Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Efficiency Standards for Commercial Heating, Air-Conditioning, and Water-Heating Equipment, 10038-10049 [E7-3819]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
10038
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
7. In § 52.51, paragraph (c)(1), the
figure ‘‘$39.00’’ is revised to read
‘‘$49.00’’, in paragraph (c)(2), the figure
‘‘$52.00’’ is revised to read ‘‘$65.00’’,
and in paragraph (d)(1), the figure
‘‘$52.00’’ is revised to read ‘‘$65.00’’
and new paragraphs (c)(6) and (d)(6) are
added to read as follows:
I
§ 52.51 Charges for inspection services on
a contract basis.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) * * *
(6) Sunday differential. A 25 percent
Sunday differential will be charged for
all work performed on Sunday.
*
*
*
*
*
(d) * * *
(6) Sunday differential. A 25 percent
Sunday differential will be charged for
all work performed on Sunday.
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: March 1, 2007.
Lloyd C. Day,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
[FR Doc. E7–3937 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Nos. EE–RM/STD–03–100, EE–RM/
STD–03–200, and EE–RM/STD–03–300]
RIN Nos. 1904–AB16, 1904–AB17, and
1904–AB44
Energy Efficiency Program for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment:
Efficiency Standards for Commercial
Heating, Air-Conditioning, and WaterHeating Equipment
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),
establishes energy conservation
standards for various commercial and
industrial equipment. EPCA further
provides with respect to certain
equipment covered by this rule, that if
the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) and the
Illuminating Engineering Society of
North America (IESNA) amend
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in
effect on October 24, 1992, then the
Department of Energy (DOE) must
establish amended national standards at
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90–1
minimum energy efficiency levels
unless DOE determines that evidence
supports adoption of higher standard
levels or certain other circumstances
exist. ASHRAE/IESNA amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 on
October 29, 1999 (ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999), and DOE initiated
this rulemaking to consider
amendments to the national standards.
DOE has concluded that it lacks
authority to pursue higher standards for
gas-fired instantaneous water heaters
and large commercial packaged boilers.
For small commercial packaged boilers
with capacities greater than 300,000
Btu/h and less than or equal to 2.5
million British thermal units per hour,
DOE is declining to adopt revised
efficiency standards contained in the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
because the revised levels are less
stringent than the current national
standard. In addition, DOE has decided
to conduct a separate rulemaking to
consider whether standards at higher
levels than those in the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 are warranted for
packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps. Finally,
DOE has concluded it does not have the
authority to adopt, as uniform national
standards, efficiency standards
contained in Addenda f and b,
respectively, to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–2004 for three-phase air
conditioners and heat pumps with
cooling capacities less than 65,000
British thermal units per hour, and
single-package vertical air conditioners
and single-package vertical heat pumps
with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h.
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Maureen Murphy, Project Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, EE–2J,
1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121, (202) 586–
0598, or e-mail
Maureen.Murphy@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–72, 1000 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0103, (202)
586–9507, or e-mail
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Summary of Today’s Actions
B. Authority
C. Background
1. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 and the
Department of Energy’s Response
2. Subsequent Action by the Department of
Energy
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
II. Discussion of Comments and DOE Final
Rule
A. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers
(Greater Than 2.5 million British
Thermal Units Per Hour) and Gas-Fired
Instantaneous Water Heaters
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers
(Greater Than 300,000 British Thermal
Units Per Hour and Less Than or Equal
to 2.5 million British Thermal Units Per
Hour)
C. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps less than 65,000 British Thermal
Units Per Hour
E. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps
Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
F. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single-Package Vertical Heat Pumps
Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h
and Less Than 240,000 Btu/h
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
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. Congressional Notification
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Summary of Today’s Actions
Today’s final rule addresses five
categories of commercial equipment 1:
(1) Small and large commercial
packaged boilers; (2) gas-fired
instantaneous water heaters; (3)
packaged terminal air conditioners
(PTACs) and packaged terminal heat
pumps (PTHPs); (4) three-phase air
conditioners (ACs) and heat pumps
(HPs) with cooling capacities less than
65,000 British thermal units per hour
(Btu/h); and (5) single-package vertical
air conditioners (SPVAC) and singlepackage vertical heat pumps (SPVHP),
collectively referred to as single package
vertical units (SPVUs).
By today’s action, DOE is publishing
a final rule that prescribes no amended
standard. As discussed in section II.A
through II.F of this notice, DOE has
decided:
1 DOE uses the terms ‘‘product’’ and ‘‘equipment’’
interchangeably in this final rule. Where DOE refers
to the categories of ‘‘residential products’’ covered
by 10 CFR Part 430, DOE uses the phrase
‘‘residential products.’’
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
(1) Not to amend the standards for
large commercial packaged boilers
(greater than 2.5 million Btu/h) and gasfired instantaneous water heaters
because ASHRAE/IESNA did not amend
the levels for these products in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
and, thus, did not trigger the provision
requiring DOE to amend the standards
established under EPCA;
(2) Not to amend the standards for
small commercial packaged boilers
(greater than 300,000 Btu/h and less
than or equal to 2.5 million Btu/h)
because the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999 levels for these products are
less stringent than the existing EPCA
standards;
(3) Not to amend the standards for
packaged terminal air conditioners and
packaged terminal heat pumps because
DOE will conduct a separate rulemaking
to determine if clear and convincing
evidence supports standard levels
higher than those in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999;
(4) Not to amend the standards for
three-phase air conditioners and heat
pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h because
EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to provide
that only an amendment to ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 as in effect on
January 1, 2010, triggers DOE to amend
the standards established under EPCA;
(5) Not to amend the standards for
single-package vertical air conditioners
and single-package vertical heat pumps
less than 65,000 Btu/h because EPACT
2005 amended EPCA to provide that
only an amendment to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 as in effect on January 1,
2010, triggers DOE to amend the
standards established under EPCA; and
(6) Not to amend the standards for
single-package vertical air conditioners
and single-package vertical heat pumps
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
and less than 240,000 Btu/h because
DOE has determined that these products
are covered by standards established by
EPACT 2005 for large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment with cooling capacities
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
and less than 760,000 Btu/h.
B. Authority
Part C of Title III of EPCA addresses
the energy efficiency of certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317) It contains, for
example, specific mandatory energy
conservation standards for tankless, gasfired IWHs; PTACs and PTHPs; small
and large commercial packaged boilers;
and commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment.
The latter category includes three-phase
ACs and HPs with cooling capacities
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
less than 65,000 Btu/h, as well as
SPVACs and SPVHPs with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)–(5))
The energy conservation standards set
forth in EPCA for these and related
types of commercial and industrial
equipment generally correspond to the
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1, effective October 24, 1992
(ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–1989).
Pursuant to section 342(a)(6)(A)(i) of
EPCA, DOE, except in certain
circumstances, must amend energy
conservation standards for the listed
ASHRAE equipment if ASHRAE
amends ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
With respect to certain types of
commercial and industrial equipment,
including all of the equipment covered
by today’s rule, prior to the enactment
of Energy Policy Act of 2005 (EPACT
2005), any amendment of ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1, as in effect on October
24, 1992 (the date of enactment of the
Energy Policy Act of 1992) would trigger
DOE action for adopting amended
uniform national standards for this
equipment. EPACT 2005 changed the
October 24, 1992, date for small and
large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, so
that only an amendment of ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1 as in effect on January
1, 2010, would trigger DOE action to
adopt amended uniform national
standards. Pursuant to EPACT 2005, this
provision also applies to ‘‘very large’’
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment. Id. Any SPVU
with a cooling capacity below 760,000
Btu/h would be within the definition of
small, large, or very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)–(D))
Under certain circumstances
delineated in EPCA, DOE may adopt
standards more stringent than the levels
in amendments to ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(6)(A)(i)–
(ii)) In any such rulemaking, the rule
must contain the amended standard.
The Secretary may not prescribe any
amended standard that increases
maximum allowable energy use, or
decreases the minimum required energy
efficiency, of the covered equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
Furthermore, the Secretary may not
prescribe an amended standard if the
Secretary publishes a finding that
interested persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence that the
amended standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States of
products with performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes
that are substantially the same as those
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10039
generally available in the United States
at the time of the Secretary’s finding. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
C. Background
1. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 and
the Department of Energy’s Response 2
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE
approved and published ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999, which
addressed efficiency levels for many
categories of commercial heating,
ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC),
and water-heating equipment covered
by EPCA. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999 revised the efficiency levels
in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1989
for certain equipment. For the
remaining equipment, ASHRAE left the
preexisting levels in place after
considering revising the levels for some
equipment and deferring consideration
of others.
Following publication of ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999, DOE
performed a screening analysis for the
categories of equipment for which
ASHRAE addressed efficiency levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, to
determine what action DOE would take
with respect to these levels. 65 FR
10984. Upon completion of the
screening analysis, DOE published a
notice of document availability and
public workshop on May 15, 2000. The
May 15, 2000, notice invited written
comments on the screening analysis and
DOE’s planned actions and described
the screening analysis and announced
its availability to the public. 65 FR
30929. For each equipment category for
which ASHRAE adopted or considered
an amended efficiency level, the notice
stated what action DOE was inclined to
take. 65 FR 30935. ASHRAE did not
amend the standard levels for threephase ACs and HPs with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h at that
time. However, it was DOE’s
understanding that the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 committee intended to
amend the levels once the DOE
rulemaking for residential central air
conditioners energy efficiency standards
had been completed. Based on
ASHRAE’s action and DOE’s
understanding of the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 committee’s intention to adopt the
same level as DOE adopted for
residential central air conditioners, DOE
stated that it had decided to take no
action until ASHRAE had amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1’s
2 A more detailed discussion of the ASHRAE
process can be found in DOE’s Notice of
Availability and request for public comment on this
rulemaking published on March 13, 2006 in the
Federal Register. 71 FR 12634.
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
10040
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
efficiency levels for three-phase ACs
and HPs with cooling capacities less
than 65,000 Btu/h. 71 FR 12643. In
Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–2004, ASHRAE adopted
the same minimum energy efficiency
standards for this equipment as DOE
had adopted for residential central air
conditioners. ASHRAE adopted
Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–2004 on April 1, 2006.
Following the public meeting on July
11, 2000, DOE adopted the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999 as uniform national
standards to replace existing EPCA
levels for 18 categories of commercial
equipment in the January 2001 final
rule. 66 FR 3335, 3336–37, 3349–52
(January 12, 2001). DOE also rejected
the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
1999 levels for electric water heaters,
leaving the EPCA level in place for that
equipment. 66 FR 3337.
In this same final rule, for 11
categories of commercial equipment,3
DOE stated it would evaluate whether to
adopt more stringent standards than
those contained in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999. 66 FR 3336–38,
3349–52. For the four categories of
three-phase air-conditioning equipment
that ASHRAE had not addressed in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999,
DOE understood that ASHRAE intended
to amend its efficiency levels for this
equipment in conjunction with the
then-pending DOE standards
rulemaking for similar, single-phase
residential products.4 The standard
levels prescribed in EPCA and
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
for these 15 equipment categories 5
appear in Tables I.1 and I.2. EPACT
2005 included energy efficiency
standards for some of these commercial
air conditioners and heat pumps; those
new standards also appear in Tables I.1
and I.2. EPACT 2005 prescribed more
stringent standards than those contained
in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
for commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment with cooling
capacities between 65,000 Btu/h and
240,000 Btu/h as listed in Table I.1.6
TABLE I.1.—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Standard efficiency level*
Product
Capacity/characteristics
ASHRAE/IESNA
standard 90.1–1999
EPCA
Small Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
EPACT 2005
SEER: 10.0
HSPF: 6.8
Not addressed.
SEER: 9.7
HSPF: 6.6
SEER: 9.7
HSPF: 6.6
Not addressed.
≥65 kBtu/h and <135 kBtu/h Air-Cooled,
Central AC
EER: 8.9 **
EER: 10.3 **
EER: 11.2 **††
≥65 kBtu/h and <135 kBtu/h Air-Cooled,
Central HP
EER: 8.9 **
COP: 3.0†
EER: 10.3 **
COP: 3.2†
EER: 11.0 **
COP: 3.3†
≥135 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h AirCooled, Central AC
EER: 8.5 **
EER: 9.7 **
EER: 11.0 **††
≥135 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h AirCooled, Central HP
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps.
SEER: 10.0
HSPF: 6.8
<65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Central
Single-Package AC, HP
Large Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
<65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Central
Split-System AC, HP
EER: 8.5 **
COP: 2.9†
EER: 9.3 **
COP: 3.1†
EER: 10.6 **
COP: 3.2†
Air-Cooled
EER, COP vary
by capacity
according to
formulas for
each
EER, COP vary by
capacity according
to formulas for
each (different formulas for new
construction and
replacement
equipment)
Not addressed.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
*Heating efficiency levels do not apply to cooling-only air conditioners.
**At 95 F dry-bulb temperature.
† At 47 F dry-bulb temperature.
††This EER level applies to equipment that has electric resistance heat or no heating. For all other package air-conditioning equipment with
heating system types that are integrated into the equipment, deduct 0.2 EER.
3 These eleven products include small
commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment with capacities greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h, large
commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment with capacities greater than or equal to
135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h,
packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps,
small, gas-fired and oil-fired, commercial packaged
boilers greater than 300,000 Btu/h and less than or
equal to 2,500,000 Btu/h, large, gas-fired and oilfired, commercial packaged boilers greater than
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
2,500,000 Btu/h, and gas-fired instantaneous water
heaters.
4 The four categories of three-phase commercial
air conditioners and air conditioning hear pumps
are: Commercial three-phase, air-source, splitsystem air conditioners with cooling capacities less
than 65,000 Btu/h, commercial three-phase, airsource, single split-system heat pumps with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, commercial threephase, air-source, single package air conditioners
with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, and
commercial three-phase, air-source, single package
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
heat pumps with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h.
5 These fifteen products include the eleven
products and four categories of commercial threephase commercial air conditioners and air
conditioning heat pumps identified above.
6 SPVUs are specific types of small and large
commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment. ASHRAE did not recognize and
evaluate them as separate equipment categories in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999, nor did
EPCA recognize them as separate equipment
categories.
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
10041
TABLE I.2.—ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR COMMERCIAL BOILERS AND WATER HEATERS*
Standard efficiency level**
Product
Capacity/characteristics
ASHRAE/IESNA
standard 90.1–1999
EPCA
Gas-Fired
Heaters
Instantaneous
Water
>300 kBtu/h
≤2,500 kBtu/h
Combustion Efficiency **:
Gas-Fired—80%
Oil-Fired—83%
Thermal Efficiency **:
Gas-Fired—75%
Oil-Fired—78%
>2,500 kBtu/h
Packaged Boilers, Oil- and GasFired
Combustion Efficiency **:
Gas-Fired—80%
Oil-Fired—83%
Combustion Efficiency **:
Gas-Fired—80%
Oil-Fired—83%
<10 gallons
Thermal Efficiency: 80%
Thermal Efficiency: 80%
* EPACT
** At
2005 did not address this equipment.
maximum rated capacity.
2. Subsequent Action by the Department
of Energy
DOE reviewed the energy savings
potential of increased energy efficiency
levels for several types of equipment
covered by ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999 and, on March 13, 2006,
issued a notice of document availability
and request for comments (hereafter
referred to as the March 2006 NOA) in
the Federal Register announcing the
availability of a Technical Support
Document (TSD) that set forth this
review, and requested public comment
on the TSD. 71 FR 12634. In the March
2006 NOA, DOE also announced the
approaches it was inclined to take for
the equipment as summarized in Table
I.3, below. Id at 12637.
TABLE I.3.—SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL DOE ACTIONS BY PRODUCT AS STATED IN THE MARCH 2006 NOA
Product
DOE’s action
PTACs and PTHPs .............................................
Small Commercial Packaged Boilers (0.3–2.5
MMBtu/h).
Gas-Fired IWHs ..................................................
Large Commercial Packaged Boilers (>2.5
MMBtu/h).
Three-Phase ACs and HPs (<65,000 Btu/h) ......
SPVUs (<65,000 Btu/h) ......................................
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
DOE’s authority to amend Federal
energy conservation standards for
equipment covered by ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE equipment) is
found in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), which, as
amended by EPACT 2005, states as
follows:
(6)(A)(i) If ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in
effect on January 1, 2010, is amended with
respect to any small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, large
commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, or if ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 24,
1992, is amended with respect to any
packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged
terminal heat pumps, warm-air furnaces,
packaged boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, or unfired hot
water storage tanks, the Secretary shall
establish an amended uniform national
standard for that product at the minimum
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Initiate a rulemaking to consider more stringent standards.
Reject ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency levels.
DOE does not have authority to pursue a standard level higher than those specified in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999.
DOE does not have authority to pursue a standard level higher than those specified in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999.
Adopt Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2004 once ASHRAE formally adopts
this addendum.
DOE invited comments on the potential energy savings estimates and the appropriateness of
adopting as federal standards the efficiency levels contained in Addendum b of ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–2004.
level for each effective date specified in the
amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless
the Secretary determines, by rule published
in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption
of a uniform national standard more stringent
than such amended ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1 for such product would result in
significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and
economically justified.
(ii) If ASHRAE/IES standard 90.1 is not
amended with respect to small commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, and
very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment during
the 5-year period beginning on the effective
date of a standard, the Secretary may initiate
a rulemaking to determine whether a more
stringent standard—
(I) Would result in significant additional
conservation of energy; and
(II) Is technologically feasible and
economically justified.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)–(ii)) 7
Pursuant to this section, DOE’s
authority to amend energy conservation
standards for the listed ASHRAE
equipment is triggered by ASHRAE
action amending ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1. With respect to small and large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment (as well as all
other ASHRAE equipment listed in this
section), prior to the enactment of
EPACT 2005, any amendment of
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect
on October 24, 1992, (the date of
enactment of the Energy Policy Act of
1992) would trigger DOE action for
adopting amended uniform national
standards. EPACT 2005 changed the
October 24, 1992, date for the
7 DOE does not have the authority to establish
energy conservation standards for the ASHRAE
equipment on its own initiative. ASHRAE sets
voluntary guidelines for this equipment in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
10042
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, so that only an
amendment of ASHRAE/IES 90.1 as in
effect on January 1, 2010, would trigger
DOE action to adopt amended uniform
national standards. This provision
applies to small and large air
conditioning and heating equipment, as
well as to very large equipment, which
EPACT 2005 added to EPCA.
In addition, section 136(b) of EPACT
2005 amended section 342(a) of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) by prescribing new
energy conservation standards for
certain small (greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h to less than 135,000 Btu/
h), for large (greater than or equal to
135,000 Btu/h to less than 240,000 Btu/
h), and for very large (greater than or
equal to 240,000 Btu/h to less than
760,000 Btu/h) commercial package air
conditioners and heat pumps.8 DOE
concluded that the EPACT 2005
standards implicitly cover SPVUs
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h to
less than 760,000 Btu/h as further
discussed below, but EPACT 2005
standards do not address or cover
SPVUs less than 65,000 Btu/h. 71 FR
12634, 12638.
II. Discussion of Comments
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
A. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers
(Greater Than 2.5 Million British
Thermal Units Per Hour) and Gas-Fired
Instantaneous Water Heaters
EPCA specifies minimum energy
conservation standards for certain
categories of commercial equipment,
including gas-fired IWHs and large
commercial packaged boilers. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)–(5)) ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 also covers these types of
equipment, and the efficiency
requirements in EPCA correspond with
the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
1989 levels effective October 24, 1992.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(4) and (5))
ASHRAE, in adopting ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999, left in place
the pre-existing ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1–1989 minimum efficiency levels
for gas-fired IWHs and large commercial
packaged boilers. Thus, the efficiency
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999 for this equipment are the
same as the ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1–1989 and EPCA levels.
In the March 1, 2000, notice of
preliminary screening analysis, the May
8 Single package vertical air conditioners and
single package vertical heat pumps that are within
these capacity ranges are small, large and very large
commercial package air conditioners and heat
pumps since they are commercial products (i.e.,
distributed for commercial applications) and meet
EPCA’s definition for ‘‘commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment.’’ (42 U.S.C.
6311(8))
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
15, 2000, notice of document
availability and public workshop, and
the January 2001 final rule, DOE
indicated its belief that it had the
authority to consider more stringent
standard levels for equipment for which
ASHRAE had considered adopting more
stringent levels but declined to change
the efficiency levels for such equipment
when publishing ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999. 71 FR 12642.
However, in the March 2006 NOA, DOE
reexamined its authority under EPCA to
amend standards for gas-fired IWHs and
large commercial package boilers and
concluded that its earlier view was in
error. 71 FR 12642
Specifically, DOE has concluded that
the statutory trigger that requires DOE to
adopt uniform national standards based
on ASHRAE action is for ASHRAE to
amend 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.
If ASHRAE merely considers raising the
standards for any of the listed
equipment in this section, except for
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, but ultimately decides to
leave the standard levels unchanged or
lowers the standard, DOE does not have
the authority to conduct a rulemaking
for higher standards for that equipment.
With respect to small, large, and very
large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment,
under 42 U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6(A)(ii), DOE
has the authority to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to determine
whether more stringent standards are
justified if ASHRAE has not amended
standards for this equipment within five
years following the effective date of a
standard. Furthermore, if ASHRAE
amends its standards with more
stringent standards for a specific subset
of the listed equipment, consistent with
the above exception, DOE only has the
authority to adopt the ASHRAE levels
for the specific subset of equipment and
its effective dates specified in the
amended ASHRAE standard. DOE may
under certain circumstances delineated
in EPCA adopt a standard more
stringent than the amended level in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
Before DOE can adopt an ASHRAE
standard for a product pursuant to
section 342, the plain language in
section 342 requires that ASHRAE must
have amended the standard in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 for that
specific product. Once ASHRAE has
amended a standard for ‘‘any’’
equipment listed in section 342, section
342 requires the Secretary to ‘‘establish
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
an amended uniform national standard
for that product at the minimum level
for each effective date specified in the
amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1, unless the Secretary determines
* * * that adoption of a * * * more
stringent [standard] for such product’’ is
warranted. (Id. Emphasis added.) The
authority provided in section
342(a)(6)(a)(i) is clearly limited to only
those products for which ASHRAE has
amended the standard; i.e., authority for
‘‘that product.’’
The intent of section 342, generally, is
for DOE to maintain uniform national
standards consistent with those set in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. Given
this intent, if ASHRAE has not amended
a standard for a product subject to
section 342, there is no change which
would require action by DOE to
consider amending the uniform national
standard to maintain consistency with
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
In the case of large commercial
packaged boilers and gas-fired IWHs,
ASHRAE considered amending the
standards but ultimately chose not to do
so. Therefore, the statutory trigger for
DOE to adopt ASHRAE’s amended
standards did not occur with respect to
this equipment. Contrary to stakeholder
argument, DOE does not have the
authority to amend the standards for
large commercial packaged boilers and
gas-fired IWHs based on ASHRAE’s
amendments to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1, which did not amend the
standards for large commercial
packaged boilers and gas-fired IWHs.
The statutory language specifically links
ASHRAE’s action in amending
standards for specific equipment to
DOE’s action for those same equipment.
Accordingly, since ASHRAE did not
amend standards for this equipment,
DOE has no rulemaking authority to
amend standards for this equipment at
this time.
The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE),
the American Council for an EnergyEfficient Economy (ACEEE), the
Appliance Standards Awareness Project
(ASAP), the Natural Resources Defense
Council (NRDC), the Northeast Energy
Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and the
Northwest Power and Conservation
Council (NWPCC) submitted a
combined comment (collectively
referred to as ‘‘Joint Comment’’) which
stated that DOE must review the
standards for both large commercial
packaged boilers and gas-fired IWHs.
(Joint Comment, No. 27 at pp. 3–4) 9 The
9 A notation in the form ‘‘Joint Comment, No. 27
at pp. 3–4’’ identifies a written comment DOE has
received and has included in the docket of this
rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Joint Comment asserted that ASHRAE’s
‘‘comprehensive review of all EPCArelated standards which culminated in
issuance of ASHRAE 90.1–1999 triggers
the required review by DOE of all EPCA
standards based on ASHRAE 90.1’’
Furthermore, the Joint Comment
claimed that ASHRAE should not be
permitted to shelter specific standards
from DOE review by leaving them
unchanged. However, the Joint
Comment did not provide a rationale for
DOE to reject the position taken in the
March 2006 NOA and discussed above.
Therefore, DOE does not believe the
Joint Comment provided any
information that would cause DOE to
change its interpretation of EPCA as
explained the March 2006 NOA and
explained above. DOE rejects the Joint
Comment’s position.
Additionally, the Joint Comment
suggested that if ASHRAE revises a
standard for a subset of a product class,
then DOE is required under EPCA to
consider revised standards for the larger
product class. For large commercial
packaged boilers, the Joint Comment
suggested that DOE is obligated to
conduct a standards rulemaking instead
of leaving the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1989 levels in place. The Joint
Comment noted that when ASHRAE
developed ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999, it examined efficiency levels
for all packaged boilers, it created two
product classes—‘‘small boilers’’ and
‘‘large boilers’’—and it set a new
efficiency level for small boilers while
leaving in place the existing level for
large boilers. The Joint Comment
asserted that ASHRAE’s revision of
efficiency levels for the newly created
product class of ‘‘small boilers’’ triggers
a review of the entire category of
packaged boilers as defined by EPCA.
The Joint Comment further contended
that DOE’s proposed position that it
lacks authority to review the standard
level for large boilers means that
ASHRAE has unfettered power to create
new classes of equipment and to shelter
them from DOE review and from higher
national standards. This, they
contended, would conflict with the
intent of EPCA that ASHRAE have the
lead in developing higher standards for
certain equipment, but that these
standards are subject to DOE review.
(Joint Comment, No. 27, pp. 3–4)
However, based on the language of
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6)(A)(i)),
discussed above, DOE finds no basis for
comment (1) by the Joint Comment, (2) in document
number 27 in the docket of this rulemaking
(maintained in the Resource Room of the Building
Technologies Program), and (3) appearing on page
3 and 4 of document number 27.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
accepting the Joint Comments’
contention that ASHRAE’s revision of
efficiency levels for a product class or
subclass triggers a review by DOE of the
standards for that entire product
category.
In sum, DOE does not believe the
Joint Comment provides a basis for DOE
to conclude that the interpretation
presented in the March 2006 NOA (71
FR 12634) was incorrect. Accordingly,
since ASHRAE did not amend the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 for large
commercial packaged boilers or gasfired IWHs, DOE concludes it does not
have the authority to increase the
current standard levels for such
equipment.
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers
(Greater Than 300,000 British Thermal
Units Per Hour and Less Than or Equal
to 2.5 Million British Thermal Units Per
Hour)
EPCA prescribes a minimum
combustion efficiency of 80 percent for
gas-fired commercial packaged boilers
and 83 percent for oil-fired commercial
packaged boilers, regardless of capacity.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(4)(C)–(D)) ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 prescribes
for small boilers (greater than 300
thousand Btu/h and less than or equal
to 2.5 million Btu/h) thermal efficiency
levels of 75 percent for gas-fired
equipment and 78 percent for oil-fired
equipment. In January 2001, when it
adopted as Federal standards certain
efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999, DOE stated that it
would evaluate whether standard levels
higher than those in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 are justified for
small commercial packaged boilers. 66
FR at 3336–38, 3349–52.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE
tentatively concluded that the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 thermal
efficiency levels for small commercial
packaged boilers would have the effect
of lowering minimum combustion
efficiency levels required by EPCA by
allowing increased energy consumption.
71 FR 12640. Thermal and combustion
efficiency are related in that thermal
efficiency is a function of both flue
losses (i.e., combustion efficiency) and
jacket losses, although the amounts of
these two types of losses in a given
boiler can be independent of one
another. DOE observed that the
minimum thermal efficiency levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
appear to be lower than the average
thermal efficiencies of boilers that
minimally comply with the EPCA’s
combustion energy efficiency standards.
71 FR 12640. The practical consequence
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10043
of setting thermal efficiency standards at
levels lower than the thermal
efficiencies of existing equipment
would allow for the possibility of
equipment having lower combustion
efficiencies than EPCA permits,
meaning that the current minimum
required efficiency would be decreased
in violation of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). Consequently, DOE
stated in the March 2006 NOA that it
was inclined to reject the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 levels for
small commercial packaged boilers and
leave the existing EPCA standards in
place. 71 FR 12641
DOE did not receive any comments
objecting to its rejection of the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
levels for small commercial packaged
boilers, although the Joint Comment
argued that DOE must move forward
with a rulemaking for commercial
boilers instead of leaving the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1989 levels in
place as national standards for small
packaged boilers. The Joint Comment
noted that these standards are 17 years
old, and claimed the March 2006 NOA
and TSD demonstrate that more
stringent levels for small commercial
packaged boilers than those in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
are technologically feasible and
economically justifiable. The Joint
Comment also indicated that the
magnitude of the potential energy
savings for this equipment provides a
more than ample reason for DOE to
reexamine this standard. (Joint
Comment, No. 27, p. 3)
While DOE agrees with the Joint
Comment that the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 levels for this equipment
have been in place since 1989 and that
more energy efficient equipment can
save energy, the mere potential for
energy savings does not justify a DOE
rulemaking. As stated above, DOE is
rejecting the amended ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency levels for
small commercial packaged boilers and
believes that, consistent with section
342 in EPCA, the proper venue to
consider more stringent standards for
this equipment is the ASHRAE process
itself. Moreover, as noted by the Joint
Comment, ACEEE has recommended to
ASHRAE that it amend ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 to adopt new, more
stringent standards for this equipment.
DOE commends ACEEE’s initiative, and
encourages ASHRAE to examine
whether more stringent standards are
warranted for this equipment.
Furthermore, DOE considered
whether ASHRAE’s action to reduce the
standard for a class or type of
commercial equipment would be a
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
10044
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
change in the standard that would
trigger a DOE standards rulemaking.
DOE has concluded that such an action
by ASHRAE would not trigger a DOE
rulemaking since EPCA is clear that
DOE cannot change a standard to reduce
its stringency. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) Both Part B for
consumer products and Part C for
commercial and industrial equipment
direct that ‘‘[t]he Secretary may not
prescribe any amended standard * * *
which increases the maximum
allowable energy use, or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency
* * *’’ (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42
U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6)(B)(ii), respectively) It
is a fundamental principle in EPCA’s
statutory scheme that DOE cannot
amend standards downward; that is,
weaken standards, from those that have
been published as a final rule. Natural
Resources Defense Council v. Abraham,
355 F.3d 179 (2nd Cir. 2004).
Therefore, DOE believes that in order
to consider amended efficiency levels
for this equipment, DOE must review
the amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1 to determine if it meets this EPCA
requirement and if it does not meet this
EPCA requirement, that is, if the
efficiency levels in the amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 are less
stringent than existing standards, DOE
cannot further consider the amended
efficiency levels. Accordingly, as stated
in the March 2006 NOA, today’s final
rule will leave the existing EPCA
standards in place for small commercial
boilers.
C. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
Section 342(a)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(3)) and ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 set forth energy
conservation standards for PTACs and
PTHPs, which are collectively referred
to as PTAC/HPs in today’s notice of
final rulemaking. The energy
conservation standards in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 vary based
on the cooling capacity of the
equipment.
EPCA prescribes a single formula for
determining the minimum cooling
efficiency (EER) for all PTAC/HPs and a
single formula for computing the
minimum heating efficiency (COP) for
all PTHPs. In contrast, ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 further delineates
the product categories and consists of
two sets of formulas for calculation of
the energy conservation standards. One
set is for PTAC/HPs with wall sleeves
less than 16 inches high and 42 inches
wide, and a label indicating the
equipment is for replacement use,
which ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
1999 classifies as ‘‘replacement’’ units.
The other formula is for all other PTAC/
HPs, which ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1999 classifies as ‘‘new
construction’’ units. The resulting
minimum efficiency levels for
‘‘replacement’’ units are slightly higher
than the EPCA levels, and the levels for
‘‘new construction’’ units are
substantially higher than the EPCA
levels. In addition, ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 have slightly
different requirements for the cooling
modes of PTACs and PTHPs, whereas
EPCA prescribes a single formula for air
conditioners and heat pumps.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE
recognized that the market for PTACs
and PTHPs has substantially changed
since publication of the January 2001
final rule. 71 FR 12639. DOE stated in
the March 2006 NOA that the market
has changed to efficiency levels at or
above the levels in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 in the absence of
Federal standards. DOE examined the
January 2003 Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute (ARI) Directory
for PTAC/HPs and found that 52 percent
of the listed PTACs are at, or above, the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
efficiency level for new construction
equipment, and 98 percent of the listed
PTACs are at or above the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency
level for replacement equipment. Id. In
addition, DOE found that 72 percent of
the listed PTHPs are at or above the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
efficiency level for new construction
equipment and 99 percent of the listed
PTHPs are at or above the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency
level for replacement equipment. Id.
DOE also indicated in the March 2006
NOA that even though the potential
energy savings in the revised analysis
have been reduced, it believed there is
a possibility of clear and convincing
evidence that more stringent standard
levels for PTACs and PTHPs would
result in significant additional energy
savings, and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Therefore, DOE stated it was inclined to
seek a more stringent standard level
than in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
1999 for PTACs and PTHPs through the
rulemaking process. 71 FR 12639.
DOE received several comments on
the proposed decision to seek a more
stringent standard level than the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 for PTACs and
PTHPs. ARI commented that the
technical information regarding DOE’s
analysis does not support moving
forward with a separate rulemaking. ARI
believes that 0.103 quads of potential
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
energy savings in the TSD is
significantly less than the 0.561 quads
originally estimated by DOE for PTAC/
PTHP, and that DOE should reject 0.103
quads saved over a 25-year period as
being a ‘‘significant’’ amount of energy.
Furthermore, ARI stated that
manufacturers are voluntarily striving to
meet ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
1999 requirements. However, ARI went
on to note that close to 50 percent of the
PTACs listed in the ARI directory are
still rated below ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999 efficiency levels,
which, in ARI’s opinion, demonstrates
the importance of establishing a
national standard. (ARI, No. 26 at p. 2)
Even though the potential energy
savings in DOE’s revised analysis has
been reduced, DOE believes there is a
reasonable likelihood that more
stringent standard levels for PTACs and
PTHPs would result in significant
energy savings and be technically
feasible and economically justified. The
estimated savings of 0.103 quads would
be comparable to the savings resulting
from some other efficiency standards
established under EPCA. Furthermore,
under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act,
the Department is prohibited from
adopting a standard for a product if that
standard would not result in
‘‘significant’’ energy savings. While the
term ‘‘significant’’ has never been
defined in the Act, the U.S. Court of
Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense
Council v. Herrington, 768 F.2d 1355,
1373 (DC Cir. 1985), concluded that
Congressional intent in using the word
‘‘significant’’ was to mean ‘‘non-trivial.’’
Therefore, based on the above, DOE
does not agree with ARI’s assertion and
believes that the energy savings that
could result from standards for PTACs
and PTHPs, while not as large as the
savings potential for some other
standards, are significant and warrant
consideration in a separate rulemaking.
In addition, DOE believes there is a
possibility that further evaluation of
more stringent standard levels for
PTACs and PTHPs are warranted, in
part, because the market has changed, in
the absence of Federal standards, to
efficiency levels at or above the levels
in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
for PTACs and PTHPs.10 71 FR 12639.
DOE has therefore decided to explore
more stringent efficiency levels than in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
for PTACs and PTHPs through a
separate rulemaking, which DOE
expects to complete in August 2008.
10 The price of electricity and forecasts of
electricity prices, for example, have changed and
more stringent standards than analyzed may prove
to be economically justified.
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
(See Department of Energy Regulatory
Agenda, RIN: 1904-AB44, 71 FR 73183,
December 11, 2006)
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI)
commented that DOE should take into
account the refrigerant phaseout that
starts in 2010 when considering higher
standards for PTACs and PTHPs. EEI
maintained that when the effects of the
new refrigerants combined with the
space limitations on this product are
considered, they will have a significant
impact on the efficiency levels that are
available. (EEI, No. 25 at p. 2)
EEI commented that it is currently
unaware of any PTAC or PTHP
equipment that uses R–410A, the
refrigerant being used to replace R–22 in
other air-conditioning equipment.
Therefore, EEI stated its belief that DOE
will not have current data on baseline
or high efficiency equipment that DOE
can use to make a technical or economic
judgment for a new efficiency standard.
(EEI, No. 25 at p. 2)
ARI stated its concern that DOE’s
analysis focuses exclusively on units
operating with R–22, a refrigerant that
will be phased out on January 1, 2010.
According to the EPACT timetable, any
amended energy conservation standards
for this equipment would come into
effect no sooner than September 2012,
well after the phaseout of R–22.
Consequently, ARI stated that it does
not believe that any of the efficiency
data that DOE has collected for its
analyses can be used when DOE is
evaluating equipment using the new
refrigerant, R–410A. (ARI, No. 26 at p.
3)
ARI cited several technical challenges
that limit the opportunity to improve
efficiencies in PTAC/PTHP equipment,
including the availability of 60–Hz
rotary compressors compatible with R–
410A refrigerant. ARI commented that
PTAC/PTHP equipment makes
exclusive use of rotary compressors and
the current production of a 60–Hz rotary
compressor compatible with R–410A
refrigerant is very limited. Further,
according to ARI, the R–410A rotary
compressors currently available are
significantly less efficient than
comparable R–22 rotary compressors. In
addition, ARI stated its belief that the
rotary compressor manufacturers have
not made significant gains in energy
efficiency due to design and
manufacturing limitations. According to
ARI, simulation analyses it conducted
on the performance of package terminal
air conditioners and heat pumps with
R–410A have shown an overall decrease
in efficiency (EER and COP) of between
6 to 10 percent (depending on the
cooling capacity) compared to R–22
systems. This reduction can be mostly
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
attributed to a reduction in compressor
efficiency. DOE has not addressed
whether higher standards using R410a
are technically feasible. (ARI, No. 26 at
p. 3)
The Joint Comment maintained that at
least the same levels of efficiency could
be achieved cost effectively with R–
410A and R–134a as with R–22. The
Joint Comment, citing a paper released
by Trane, stated that there is no
theoretical degradation of efficiency
with R–134a because the refrigerant has
a higher efficiency than R–22 with
everything else being equal. However,
the Joint Comment recognizes that R–
410A has a modestly lower efficiency
than R–22, but notes that R–410A
allows the compressor and tubes to be
smaller than R–22, providing space for
increased heat transfer surfaces.
According to the Joint Comment, this
results in ‘‘efficiency gains that can
offset some or all of the inherent
inefficiencies of R–410A.’’ 11 (Joint
Comment, No. 27 at p. 2) DOE
recognizes this is a significant issue for
stakeholders and will consider this
issue in the PTAC/PTHP rulemaking,
which will assess the technological
feasibility of a more stringent energy
conservation standard for this
equipment.
As stated above, DOE will address
more stringent standards for PTACs and
PTHPs in a separate rulemaking. To
analyze the technical feasibility of
energy efficiency improvements of
PTACs and PTHPs, which use R–22,
DOE will first evaluate systems that use
R–22 as a refrigerant because there is
insufficient data to gauge the impacts of
alternative refrigerants on system
efficiency. DOE will then attempt to
collect information on the alternative
refrigerants. If DOE is unable to collect
sufficient data or information to
independently estimate the impacts of
the refrigerant phaseout on equipment
efficiency, DOE will request that
stakeholders provide recommendations
as to what assumptions DOE should use
to represent the approximate
incremental cost of switching to higher
efficiency levels for this equipment as a
result of using alternative refrigerants,
for instance, R–410A.
11 Previous refrigerant phaseouts, including the
R–12 phaseout for domestic refrigerators, affected
DOE standards rulemakings. In those rulemakings
DOE attempted to assess the effects of the
refrigerant phaseout and, the Joint Comment notes,
there were theoretical reasons to believe that there
would be a small reduction in efficiency due to the
refrigerant change, but when the refrigerant
changeover occurred, reductions in efficiency
generally were not apparent.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10045
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps Less Than 65,000 British
Thermal Units Per Hour
Energy conservation standards for
split-system three-phase ACs and HPs
with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h are 10.0 SEER for cooling (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A)) and 6.8 HSPF for
heating. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A) and
(D)) Energy conservation standards for
single-package three-phase ACs and HPs
with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h are set forth in EPCA at a SEER
of 9.7 for cooling (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)(B)) and an HSPF of 6.6 for
heating. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(B) and (E))
The current energy conservation
standards for single-package and splitsystem three-phase ACs and HPs with
cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/
h are found in Table 1 and Table 2 of
section 431.97 of 10 CFR Part 431.
These efficiency levels are the same as
those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1–1989.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE
recognized that ASHRAE was
considering an Addendum to ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 (Addendum f) to
provide a 13–SEER level for this
equipment and stated that DOE would
not take action on three-phase
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps with capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h until after ASHRAE had
completed its process. At that time, DOE
stated that it intended to adopt as
Federal standards the 13 SEER and 7.7
HSPF levels in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–2004 Addendum f. 71 FR
12634, 12637–38, 12643.
Subsequent to the publication of the
March 2006 NOA, DOE reexamined the
amendments in EPACT 2005 to EPCA
for commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment and determined
that EPACT 2005 had revised the
language in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) to
limit DOE’s authority to adopt ASHRAE
amendments for small, large, and very
large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
until after January 1, 2010. Three-phase
commercial ACs and HPs less than
65,000 Btu/h, fall under the definition
of small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (42
U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)), and therefore are
subject to the revised statutory language
of EPACT 2005.
Prior to the enactment of EPACT
2005, for small and large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, any amendment of
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect
on October 24, 1992 (the date of
enactment of the Energy Policy Act of
1992), would trigger DOE action for
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
10046
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
adopting amended uniform national
standards for this equipment. However,
EPACT 2005 changed the October 24,
1992, date for this equipment, so that
only an amendment of ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 as in effect on January 1,
2010, would trigger DOE action to adopt
amended uniform national standards for
these products. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) This revised statutory
requirement, on its face, precludes DOE
from adopting the efficiency levels in
Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–2004 for three-phase
commercial ACs and HPs less than
65,000 Btu/h at this time. The revised
provision states:
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
If ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect on
January 1, 2010, is amended with respect to
any small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, large
commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment * * * the Secretary shall
establish an amended uniform national
standard for that product at the minimum
level for each effective date specified in the
amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1[.]
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) (Emphasis
added.) Because of this statutory
change, it is outside the scope of DOE’s
authority to adopt these ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 levels at this time.
Three-phase ACs and HPs less than
65,000 Btu/h are within the small
commercial packaged air conditioning
and heating equipment product
categories listed in the clause that
contains the January 1, 2010 date. (42
U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6)(A)(i)) Addendum f to
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2004
was adopted on April 1, 2006, and in
effect prior to January 1, 2010, the date
before which DOE has no authority to
consider adoption of an ASHRAE
amendment affecting this equipment.
Subsection (a)(1)(A)–(B) establishes
statutory standards for certain small
commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment that is manufactured
after January 1, 1994, but before January
1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A)–(B))
These standards are applicable to threephase air conditioners and heat pumps
less than 65,000 Btu/h, as well as
SPVU’s less than 65,000 Btu/h,
discussed in Section II.E below.
While EPACT 2005 set standards for
certain small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment manufactured
on or after January 1, 2010 (42 U.S.C.
6313 (7)–(9)), Congress did not provide
standards for either three-phase air
conditioning and heat pumps less than
65,000 Btu/h or SPVUs less than 65,000
Btu/h manufactured on or after January
1, 2010. Congress, however, did give
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
DOE explicit rulemaking authority to
consider and adopt more stringent
standards for three-phase air
conditioning and heat pumps less than
65,000 Btu/h and SPVUs less than
65,000 Btu/h, along with large and very
large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, if
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 is not
amended during the five-year period
beginning on the effective date of a
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
The criteria for such a rulemaking are
described in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)–
(ii).
EPACT 2005 gives DOE authority to
initiate a rulemaking ‘‘[i]f ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 is not amended * * *
during the 5-year period beginning on
the effective date of a standard,’’ but
Congress does not define the term
‘‘effective date of a standard.’’ Since the
effective date of the statutory standards
in EPACT 2005 is the date of enactment
of the legislation, that is, August 8,
2005, DOE interprets the five-year
waiting period to begin on August 8,
2005. Therefore, EPACT 2005 provides
ASHRAE from January 2, 2010, until
August 8, 2010, to amend ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 on its own in
order to trigger DOE action. After
August 8, 2010, DOE may initiate its
own rulemaking to set more stringent
standards for this equipment.
Thus, the text of EPCA clearly
prohibits amendments to the standards
for small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment,
large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment,
and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
until after January 1, 2010.
E. Single-Package Vertical Air
Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps Less Than 65,000
Btu/h
On June 2, 2002, ASHRAE published
Addendum d to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–1999, which
incorporated efficiency levels for
SPVUs. In the March 2006 NOA DOE
stated that it was not able to adopt as
Federal requirements the standards and
test procedures in Addendum d for
SPVUs for the following reasons: (1)
Taking into account the ‘‘Exclusions’’ in
the Scope section of ARI Standard 390–
2001, the Addendum appeared to
prescribe requirements for few if any of
the equipment covered by EPCA;
neither Addendum d nor any other
provision of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1 defines or describes SPVUs; (2)
assuming Addendum d did prescribe
standards and test procedures for
SPVUs covered by EPCA, the addendum
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
did not clearly delineate SPVUs
according to the statutory scheme set
forth in EPCA, and disregarded EPCA’s
definitions and classifications for
commercial air-conditioning equipment;
and (3) to the extent it addressed
equipment covered by EPCA, the
addendum appeared to contain
efficiency levels for some categories of
equipment that were lower than the
minimum efficiency standards currently
required under EPCA. 71 FR 12643.
DOE formally rejected Addendum d for
reasons summarized above and
submitted a formal comment to
ASHRAE during the public review
period. (Michael J. McCabe letter to Mr.
Karim Amrane, Air-Conditioning and
Refrigeration Institute, dated July 25,
2003).
In response to DOE’s comment and in
rejection of Addendum d, ASHRAE
adopted Addendum b to ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–2004 (Addendum
b). Addendum b redefined both SPVACs
and SPVHPs from the definition
provided in Addendum d to include
encased air-cooled small or large
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment. In addition,
Addendum b created SPVU equipment
categories corresponding to the existing
cooling capacities in EPCA for
commercial package air-conditioning
and heating equipment (i.e., less than
65,000 Btu/h, greater than or equal to
65,000 but less than 135,000 Btu/h, and
greater than or equal to 135,000 but less
than 240,000 Btu/h). Addendum b also
adopted a revised set of efficiency levels
for three categories of SPVUs. These
amended energy conservation standards
in Addendum b use EER and COP
descriptors to provide SPVU efficiency
levels in a manner consistent with other
commercial HVAC equipment, thus
eliminating the use of the common
residential central AC and HP
descriptors of SEER and HSPF.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE
considered the potential energy savings
for efficiency levels higher than those in
Addendum b for SPVU equipment and
requested comments on the
appropriateness of adopting Addendum
b efficiency levels for SPVUs less than
65,000 Btu/h. 71 FR 12634, 12638,
12646. After the publication of the
March 2006 NOA, DOE reexamined the
amendments in EPACT 2005 to EPCA
for commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment. As noted above,
DOE determined that EPACT 2005 had
revised the language in 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(I,) to limit DOE’s authority
to adopt ASHRAE amendments for
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment until after January 1, 2010.
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
SPVUs less than 65,000 Btu/h fall under
the definition of small commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)). Any
SPVU with cooling capacities below
760,000 Btu/h would fit within the
product categories listed in the clause
that contains the January 1, 2010, date.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Accordingly,
for the reasons stated above in Section
II.D above, DOE has concluded that it
cannot adopt the efficiency levels in
Addendum b to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1–2004 for SPVUs less than
65,000 Btu/h, contrary to its stated
intentions in the March 2006 NOA,
because it is outside the scope of DOE’s
authority to adopt the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 levels at this time for this
equipment.
F. Single-Package Vertical Air
Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps Greater Than or
Equal to 65,000 Btu/h and Less Than
240,000 Btu/h
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE stated
that EPCA’s energy efficiency standards
for commercial packaged air
conditioners and heat pumps implicitly
cover SPVUs greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/
h, and, specifically, the standards added
to EPCA by EPACT 2005 apply to these
larger units. DOE also stated that the
rule under consideration in the March
2006 NOA only addressed SPVUs less
than 65,000 Btu/h. 71 FR 12634, 12638.
DOE received several comments
regarding its conclusion that SPVUs
with larger capacities are covered under
the standards specified by EPACT 2005.
ARI disagreed with DOE’s position, and
argued that Addendum b to ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1–2004 established
a new product class for SPVUs in 2002
(three years before enactment of EPACT
2005); that DOE started a rulemaking on
SPVUs well before EPACT 2005 was
enacted into law according to the semiannual regulatory agendas published in
2003 and 2004; and that the minimum
efficiency standards for small, large, and
very large commercial air conditioners
established by EPACT 2005 were never
intended to apply to SPVUs. (ARI, No.
26 at p. 5) Contrary to ARI’s belief, the
Joint Comment agreed with DOE’s
position as summarized in the March
2006 NOA and further argued that the
EPACT 2005 standards for commercial
unitary air-conditioning and heating
equipment cover SPVUs with cooling
capacities greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h. (Joint Comment, No. 27 at
p. 4)
DOE is not persuaded by ARI’s
comment that the conclusion presented
in the March 2006 NOA is incorrect and
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
that SPVUs with cooling capacities
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
were not meant to be covered by EPACT
2005 levels and, instead, should be
required to meet the lower standards
found in Addendum b. The definition in
EPACT 2005 for large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment covers commercial packaged
air-conditioning and heating equipment
with cooling capacities greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than
760,000 Btu/h, which would include
SPVUs. Although the term SPVU itself
is not used in EPCA, all SPVUs,
regardless of cooling capacity, come
within the definitions of small, large
and very large commercial packaged airconditioning and heating equipment.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)–(D). There is no
language in EPCA to indicate that
SPVUs are a separate product and
should be subject to different energy
conservation standards than in EPACT
2005. EPACT 2005 set energy efficiency
standards for small, large and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heat equipment, effective for
equipment manufactured on or after
January 1, 2010. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(7)–
(9). Since EPACT 2005 set such
standards, DOE must follow them. DOE
cannot ignore the statutory standards.
Only a legislative change could
accomplish the result requested by ARI.
Bard commented that larger SPVUs
(greater than 65,000 Btu/h) cannot be
manufactured to meet the statutory
standards in EPACT 2005 due to their
geometry. (Bard, No. 29 at p. 4) In
response, DOE notes that absent a
legislative change, the only relief from
these statutory standards is in the form
of exception relief. The DOE
Organization Act (DOEOA) authorizes
DOE to grant exception relief. DOEOA
section 504(a), 42 U.S.C. 7194(a). The
DOEOA permits adjustments to any
rule, regulation or order ‘‘as may be
necessary to prevent special hardship,
inequity, or unfair distribution of
burdens * * *’’ Id. Manufacturers may
apply for exception relief by following
DOE’s procedural regulations in 10 CFR
Part 1003, Subparts B and C.
Accordingly, in today’s final rule,
consistent with the March 2006 NOA,
DOE is affirming that the EPACT 2005
efficiency levels, as codified in
§ 431.97(b) of 10 CFR Part 431, apply to
SPVUs greater than or equal to 65,000
Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h.
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
Today’s regulatory action is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10047
‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58
FR 51735 (October 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject
to review under the Executive Order by
the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs.
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis for any rule that by law must
be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if
promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. As required by
Executive Order 13272, Proper
Consideration of Small Entities in
Agency Rulemaking, 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of General
Counsel’s Web site: https://
www.gc.doe.gov.
DOE reviewed today’s final rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. 68 FR 7990. This final rule does
not impose any requirement on any
entities, including small entities.
Therefore, DOE certifies that today’s
action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, and no
regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
This rule imposes no new information
or recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, Office of Management and
Budget clearance is not required under
the Paperwork Reduction Act. (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.)
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
EPCA provides that if ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 is amended, the
Secretary must adopt the amended
efficiency requirements in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 for covered
equipment, unless the Secretary
determines that certain conditions for
requiring more stringent standards are
met, or the amendment would increase
the maximum allowable energy use or
decrease the minimum required energy
efficiency of a covered product or would
result in the unavailability of a product
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
10048
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
type in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A) and (B))
For the reasons discussed in II. above,
DOE has concluded that it lacks
authority to pursue higher standards for
gas-fired instantaneous water heaters
and large commercial packaged boilers.
For small commercial packaged boilers
with capacities greater than 300,000
Btu/h and less than or equal to 2.5
million British thermal units per hour,
DOE is declining to adopt revised
efficiency standards contained in the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–1999
because they are not as stringent as
those prescribed by EPCA. In addition,
DOE has decided to conduct a separate
rulemaking to consider whether
standards at higher levels than those in
the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–
1999 are warranted for packaged
terminal air conditioners and packaged
terminal heat pumps. Finally, DOE has
concluded it does not have the authority
to adopt, as uniform national standards,
efficiency standards contained in
Addenda f and Addenda b, respectively,
to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1–2004
for three-phase commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps with
cooling capacities less than 65,000
British thermal units per hour, and
single-package vertical air conditioners
and single-package vertical heat pumps
with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h.
Accordingly, to the extent that DOE
lacks discretion to adopt the amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, NEPA
does not apply. Moreover, because the
final rule prescribing no new energy
efficiency standards and would not
change the environmental effect of
compliance with 10 CFR Part 431, the
Department has determined that this
rule is, in any event, covered under the
Categorical Exclusion found at
paragraph A5 of Appendix A, 10 CFR
Part 1021, which applies to rulemaking
interpreting an existing rule or
regulation with no change in
environmental effect. Therefore, neither
an environmental assessment nor an
environmental impact statement is
required.
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes
certain requirements on agencies
formulating and implementing policies
or regulations that preempt State law or
that have federalism implications. The
Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory
authority supporting any action that
would limit the policymaking discretion
of the States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have federalism implications. On March
14, 2000, DOE published a statement of
policy describing the intergovernmental
consultation process it will follow in
developing such regulations. 65 FR
13735. DOE is prescribing no new
standards and imposing no other
requirements in this rulemaking.
Therefore, this final rule does not have
a substantial direct effect on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government.
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
Regarding the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (February 7, 1996)
imposes on Federal agencies the general
duty to adhere to the following
requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting
errors and ambiguity; (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation; and
(3) provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard and promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of
Executive Order 12988 specifically
requires that Executive agencies make
every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation; (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction; (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately
defines key terms; and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. As a result of its analysis
of the evidence and the law, DOE has
decided not to prescribe amended
standards for the equipment covered in
this rulemaking. Because it is not
imposing any requirement on any
person or entity, Executive Order 12988
does not apply to this rulemaking.
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
G. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) (Pub. L.
104–4) requires each Federal agency to
assess the effects of Federal regulatory
actions on State, local, and Tribal
governments and the private sector. For
a proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause
expenditures by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect small governments. On March 18,
1997, DOE published a statement of
policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under
UMRA (62 FR 12820) (also available at
https://www.gc.doe.gov). This final rule
prescribes no standards or other
requirements, so these requirements
under the UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final rule would not have any impact on
the autonomy or integrity of the family
as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to
prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
DOE has determined under Executive
Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions
and Interference with Constitutionally
Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859
(March 18, 1988) that this regulation
would not result in any takings which
might require compensation under the
Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution.
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 44 / Wednesday, March 7, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule,’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) requires
agencies to review most disseminations
of information to the public under
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). OMB’s guidelines were
published at 67 FR 8452 (February 22,
2002); DOE’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 62446 (October 7, 2002). DOE
has reviewed today’s notice under the
OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
IV. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of today’s final rule.
Issued in Washington, DC, on February 28,
2007.
Alexander A. Karsner,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. E7–3819 Filed 3–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001) requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA), Office of Management and
Budget, a Statement of Energy Effects for
any proposed significant energy action.
A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined
as any action by an agency that
promulgated or is expected to lead to
promulgation of a final rule, and that:
(1) Is a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866, or any
successor order; and (2) is likely to have
a significant adverse effect on the
supply, distribution, or use of energy; or
(3) is designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
proposal were implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use. This final
rule is not a significant regulatory action
under Executive Order 12866 or any
successor order, and because DOE is
imposing no requirements in this final
rule, it will not have a significant
adverse effect on supply, distribution, or
use of energy, and has not been
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
sroberts on PROD1PC70 with RULES
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
[Docket No. FAA–2006–25261; Directorate
Identifier 2006–CE–38–AD; Amendment 39–
14971; AD 2007–05–10]
L. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule prior to its effective date.
The report will state that it has been
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:48 Mar 06, 2007
Jkt 211001
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Cessna
Aircraft Company Models 172R, 172S,
182S, 182T, T182T, 206H, and T206H
Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA adopts a new
airworthiness directive (AD) for certain
Cessna Aircraft Company (Cessna)
Models 172R, 172S, 182S, 182T, T182T,
206H, and T206H airplanes. This AD
requires you to install Modification Kit
MK172–25–10C or a steel lock rod/bar
on both crew seat back cylinder lock
assemblies. If a steel lock rod/bar has
already been installed on the crew seat
back cylinder lock assembly, no further
action is required. If you have already
installed Modification Kit MK172–25–
10A or MK172–25–10B, this AD
requires you to do an installation
inspection and correct any
discrepancies found. This AD results
from reports of the crew seat back
cylinder lock assembly failing at the aft
end and other cylinder lock assemblies
found cracked. We are issuing this AD
to prevent the crew seat back cylinder
lock assembly from bending, cracking,
or failing. This failure could cause
uncontrolled movement of the seat back,
resulting in possible backward collapse
during flight. Backward collapse of
either crew seat back could result in an
abrupt pitch-up if the affected crew
member continues to hold on to the
control yoke during this failure and
could cause difficulty in exiting the
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
10049
airplane from an aft passenger seat after
landing.
DATES: This AD becomes effective on
April 11, 2007.
As of April 11, 2007, the Director of
the Federal Register approved the
incorporation by reference of certain
publications listed in the regulation.
ADDRESSES: To get the service
information identified in this AD,
contact Cessna Aircraft Company,
Product Support, P.O. Box 7706,
Wichita, KS 67277; telephone: (316)
517–5800; fax: (316) 942–9006.
To view the AD docket, go to the
Docket Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, 400
Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building,
Room PL–401, Washington, DC 20590–
001 or on the Internet at https://
dms.dot.gov. The docket number is
FAA–2006–25261; Directorate Identifier
2006–CE–38–AD.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary
Park, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Wichita
Aircraft Certification Office, 1801
Airport Road, Mid-Continent Airport,
Wichita, Kansas 67209; telephone: (316)
946–4123; facsimile: (316) 946–4107.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion
On August 3, 2006, we issued a
proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to
include an AD that would apply to
certain Cessna Models 172R, 172S,
182S, 182T, T182T, 206H, and T206H
airplanes. This proposal was published
in the Federal Register as a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) on
August 9, 2006 (71 FR 45454). The
NPRM proposed to require you to install
a modification kit on both crew seat
back cylinder lock assemblies, which
replaces the cylinder lock with a new
model cylinder lock, or install a steel
lock rod/bar on both crew seat back
cylinder lock assemblies. The NPRM
also proposed to require you to do an
installation inspection on previously
installed modification kits and correct
any discrepancies found.
Comments
We provided the public the
opportunity to participate in developing
this AD. The following presents the
comments received on the proposal and
FAA’s response to each comment:
Comment Issue No. 1: Need AD To
Resolve Crew Seat Problem
Michael A. Zaite states that having
flown a number of Cessna airplanes, he
has experienced this problem first hand
and supports the AD.
The Cessna Pilots Association (CPA)
also supports the AD. The CPA states
E:\FR\FM\07MRR1.SGM
07MRR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 10038-10049]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3819]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy
10 CFR Part 431
[Docket Nos. EE-RM/STD-03-100, EE-RM/STD-03-200, and EE-RM/STD-03-300]
RIN Nos. 1904-AB16, 1904-AB17, and 1904-AB44
Energy Efficiency Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial
Equipment: Efficiency Standards 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 Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),
establishes energy conservation standards for various commercial and
industrial equipment. EPCA further provides with respect to certain
equipment covered by this rule, that if the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) and the
Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) amend ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1 as in effect on October 24, 1992, then the
Department of Energy (DOE) must establish amended national standards at
the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90-1 minimum energy efficiency levels unless
DOE determines that evidence supports adoption of higher standard
levels or certain other circumstances exist. ASHRAE/IESNA amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 on October 29, 1999 (ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-1999), and DOE initiated this rulemaking to consider amendments to
the national standards. DOE has concluded that it lacks authority to
pursue higher standards for gas-fired instantaneous water heaters and
large commercial packaged boilers. For small commercial packaged
boilers with capacities greater than 300,000 Btu/h and less than or
equal to 2.5 million British thermal units per hour, DOE is declining
to adopt revised efficiency standards contained in the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 because the revised levels are less stringent than
the current national standard. In addition, DOE has decided to conduct
a separate rulemaking to consider whether standards at higher levels
than those in the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 are warranted for
packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps.
Finally, DOE has concluded it does not have the authority to adopt, as
uniform national standards, efficiency standards contained in Addenda f
and b, respectively, to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 for three-phase
air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacities less than
65,000 British thermal units per hour, and single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical heat pumps with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h.
DATES: Effective Date: April 6, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Maureen Murphy, Project Manager, U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20585-0121, (202) 586-0598, or e-mail
Maureen.Murphy@ee.doe.gov.
Francine Pinto, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC
20585-0103, (202) 586-9507, or e-mail Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
A. Summary of Today's Actions
B. Authority
C. Background
1. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 and the Department of Energy's
Response
2. Subsequent Action by the Department of Energy
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
II. Discussion of Comments and DOE Final Rule
A. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers (Greater Than 2.5 million
British Thermal Units Per Hour) and Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water
Heaters
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers (Greater Than 300,000
British Thermal Units Per Hour and Less Than or Equal to 2.5 million
British Thermal Units Per Hour)
C. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat
Pumps
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps less than 65,000
British Thermal Units Per Hour
E. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
F. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package
Vertical Heat Pumps Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h and Less
Than 240,000 Btu/h
III. Procedural Requirements
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
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. Congressional Notification
IV. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Introduction
A. Summary of Today's Actions
Today's final rule addresses five categories of commercial
equipment \1\: (1) Small and large commercial packaged boilers; (2)
gas-fired instantaneous water heaters; (3) packaged terminal air
conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs); (4)
three-phase air conditioners (ACs) and heat pumps (HPs) with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 British thermal units per hour (Btu/h); and
(5) single-package vertical air conditioners (SPVAC) and single-package
vertical heat pumps (SPVHP), collectively referred to as single package
vertical units (SPVUs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE uses the terms ``product'' and ``equipment''
interchangeably in this final rule. Where DOE refers to the
categories of ``residential products'' covered by 10 CFR Part 430,
DOE uses the phrase ``residential products.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
By today's action, DOE is publishing a final rule that prescribes
no amended standard. As discussed in section II.A through II.F of this
notice, DOE has decided:
[[Page 10039]]
(1) Not to amend the standards for large commercial packaged
boilers (greater than 2.5 million Btu/h) and gas-fired instantaneous
water heaters because ASHRAE/IESNA did not amend the levels for these
products in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and, thus, did not trigger
the provision requiring DOE to amend the standards established under
EPCA;
(2) Not to amend the standards for small commercial packaged
boilers (greater than 300,000 Btu/h and less than or equal to 2.5
million Btu/h) because the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 levels for
these products are less stringent than the existing EPCA standards;
(3) Not to amend the standards for packaged terminal air
conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps because DOE will conduct
a separate rulemaking to determine if clear and convincing evidence
supports standard levels higher than those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-1999;
(4) Not to amend the standards for three-phase air conditioners and
heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h because EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to
provide that only an amendment to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in
effect on January 1, 2010, triggers DOE to amend the standards
established under EPCA;
(5) Not to amend the standards for single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical heat pumps less than 65,000
Btu/h because EPACT 2005 amended EPCA to provide that only an amendment
to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 as in effect on January 1, 2010, triggers
DOE to amend the standards established under EPCA; and
(6) Not to amend the standards for single-package vertical air
conditioners and single-package vertical heat pumps greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h because DOE has
determined that these products are covered by standards established by
EPACT 2005 for large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
and less than 760,000 Btu/h.
B. Authority
Part C of Title III of EPCA addresses the energy efficiency of
certain types of commercial and industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) It contains, for example, specific mandatory energy conservation
standards for tankless, gas-fired IWHs; PTACs and PTHPs; small and
large commercial packaged boilers; and commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment. The latter category includes three-
phase ACs and HPs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as
well as SPVACs and SPVHPs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/
h. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(5))
The energy conservation standards set forth in EPCA for these and
related types of commercial and industrial equipment generally
correspond to the levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, effective
October 24, 1992 (ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989). Pursuant to section
342(a)(6)(A)(i) of EPCA, DOE, except in certain circumstances, must
amend energy conservation standards for the listed ASHRAE equipment if
ASHRAE amends ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1. With respect to certain types
of commercial and industrial equipment, including all of the equipment
covered by today's rule, prior to the enactment of Energy Policy Act of
2005 (EPACT 2005), any amendment of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in
effect on October 24, 1992 (the date of enactment of the Energy Policy
Act of 1992) would trigger DOE action for adopting amended uniform
national standards for this equipment. EPACT 2005 changed the October
24, 1992, date for small and large commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, so that only an amendment of ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1 as in effect on January 1, 2010, would trigger DOE action to adopt
amended uniform national standards. Pursuant to EPACT 2005, this
provision also applies to ``very large'' commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment. Id. Any SPVU with a cooling
capacity below 760,000 Btu/h would be within the definition of small,
large, or very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A)-(D))
Under certain circumstances delineated in EPCA, DOE may adopt
standards more stringent than the levels in amendments to ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(6)(A)(i)-(ii)) In any such rulemaking,
the rule must contain the amended standard. The Secretary may not
prescribe any amended standard that increases maximum allowable energy
use, or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency, of the
covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) Furthermore, the
Secretary may not prescribe an amended standard if the Secretary
publishes a finding that interested persons have established by a
preponderance of evidence that the amended standard is likely to result
in the unavailability in the United States of products with 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. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
C. Background
1. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 and the Department of Energy's Response
\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ A more detailed discussion of the ASHRAE process can be
found in DOE's Notice of Availability and request for public comment
on this rulemaking published on March 13, 2006 in the Federal
Register. 71 FR 12634.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE approved and published ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999, which addressed efficiency levels for many
categories of commercial heating, ventilating, air-conditioning (HVAC),
and water-heating equipment covered by EPCA. ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-1999 revised the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1989 for certain equipment. For the remaining equipment, ASHRAE left
the preexisting levels in place after considering revising the levels
for some equipment and deferring consideration of others.
Following publication of ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, DOE
performed a screening analysis for the categories of equipment for
which ASHRAE addressed efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1,
to determine what action DOE would take with respect to these levels.
65 FR 10984. Upon completion of the screening analysis, DOE published a
notice of document availability and public workshop on May 15, 2000.
The May 15, 2000, notice invited written comments on the screening
analysis and DOE's planned actions and described the screening analysis
and announced its availability to the public. 65 FR 30929. For each
equipment category for which ASHRAE adopted or considered an amended
efficiency level, the notice stated what action DOE was inclined to
take. 65 FR 30935. ASHRAE did not amend the standard levels for three-
phase ACs and HPs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h at
that time. However, it was DOE's understanding that the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 committee intended to amend the levels once the DOE rulemaking for
residential central air conditioners energy efficiency standards had
been completed. Based on ASHRAE's action and DOE's understanding of the
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 committee's intention to adopt the same level as
DOE adopted for residential central air conditioners, DOE stated that
it had decided to take no action until ASHRAE had amended ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1's
[[Page 10040]]
efficiency levels for three-phase ACs and HPs with cooling capacities
less than 65,000 Btu/h. 71 FR 12643. In Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-2004, ASHRAE adopted the same minimum energy efficiency
standards for this equipment as DOE had adopted for residential central
air conditioners. ASHRAE adopted Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-2004 on April 1, 2006.
Following the public meeting on July 11, 2000, DOE adopted the
efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 as uniform
national standards to replace existing EPCA levels for 18 categories of
commercial equipment in the January 2001 final rule. 66 FR 3335, 3336-
37, 3349-52 (January 12, 2001). DOE also rejected the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 levels for electric water heaters, leaving the EPCA
level in place for that equipment. 66 FR 3337.
In this same final rule, for 11 categories of commercial
equipment,\3\ DOE stated it would evaluate whether to adopt more
stringent standards than those contained in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999. 66 FR 3336-38, 3349-52. For the four categories of three-phase
air-conditioning equipment that ASHRAE had not addressed in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, DOE understood that ASHRAE intended to amend
its efficiency levels for this equipment in conjunction with the then-
pending DOE standards rulemaking for similar, single-phase residential
products.\4\ The standard levels prescribed in EPCA and ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 for these 15 equipment categories \5\ appear in
Tables I.1 and I.2. EPACT 2005 included energy efficiency standards for
some of these commercial air conditioners and heat pumps; those new
standards also appear in Tables I.1 and I.2. EPACT 2005 prescribed more
stringent standards than those contained in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999 for commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment with
cooling capacities between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h as listed in
Table I.1.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ These eleven products include small commercial package air-
conditioning and heating equipment with capacities greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h, large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment with capacities
greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h,
packaged terminal air conditioners and heat pumps, small, gas-fired
and oil-fired, commercial packaged boilers greater than 300,000 Btu/
h and less than or equal to 2,500,000 Btu/h, large, gas-fired and
oil-fired, commercial packaged boilers greater than 2,500,000 Btu/h,
and gas-fired instantaneous water heaters.
\4\ The four categories of three-phase commercial air
conditioners and air conditioning hear pumps are: Commercial three-
phase, air-source, split-system air conditioners with cooling
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, commercial three-phase, air-
source, single split-system heat pumps with cooling capacities less
than 65,000 Btu/h, commercial three-phase, air-source, single
package air conditioners with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h, and commercial three-phase, air-source, single package heat
pumps with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h.
\5\ These fifteen products include the eleven products and four
categories of commercial three-phase commercial air conditioners and
air conditioning heat pumps identified above.
\6\ SPVUs are specific types of small and large commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment. ASHRAE did not
recognize and evaluate them as separate equipment categories in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, nor did EPCA recognize them as
separate equipment categories.
Table I.1.--Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard efficiency level*
Product Capacity/ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
characteristics EPCA ASHRAE/IESNA standard 90.1-1999 EPACT 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air- <65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, SEER: 10.0 SEER: 10.0 Not addressed.
Conditioning and Heating Equipment. 3-Phase, Central Split- HSPF: 6.8 HSPF: 6.8
System AC, HP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65 kBtu/h Air-Cooled, SEER: 9.7 SEER: 9.7 Not addressed.
3-Phase, Central HSPF: 6.6 HSPF: 6.6
Single-Package AC, HP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65 kBtu/h and <135 EER: 8.9 ** EER: 10.3 ** EER: 11.2
kBtu/h Air-Cooled, **[dagger][dagger]
Central AC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65 kBtu/h and <135 EER: 8.9 ** EER: 10.3 ** EER: 11.0 **
kBtu/h Air-Cooled, COP: 3.0[dagger] COP: 3.2[dagger] COP: 3.3[dagger]
Central HP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large Commercial Package Air- >=135 kBtu/h and <240 EER: 8.5 ** EER: 9.7 ** EER: 11.0
Conditioning and Heating Equipment. kBtu/h Air-Cooled, **[dagger][dagger]
Central AC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=135 kBtu/h and <240 EER: 8.5 ** EER: 9.3 ** EER: 10.6 **
kBtu/h Air-Cooled, COP: 2.9[dagger] COP: 3.1[dagger] COP: 3.2[dagger]
Central HP
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners Air-Cooled EER, COP vary by capacity EER, COP vary by capacity Not addressed.
and Heat Pumps. according to formulas for according to formulas for each
each (different formulas for new
construction and replacement
equipment)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Heating efficiency levels do not apply to cooling-only air conditioners.
**At 95 F dry-bulb temperature.
[dagger] At 47 F dry-bulb temperature.
[dagger][dagger]This EER level applies to equipment that has electric resistance heat or no heating. For all other package air-conditioning equipment
with heating system types that are integrated into the equipment, deduct 0.2 EER.
[[Page 10041]]
Table I.2.--Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Boilers and Water Heaters*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard efficiency level**
Product Capacity/ ----------------------------------------------------------------
characteristics EPCA ASHRAE/IESNA standard 90.1-1999
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Packaged Boilers, Oil- >300 kBtu/h Combustion Efficiency Thermal Efficiency \**\:
and Gas-Fired <=2,500 kBtu/h \**\: Gas-Fired--75%
Gas-Fired--80% Oil-Fired--78%
Oil-Fired--83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>2,500 kBtu/h Combustion Efficiency Combustion Efficiency \**\:
\**\: Gas-Fired--80%
Gas-Fired--80% Oil-Fired--83%
Oil-Fired--83%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Instantaneous <10 gallons Thermal Efficiency: Thermal Efficiency: 80%
Water Heaters 80%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\*\ EPACT 2005 did not address this equipment.
\**\ At maximum rated capacity.
2. Subsequent Action by the Department of Energy
DOE reviewed the energy savings potential of increased energy
efficiency levels for several types of equipment covered by ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 and, on March 13, 2006, issued a notice of
document availability and request for comments (hereafter referred to
as the March 2006 NOA) in the Federal Register announcing the
availability of a Technical Support Document (TSD) that set forth this
review, and requested public comment on the TSD. 71 FR 12634. In the
March 2006 NOA, DOE also announced the approaches it was inclined to
take for the equipment as summarized in Table I.3, below. Id at 12637.
Table I.3.--Summary of Potential DOE Actions by Product as Stated in the
March 2006 NOA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product DOE's action
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTACs and PTHPs.............. Initiate a rulemaking to consider more
stringent standards.
Small Commercial Packaged Reject ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
Boilers (0.3-2.5 MMBtu/h). efficiency levels.
Gas-Fired IWHs............... DOE does not have authority to pursue a
standard level higher than those
specified in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999.
Large Commercial Packaged DOE does not have authority to pursue a
Boilers (>2.5 MMBtu/h). standard level higher than those
specified in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999.
Three-Phase ACs and HPs Adopt Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
(<65,000 Btu/h). 90.1-2004 once ASHRAE formally adopts
this addendum.
SPVUs (<65,000 Btu/h)........ DOE invited comments on the potential
energy savings estimates and the
appropriateness of adopting as federal
standards the efficiency levels
contained in Addendum b of ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-2004.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. The Energy Policy Act of 2005
DOE's authority to amend Federal energy conservation standards for
equipment covered by ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE equipment) is
found in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6), which, as amended by EPACT 2005, states
as follows:
(6)(A)(i) If ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect on January 1,
2010, is amended with respect to any small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, or if ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 24, 1992, is amended with
respect to any packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged terminal
heat pumps, warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water
heaters, instantaneous water heaters, or unfired hot water storage
tanks, the Secretary shall establish an amended uniform national
standard for that product at the minimum level for each effective
date specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, unless the
Secretary determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a
uniform national standard more stringent than such amended ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1 for such product would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified.
(ii) If ASHRAE/IES standard 90.1 is not amended with respect to
small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, and
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
during the 5-year period beginning on the effective date of a
standard, the Secretary may initiate a rulemaking to determine
whether a more stringent standard--
(I) Would result in significant additional conservation of
energy; and
(II) Is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii)) \7\ Pursuant to this section, DOE's
authority to amend energy conservation standards for the listed ASHRAE
equipment is triggered by ASHRAE action amending ASHRAE/IES Standard
90.1. With respect to small and large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (as well as all other ASHRAE
equipment listed in this section), prior to the enactment of EPACT
2005, any amendment of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect on
October 24, 1992, (the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of
1992) would trigger DOE action for adopting amended uniform national
standards. EPACT 2005 changed the October 24, 1992, date for the
[[Page 10042]]
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, so that only
an amendment of ASHRAE/IES 90.1 as in effect on January 1, 2010, would
trigger DOE action to adopt amended uniform national standards. This
provision applies to small and large air conditioning and heating
equipment, as well as to very large equipment, which EPACT 2005 added
to EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ DOE does not have the authority to establish energy
conservation standards for the ASHRAE equipment on its own
initiative. ASHRAE sets voluntary guidelines for this equipment in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, section 136(b) of EPACT 2005 amended section 342(a) of
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) by prescribing new energy conservation
standards for certain small (greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h to
less than 135,000 Btu/h), for large (greater than or equal to 135,000
Btu/h to less than 240,000 Btu/h), and for very large (greater than or
equal to 240,000 Btu/h to less than 760,000 Btu/h) commercial package
air conditioners and heat pumps.\8\ DOE concluded that the EPACT 2005
standards implicitly cover SPVUs greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
to less than 760,000 Btu/h as further discussed below, but EPACT 2005
standards do not address or cover SPVUs less than 65,000 Btu/h. 71 FR
12634, 12638.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Single package vertical air conditioners and single package
vertical heat pumps that are within these capacity ranges are small,
large and very large commercial package air conditioners and heat
pumps since they are commercial products (i.e., distributed for
commercial applications) and meet EPCA's definition for ``commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment.'' (42 U.S.C.
6311(8))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
II. Discussion of Comments
A. Large Commercial Packaged Boilers (Greater Than 2.5 Million British
Thermal Units Per Hour) and Gas-Fired Instantaneous Water Heaters
EPCA specifies minimum energy conservation standards for certain
categories of commercial equipment, including gas-fired IWHs and large
commercial packaged boilers. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(5)) ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 also covers these types of equipment, and the efficiency
requirements in EPCA correspond with the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1989 levels effective October 24, 1992. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(4) and (5))
ASHRAE, in adopting ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, left in place
the pre-existing ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 minimum efficiency
levels for gas-fired IWHs and large commercial packaged boilers. Thus,
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for this
equipment are the same as the ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-1989 and EPCA
levels.
In the March 1, 2000, notice of preliminary screening analysis, the
May 15, 2000, notice of document availability and public workshop, and
the January 2001 final rule, DOE indicated its belief that it had the
authority to consider more stringent standard levels for equipment for
which ASHRAE had considered adopting more stringent levels but declined
to change the efficiency levels for such equipment when publishing
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999. 71 FR 12642. However, in the March
2006 NOA, DOE reexamined its authority under EPCA to amend standards
for gas-fired IWHs and large commercial package boilers and concluded
that its earlier view was in error. 71 FR 12642
Specifically, DOE has concluded that the statutory trigger that
requires DOE to adopt uniform national standards based on ASHRAE action
is for ASHRAE to amend 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. If
ASHRAE merely considers raising the standards for any of the listed
equipment in this section, except for small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, but
ultimately decides to leave the standard levels unchanged or lowers the
standard, DOE does not have the authority to conduct a rulemaking for
higher standards for that equipment. With respect to small, large, and
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
under 42 U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6(A)(ii), DOE has the authority to initiate a
rulemaking proceeding to determine whether more stringent standards are
justified if ASHRAE has not amended standards for this equipment within
five years following the effective date of a standard. Furthermore, if
ASHRAE amends its standards with more stringent standards for a
specific subset of the listed equipment, consistent with the above
exception, DOE only has the authority to adopt the ASHRAE levels for
the specific subset of equipment and its effective dates specified in
the amended ASHRAE standard. DOE may under certain circumstances
delineated in EPCA adopt a standard more stringent than the amended
level in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
Before DOE can adopt an ASHRAE standard for a product pursuant to
section 342, the plain language in section 342 requires that ASHRAE
must have amended the standard in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 for that
specific product. Once ASHRAE has amended a standard for ``any''
equipment listed in section 342, section 342 requires the Secretary to
``establish an amended uniform national standard for that product at
the minimum level for each effective date specified in the amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, unless the Secretary determines * * * that
adoption of a * * * more stringent [standard] for such product'' is
warranted. (Id. Emphasis added.) The authority provided in section
342(a)(6)(a)(i) is clearly limited to only those products for which
ASHRAE has amended the standard; i.e., authority for ``that product.''
The intent of section 342, generally, is for DOE to maintain
uniform national standards consistent with those set in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1. Given this intent, if ASHRAE has not amended a standard
for a product subject to section 342, there is no change which would
require action by DOE to consider amending the uniform national
standard to maintain consistency with ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1.
In the case of large commercial packaged boilers and gas-fired
IWHs, ASHRAE considered amending the standards but ultimately chose not
to do so. Therefore, the statutory trigger for DOE to adopt ASHRAE's
amended standards did not occur with respect to this equipment.
Contrary to stakeholder argument, DOE does not have the authority to
amend the standards for large commercial packaged boilers and gas-fired
IWHs based on ASHRAE's amendments to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1, which
did not amend the standards for large commercial packaged boilers and
gas-fired IWHs. The statutory language specifically links ASHRAE's
action in amending standards for specific equipment to DOE's action for
those same equipment. Accordingly, since ASHRAE did not amend standards
for this equipment, DOE has no rulemaking authority to amend standards
for this equipment at this time.
The Alliance to Save Energy (ASE), the American Council for an
Energy-Efficient Economy (ACEEE), the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP), the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the
Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships (NEEP), and the Northwest
Power and Conservation Council (NWPCC) submitted a combined comment
(collectively referred to as ``Joint Comment'') which stated that DOE
must review the standards for both large commercial packaged boilers
and gas-fired IWHs. (Joint Comment, No. 27 at pp. 3-4) \9\ The
[[Page 10043]]
Joint Comment asserted that ASHRAE's ``comprehensive review of all
EPCA-related standards which culminated in issuance of ASHRAE 90.1-1999
triggers the required review by DOE of all EPCA standards based on
ASHRAE 90.1'' Furthermore, the Joint Comment claimed that ASHRAE should
not be permitted to shelter specific standards from DOE review by
leaving them unchanged. However, the Joint Comment did not provide a
rationale for DOE to reject the position taken in the March 2006 NOA
and discussed above. Therefore, DOE does not believe the Joint Comment
provided any information that would cause DOE to change its
interpretation of EPCA as explained the March 2006 NOA and explained
above. DOE rejects the Joint Comment's position.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ A notation in the form ``Joint Comment, No. 27 at pp. 3-4''
identifies a written comment DOE has received and has included in
the docket of this rulemaking. This particular notation refers to a
comment (1) by the Joint Comment, (2) in document number 27 in the
docket of this rulemaking (maintained in the Resource Room of the
Building Technologies Program), and (3) appearing on page 3 and 4 of
document number 27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, the Joint Comment suggested that if ASHRAE revises a
standard for a subset of a product class, then DOE is required under
EPCA to consider revised standards for the larger product class. For
large commercial packaged boilers, the Joint Comment suggested that DOE
is obligated to conduct a standards rulemaking instead of leaving the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 levels in place. The Joint Comment
noted that when ASHRAE developed ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, it
examined efficiency levels for all packaged boilers, it created two
product classes--``small boilers'' and ``large boilers''--and it set a
new efficiency level for small boilers while leaving in place the
existing level for large boilers. The Joint Comment asserted that
ASHRAE's revision of efficiency levels for the newly created product
class of ``small boilers'' triggers a review of the entire category of
packaged boilers as defined by EPCA. The Joint Comment further
contended that DOE's proposed position that it lacks authority to
review the standard level for large boilers means that ASHRAE has
unfettered power to create new classes of equipment and to shelter them
from DOE review and from higher national standards. This, they
contended, would conflict with the intent of EPCA that ASHRAE have the
lead in developing higher standards for certain equipment, but that
these standards are subject to DOE review. (Joint Comment, No. 27, pp.
3-4) However, based on the language of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313
(a)(6)(A)(i)), discussed above, DOE finds no basis for accepting the
Joint Comments' contention that ASHRAE's revision of efficiency levels
for a product class or subclass triggers a review by DOE of the
standards for that entire product category.
In sum, DOE does not believe the Joint Comment provides a basis for
DOE to conclude that the interpretation presented in the March 2006 NOA
(71 FR 12634) was incorrect. Accordingly, since ASHRAE did not amend
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for large
commercial packaged boilers or gas-fired IWHs, DOE concludes it does
not have the authority to increase the current standard levels for such
equipment.
B. Small Commercial Packaged Boilers (Greater Than 300,000 British
Thermal Units Per Hour and Less Than or Equal to 2.5 Million British
Thermal Units Per Hour)
EPCA prescribes a minimum combustion efficiency of 80 percent for
gas-fired commercial packaged boilers and 83 percent for oil-fired
commercial packaged boilers, regardless of capacity. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(4)(C)-(D)) ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 prescribes for small
boilers (greater than 300 thousand Btu/h and less than or equal to 2.5
million Btu/h) thermal efficiency levels of 75 percent for gas-fired
equipment and 78 percent for oil-fired equipment. In January 2001, when
it adopted as Federal standards certain efficiency levels in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999, DOE stated that it would evaluate whether
standard levels higher than those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
are justified for small commercial packaged boilers. 66 FR at 3336-38,
3349-52.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE tentatively concluded that the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 thermal efficiency levels for small commercial
packaged boilers would have the effect of lowering minimum combustion
efficiency levels required by EPCA by allowing increased energy
consumption. 71 FR 12640. Thermal and combustion efficiency are related
in that thermal efficiency is a function of both flue losses (i.e.,
combustion efficiency) and jacket losses, although the amounts of these
two types of losses in a given boiler can be independent of one
another. DOE observed that the minimum thermal efficiency levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 appear to be lower than the average
thermal efficiencies of boilers that minimally comply with the EPCA's
combustion energy efficiency standards. 71 FR 12640. The practical
consequence of setting thermal efficiency standards at levels lower
than the thermal efficiencies of existing equipment would allow for the
possibility of equipment having lower combustion efficiencies than EPCA
permits, meaning that the current minimum required efficiency would be
decreased in violation of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). Consequently,
DOE stated in the March 2006 NOA that it was inclined to reject the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 levels for small commercial packaged
boilers and leave the existing EPCA standards in place. 71 FR 12641
DOE did not receive any comments objecting to its rejection of the
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 levels for small commercial packaged
boilers, although the Joint Comment argued that DOE must move forward
with a rulemaking for commercial boilers instead of leaving the ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1989 levels in place as national standards for
small packaged boilers. The Joint Comment noted that these standards
are 17 years old, and claimed the March 2006 NOA and TSD demonstrate
that more stringent levels for small commercial packaged boilers than
those in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 are technologically feasible
and economically justifiable. The Joint Comment also indicated that the
magnitude of the potential energy savings for this equipment provides a
more than ample reason for DOE to reexamine this standard. (Joint
Comment, No. 27, p. 3)
While DOE agrees with the Joint Comment that the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1 levels for this equipment have been in place since 1989
and that more energy efficient equipment can save energy, the mere
potential for energy savings does not justify a DOE rulemaking. As
stated above, DOE is rejecting the amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999 efficiency levels for small commercial packaged boilers and
believes that, consistent with section 342 in EPCA, the proper venue to
consider more stringent standards for this equipment is the ASHRAE
process itself. Moreover, as noted by the Joint Comment, ACEEE has
recommended to ASHRAE that it amend ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 to adopt
new, more stringent standards for this equipment. DOE commends ACEEE's
initiative, and encourages ASHRAE to examine whether more stringent
standards are warranted for this equipment.
Furthermore, DOE considered whether ASHRAE's action to reduce the
standard for a class or type of commercial equipment would be a
[[Page 10044]]
change in the standard that would trigger a DOE standards rulemaking.
DOE has concluded that such an action by ASHRAE would not trigger a DOE
rulemaking since EPCA is clear that DOE cannot change a standard to
reduce its stringency. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) Both Part B for
consumer products and Part C for commercial and industrial equipment
direct that ``[t]he Secretary may not prescribe any amended standard *
* * which increases the maximum allowable energy use, or decreases the
minimum required energy efficiency * * *'' (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1) and 42
U.S.C. 6313 (a)(6)(B)(ii), respectively) It is a fundamental principle
in EPCA's statutory scheme that DOE cannot amend standards downward;
that is, weaken standards, from those that have been published as a
final rule. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179
(2nd Cir. 2004).
Therefore, DOE believes that in order to consider amended
efficiency levels for this equipment, DOE must review the amended
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 to determine if it meets this EPCA
requirement and if it does not meet this EPCA requirement, that is, if
the efficiency levels in the amended ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 are
less stringent than existing standards, DOE cannot further consider the
amended efficiency levels. Accordingly, as stated in the March 2006
NOA, today's final rule will leave the existing EPCA standards in place
for small commercial boilers.
C. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
Section 342(a)(3) of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(3)) and ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 set forth energy conservation standards for PTACs
and PTHPs, which are collectively referred to as PTAC/HPs in today's
notice of final rulemaking. The energy conservation standards in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 vary based on the cooling capacity of
the equipment.
EPCA prescribes a single formula for determining the minimum
cooling efficiency (EER) for all PTAC/HPs and a single formula for
computing the minimum heating efficiency (COP) for all PTHPs. In
contrast, ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 further delineates the
product categories and consists of two sets of formulas for calculation
of the energy conservation standards. One set is for PTAC/HPs with wall
sleeves less than 16 inches high and 42 inches wide, and a label
indicating the equipment is for replacement use, which ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 classifies as ``replacement'' units. The other
formula is for all other PTAC/HPs, which ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-
1999 classifies as ``new construction'' units. The resulting minimum
efficiency levels for ``replacement'' units are slightly higher than
the EPCA levels, and the levels for ``new construction'' units are
substantially higher than the EPCA levels. In addition, ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 have slightly different requirements for the cooling
modes of PTACs and PTHPs, whereas EPCA prescribes a single formula for
air conditioners and heat pumps.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE recognized that the market for PTACs and
PTHPs has substantially changed since publication of the January 2001
final rule. 71 FR 12639. DOE stated in the March 2006 NOA that the
market has changed to efficiency levels at or above the levels in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 in the absence of Federal standards.
DOE examined the January 2003 Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration
Institute (ARI) Directory for PTAC/HPs and found that 52 percent of the
listed PTACs are at, or above, the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
efficiency level for new construction equipment, and 98 percent of the
listed PTACs are at or above the ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999
efficiency level for replacement equipment. Id. In addition, DOE found
that 72 percent of the listed PTHPs are at or above the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level for new construction equipment and
99 percent of the listed PTHPs are at or above the ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency level for replacement equipment. Id.
DOE also indicated in the March 2006 NOA that even though the
potential energy savings in the revised analysis have been reduced, it
believed there is a possibility of clear and convincing evidence that
more stringent standard levels for PTACs and PTHPs would result in
significant additional energy savings, and would be technologically
feasible and economically justified. Therefore, DOE stated it was
inclined to seek a more stringent standard level than in ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999 for PTACs and PTHPs through the rulemaking process.
71 FR 12639.
DOE received several comments on the proposed decision to seek a
more stringent standard level than the efficiency levels in ASHRAE/
IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for PTACs and PTHPs. ARI commented that the
technical information regarding DOE's analysis does not support moving
forward with a separate rulemaking. ARI believes that 0.103 quads of
potential energy savings in the TSD is significantly less than the
0.561 quads originally estimated by DOE for PTAC/PTHP, and that DOE
should reject 0.103 quads saved over a 25-year period as being a
``significant'' amount of energy. Furthermore, ARI stated that
manufacturers are voluntarily striving to meet ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-1999 requirements. However, ARI went on to note that close to 50
percent of the PTACs listed in the ARI directory are still rated below
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 efficiency levels, which, in ARI's
opinion, demonstrates the importance of establishing a national
standard. (ARI, No. 26 at p. 2)
Even though the potential energy savings in DOE's revised analysis
has been reduced, DOE believes there is a reasonable likelihood that
more stringent standard levels for PTACs and PTHPs would result in
significant energy savings and be technically feasible and economically
justified. The estimated savings of 0.103 quads would be comparable to
the savings resulting from some other efficiency standards established
under EPCA. Furthermore, under section 325(o)(3)(B) of the Act, the
Department is prohibited from adopting a standard for a product if that
standard would not result in ``significant'' energy savings. While the
term ``significant'' has never been defined in the Act, the U.S. Court
of Appeals, in Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768
F.2d 1355, 1373 (DC Cir. 1985), concluded that Congressional intent in
using the word ``significant'' was to mean ``non-trivial.'' Therefore,
based on the above, DOE does not agree with ARI's assertion and
believes that the energy savings that could result from standards for
PTACs and PTHPs, while not as large as the savings potential for some
other standards, are significant and warrant consideration in a
separate rulemaking. In addition, DOE believes there is a possibility
that further evaluation of more stringent standard levels for PTACs and
PTHPs are warranted, in part, because the market has changed, in the
absence of Federal standards, to efficiency levels at or above the
levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for PTACs and PTHPs.\10\ 71
FR 12639.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The price of electricity and forecasts of electricity
prices, for example, have changed and more stringent standards than
analyzed may prove to be economically justified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE has therefore decided to explore more stringent efficiency
levels than in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1999 for PTACs and PTHPs
through a separate rulemaking, which DOE expects to complete in August
2008.
[[Page 10045]]
(See Department of Energy Regulatory Agenda, RIN: 1904-AB44, 71 FR
73183, December 11, 2006)
The Edison Electric Institute (EEI) commented that DOE should take
into account the refrigerant phaseout that starts in 2010 when
considering higher standards for PTACs and PTHPs. EEI maintained that
when the effects of the new refrigerants combined with the space
limitations on this product are considered, they will have a
significant impact on the efficiency levels that are available. (EEI,
No. 25 at p. 2)
EEI commented that it is currently unaware of any PTAC or PTHP
equipment that uses R-410A, the refrigerant being used to replace R-22
in other air-conditioning equipment. Therefore, EEI stated its belief
that DOE will not have current data on baseline or high efficiency
equipment that DOE can use to make a technical or economic judgment for
a new efficiency standard. (EEI, No. 25 at p. 2)
ARI stated its concern that DOE's analysis focuses exclusively on
units operating with R-22, a refrigerant that will be phased out on
January 1, 2010. According to the EPACT timetable, any amended energy
conservation standards for this equipment would come into effect no
sooner than September 2012, well after the phaseout of R-22.
Consequently, ARI stated that it does not believe that any of the
efficiency data that DOE has collected for its analyses can be used
when DOE is evaluating equipment using the new refrigerant, R-410A.
(ARI, No. 26 at p. 3)
ARI cited several technical challenges that limit the opportunity
to improve efficiencies in PTAC/PTHP equipment, including the
availability of 60-Hz rotary compressors compatible with R-410A
refrigerant. ARI commented that PTAC/PTHP equipment makes exclusive use
of rotary compressors and the current production of a 60-Hz rotary
compressor compatible with R-410A refrigerant is very limited. Further,
according to ARI, the R-410A rotary compressors currently available are
significantly less efficient than comparable R-22 rotary compressors.
In addition, ARI stated its belief that the rotary compressor
manufacturers have not made significant gains in energy efficiency due
to design and manufacturing limitations. According to ARI, simulation
analyses it conducted on the performance of package terminal air
conditioners and heat pumps with R-410A have shown an overall decrease
in efficiency (EER and COP) of between 6 to 10 percent (depending on
the cooling capacity) compared to R-22 systems. This reduction can be
mostly attributed to a reduction in compressor efficiency. DOE has not
addressed whether higher standards using R410a are technically
feasible. (ARI, No. 26 at p. 3)
The Joint Comment maintained that at least the same levels of
efficiency could be achieved cost effectively with R-410A and R-134a as
with R-22. The Joint Comment, citing a paper released by Trane, stated
that there is no theoretical degradation of efficiency with R-134a
because the refrigerant has a higher efficiency than R-22 with
everything else being equal. However, the Joint Comment recognizes that
R-410A has a modestly lower efficiency than R-22, but notes that R-410A
allows the compressor and tubes to be smaller than R-22, providing
space for increased heat transfer surfaces. According to the Joint
Comment, this results in ``efficiency gains that can offset some or all
of the inherent inefficiencies of R-410A.'' \11\ (Joint Comment, No. 27
at p. 2) DOE recognizes this is a significant issue for stakeholders
and will consider this issue in the PTAC/PTHP rulemaking, which will
assess the technological feasibility of a more stringent energy
conservation standard for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Previous refrigerant phaseouts, including the R-12 phaseout
for domestic refrigerators, affected DOE standards rulemakings. In
those rulemakings DOE attempted to assess the effects of the
refrigerant phaseout and, the Joint Comment notes, there were
theoretical reasons to believe that there would be a small reduction
in efficiency due to the refrigerant change, but when the
refrigerant changeover occurred, reductions in efficiency generally
were not apparent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As stated above, DOE will address more stringent standards for
PTACs and PTHPs in a separate rulemaking. To analyze the technical
feasibility of energy efficiency improvements of PTACs and PTHPs, which
use R-22, DOE will first evaluate systems that use R-22 as a
refrigerant because there is insufficient data to gauge the impacts of
alternative refrigerants on system efficiency. DOE will then attempt to
collect information on the alternative refrigerants. If DOE is unable
to collect sufficient data or information to independently estimate the
impacts of the refrigerant phaseout on equipment efficiency, DOE will
request that stakeholders provide recommendations as to what
assumptions DOE should use to represent the approximate incremental
cost of switching to higher efficiency levels for this equipment as a
result of using alternative refrigerants, for instance, R-410A.
D. Three-Phase Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps Less Than 65,000 British
Thermal Units Per Hour
Energy conservation standards for split-system three-phase ACs and
HPs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h are 10.0 SEER for
cooling (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A)) and 6.8 HSPF for heating. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)(A) and (D)) Energy conservation standards for single-package
three-phase ACs and HPs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h
are set forth in EPCA at a SEER of 9.7 for cooling (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)(B)) and an HSPF of 6.6 for heating. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(B)
and (E)) The current energy conservation standards for single-package
and split-system three-phase ACs and HPs with cooling capacities less
than 65,000 Btu/h are found in Table 1 and Table 2 of section 431.97 of
10 CFR Part 431. These efficiency levels are the same as those in
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-1989.
In the March 2006 NOA, DOE recognized that ASHRAE was considering
an Addendum to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 (Addendum f) to provide a 13-
SEER level for this equipment and stated that DOE would not take action
on three-phase commercial air conditioners and heat pumps with
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h until after ASHRAE had completed its
process. At that time, DOE stated that it intended to adopt as Federal
standards the 13 SEER and 7.7 HSPF levels in ASHRAE/IESNA Standard
90.1-2004 Addendum f. 71 FR 12634, 12637-38, 12643.
Subsequent to the publication of the March 2006 NOA, DOE reexamined
the amendments in EPACT 2005 to EPCA for commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment and determined that EPACT 2005 had
revised the language in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i) to limit DOE's
authority to adopt ASHRAE amendments for small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment until after
January 1, 2010. Three-phase commercial ACs and HPs less than 65,000
Btu/h, fall under the definition of small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)), and
therefore are subject to the revised statutory language of EPACT 2005.
Prior to the enactment of EPACT 2005, for small and large
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, any
amendment of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect on October 24, 1992
(the date of enactment of the Energy Policy Act of 1992), would trigger
DOE action for
[[Page 10046]]
adopting amended uniform national standards for this equipment.
However, EPACT 2005 changed the October 24, 1992, date for this
equipment, so that only an amendment of ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 as in
effect on January 1, 2010, would trigger DOE action to adopt amended
uniform national standards for these products. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) This revised statutory requirement, on its face,
precludes DOE from adopting the efficiency levels in Addendum f to
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 for three-phase commercial ACs and HPs
less than 65,000 Btu/h at this time. The revised provision states:
If ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, as in effect on January 1, 2010, is
amended with respect to any small commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment * * * the Secretary
shall establish an amended uniform national standard for that
product at the minimum level for each effective date specified in
the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1[.]
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) (Emphasis added.) Because of this
statutory change, it is outside the scope of DOE's authority to adopt
these ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 levels at this time. Three-phase ACs
and HPs less than 65,000 Btu/h are within the small commercial packaged
air conditioning and heating equipment product categories listed in the
clause that contains the January 1, 2010 date. (42 U.S.C. 6313
(a)(6)(A)(i)) Addendum f to ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1-2004 was adopted
on April 1, 2006, and in effect prior to January 1, 2010, the date
before which DOE has no authority to consider adoption of an ASHRAE
amendment affecting this equipment.
Subsection (a)(1)(A)-(B) establishes statutory standards for
certain small commercial air conditioning and heating equipment that is
manufactured after January 1, 1994, but before January 1, 2010. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)(A)-(B)) These standards are applicable to three-phase
air conditioners and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h, as well as
SPVU's less than 65,000 Btu/h, discussed in Section II.E below.
While EPACT 2005 set standards for certain small, large, and very
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment
manufactured on or after January 1, 2010 (42 U.S.C. 6313 (7)-(9)),
Congress did not provide standards for either three-phase air
conditioning and heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h or SPVUs less than
65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after January 1, 2010. Congress,
however, did give DOE explicit rulemaking authority to consider and
adopt more stringent standards for three-phase air conditioning and
heat pumps less than 65,000 Btu/h and SPVUs less than 65,000 Btu/h,
along with large and very large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, if ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 is not amended during
the five-year period beginning on the effective date of a standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) The criteria for such a rulemaking are
described in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)-(ii).
EPACT 2005 gives DOE authority to initiate a rulemaking ``[i]f
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 is not amended * * * during the 5-year period
beginning on the effective date of a standard,'' but Congress does not
define the term ``effective date of a standard.'' Since the effective
date of the statutory standards in EPACT 2005 is the date of enactment
of the legislation, that is, August 8, 2005, DOE interprets the five-
year waiting period to begin on August 8, 2005. Therefore, EPACT 2005
provides ASHRAE from January 2, 2010, until August 8, 2010, to amend
ASHRAE/IESNA Standard 90.1 on its own in order to trigger DOE action.
After August 8, 2010, DOE may initiate its own rulemaking to set more
stringent standards for this equipment.
Thus, the text of EPCA clearly prohibits amendments to the
standards for small commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, and very large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment until after January 1, 2010.
E. Single-Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single-Package Vertical
Heat Pumps Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
On June 2, 2002, ASHRAE published Addendum d to ASHRAE/IESNA
Standard 90.1-1999, which incorporated efficiency levels for SPVUs. In
the March 2006 NOA DOE stated that it was not able t
