relevant sources, of the computer room air conditioner market can be found in Chapter 2 of the final rule TSD.

a. Trade Association Information

AHRI is the trade association representing most manufacturers of commercial air-conditioning and heating equipment; however, at the time of this final rule, AHRI did not have a certification program for computer room air conditioners, and with one exception, the major manufacturers of computer room air conditioners that DOE identified are not currently AHRI members.

However, in its public comments, AHRI indicated that earlier this year, it added a Datacom Cooling Section and certification program which covers manufacturers of computer room air conditioners. (AHRI, No. 30 at p. 1)

For more information see:

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

b. Manufacturer Information

DOE initially identified manufacturers of computer room air conditioners by conversing with industry experts, by examining the CEC appliance efficiency database,

and by examining individual manufacturers' Web sites. Manufacturers that DOE identified include American Power Conversion, Compu-Aire, Data Aire, Liebert, and Stulz. DOE reviewed their manufacturer literature to gain insight into product availability, technologies used to improve efficiency, and product characteristics (

e.g.,

cooling capacities) of the models in each of the 30 equipment classes.

See:

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

c. Market Data

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

e.g.,

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

B. Engineering Analysis

The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between higher-efficiency equipment and the cost of achieving that higher efficiency when evaluating energy conservation standards. The results from the engineering analysis serve as the basis for the cost-benefit calculations for the individual consumers and the Nation. As explained in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE used an efficiency-level approach in conjunction with a pricing survey to develop the price-efficiency relationships for the 30 classes of computer room air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2385-86 (Jan. 17, 2012). An efficiency-level approach allowed DOE to estimate the cost of achieving different SCOP levels in a timely manner (which was necessary to allow DOE to meet the statutorily-required deadlines for ASHRAE equipment in EPCA). The efficiency-level approach allowed DOE to focus on the price of the computer room air conditioners at different SCOP ratings while capturing a variety of designs available of the market. The efficiency levels that DOE analyzed in the engineering analysis were within the range of efficiencies of computer room air conditioners on the market at the time the engineering analysis was developed. DOE relied on data collected from equipment distributors of three large computer room air conditioner manufacturers to develop its price-efficiency relationship for computer room air conditioners. (See chapter 3 of the final rule TSD for further detail.)

Although there are certain benefits to using an efficiency-level approach with a pricing survey (namely the ability to conduct an analysis in a limited amount of time that spans a variety of equipment and technologies), DOE notes there are also drawbacks to this approach. The most significant drawback of such an approach is that equipment pricing is not always based solely on equipment cost and is often influenced by a variety of other factors. Factors such as whether the unit is a high-volume seller, whether the unit has premium features (such as more sophisticated controls or a longer warranty), and the differences in markup between different manufacturers all have an effect on the prices of computer room air conditioners. In certain instances, this can make it difficult to compare prices across manufacturers because of the number of different ways that manufacturers can decide to set pricing based on features that are not part of the basic equipment costs. As a result, the relationship between price and efficiency could be different from the relationship between manufacturer cost and efficiency that might be revealed through other engineering methods such as a design-option approach or a reverse-engineering approach. However, given the limited analysis time allowed by EPCA, DOE proceeded with an efficiency-level approach for computer room air conditioners in which it gathered the price of equipment at various efficiency levels. Nonetheless, DOE believes this approach provides a reasonable approximation of the cost increases associated with efficiency increases and could be conducted in a timely manner that would allow DOE to meet the deadlines specified in EPCA for ASHRAE products. The approach allowed DOE to provide an estimate of equipment prices at different efficiencies and spanned a range of technologies currently on the market that are used to achieve the increased efficiency levels. However, DOE also notes that there is a high level of uncertainty in the results based on such an approach due to the limited amount of data and information available about this particular type of equipment.

The following provides an overview of the engineering analysis. DOE first determined which equipment classes it would need to analyze. DOE only analyzed the downflow equipment classes because after examining equipment designs, DOE found that that upflow and downflow units have the same interior components and technologies, and that every upflow model could be optionally arranged by the manufacturer in a downflow orientation (but not vice-versa). DOE assumed that the efficiency cost and benefit of a given technology would be the same in both the downflow and upflow orientations, which allowed for an analysis in downflow orientation only (the results of which would be assumed to be true for upflow models as well). This reduced the number of equipment classes that DOE needed to analyze from 30 to 15. Then, DOE chose a representative baseline computer room air conditioner, which is the starting point for analyzing possible benefits of energy efficiency improvements. Next, DOE used efficiency data from the market assessment to identify higher efficiency levels above the baseline. DOE collected contractor pricing information for models at the baseline and those higher efficiency levels, and used that information to estimate the cost increase of achieving those higher efficiency levels. Then, for equipment classes where there was too little data available to directly analyze the cost of increasing efficiency, DOE estimated the cost-efficiency relationship based on the analysis done for the other classes where data were available. Further detail regarding the key inputs to the engineering analysis and the results generated are presented immediately below and in further detail in chapter 3 of the final rule TSD.

1. Representative Input Capacities for Analysis

As explained in the January 2012 NOPR, DOE reviewed the 15 analyzed equipment classes of computer room air conditioners. 77 FR 2356, 2386 (Jan.17, 2012). For each equipment class, DOE chose a representative net sensible input capacity as a starting point for the engineering analysis. In summary, DOE chose a representative capacity at the average sensible capacity for each of the three size categories regardless of heating type, orientation, or the presence of a fluid economizer. For computer room air conditioners with a sensible cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 36,000 Btu/h; for those with a sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 132,000 Btu/h; and for those with a sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h, DOE chose 288,000 Btu/h. These representative capacities also corresponded to the net sensible capacity of most the models in the corresponding equipment class. DOE attained pricing information for models with sensible cooling capacities that were generally within 15 percent of these representative sensible capacities for all equipment classes for which adequate

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.