[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 10 (Friday, January 15, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2111-2129]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-33069]


 ========================================================================
 Proposed Rules
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of 
 the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these 
 notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in 
 the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 10 / Friday, January 15, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 2111]]



DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Numbers EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 and EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021]
RIN 1904-AC95 and 1904-AD11


Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment: 
Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-
Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment and 
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces

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

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 
(EPCA), prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer 
products and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment and commercial warm air furnaces. 
EPCA also requires that the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 
periodically review and consider amending its standards for specified 
categories of industrial equipment, including commercial heating and 
air-conditioning equipment, in order to determine whether more-
stringent, amended standards would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified, and save a significant additional amount of 
energy. In this document, DOE proposes to amend the energy conservation 
standards for both small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment and commercial warm air 
furnaces identical to those set forth in a direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. If DOE receives an adverse comment 
and determines that such comment may provide a reasonable basis for 
withdrawing the direct final rule, DOE will publish a document 
withdrawing the direct final rule and will proceed with this proposed 
rule.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding the 
proposed standards no later than May 4, 2016.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section before February 16, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Instructions: Any comments submitted must identify the 
proposed rule for Energy Conservation Standards for small, large, and 
very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment (CUACs and CUHPs) and commercial warm air furnaces (CWAFs), 
and provide docket number EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 and/or regulatory 
information number (RIN) 1904-AC95 for CUACs and CUHPs and EERE-2013-
BT-STD-0021 and/or RIN 1904-AD11 for CWAFs. Comments may be submitted 
using any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: For CUACs and CUHPs: [email protected]. 
For CWAFs: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number and/or RIN for each equipment category in the subject line of 
the message. Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, 
PDF, or ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or 
any form of encryption.
    3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy, 
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue 
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on 
a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include 
printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Room 
6094, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible, 
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to 
include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted.
    For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional 
information on the rulemaking process, see section III of this document 
(``Public Participation'').
    Written comments regarding the burden-hour estimates or other 
aspects of the collection-of-information requirements contained in this 
proposed rule may be submitted to Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy through the methods listed above and by email to 
[email protected].
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested 
persons may contact the Division at [email protected] 
before February 16, 2016. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of 
your email the title and Docket Number of this rulemaking notice.
    Docket: The dockets, which include Federal Register notices, public 
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting 
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. 
All documents in the dockets are listed in the www.regulations.gov 
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those 
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not 
be publicly available.
    A link to the docket Web page for small, large, and very large air-
cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment can be 
found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007. A 
link to the docket Web page for commercial warm air furnaces can be 
found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-
0021.The www.regulations.gov Web page will contain instructions on how 
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the dockets, please 
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email: 
[email protected].

[[Page 2112]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. John Cymbalsky, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 286-1692. Email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction and Authority
II. Proposed Standards
    A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Small, Large, and 
Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and 
Heating Equipment
    B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Commercial Warm 
Air Furnaces
III. Public Participation
    A. Submission of Comments
    B. Public Meeting
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Introduction and Authority

    Title III, Part C \1\ of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 
1975 (``EPCA'' or, in context, ``the Act''), Public Law 94-163 
(December 22, 1975), coupled with Title IV of the National Energy 
Conservation Policy Act, Public Law 95-619 (November 9, 1978), 
(collectively codified at 42 U.S.C. 6311-6317), established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which includes 
provisions covering the equipment addressed by this document.\2\ In 
general, this program addresses the energy efficiency of certain types 
of commercial and industrial equipment. Relevant provisions of the Act 
specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation 
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling 
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information 
and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Part C was codified as Part A-1 of the corresponding portion 
of the U.S. Code.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, 
Public Law 114-11 (April 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 342(a) of EPCA, which was added as part of the Energy 
Policy Act of 1992, Public Law 102-486 (October 24, 1992) (``EPAct 
1992''), introduced new provisions regarding DOE's authority to 
regulate certain commercial and industrial equipment. Among the 
equipment EPAct 1992 required DOE to regulate were small and large air-
cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, along 
with commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs''). See EPAct 1992, sec. 122 
(codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)). As part of these changes, 
Congress specified energy conservation standards for this equipment to 
meet. See id. Later, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Public Law 109-58 
(August 8, 2005) (``EPACT 2005''), further amended DOE's authority to 
include very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment and added standards for this equipment to meet as 
well. See EPACT 2005, sec. 136 (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)). (Small, large, and very large, air-cooled commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment are also known generally as air-
cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (``CUACs'' 
and ``CUHPs''). Congress established standards for CUACs/CUHPs that 
have a rated capacity between 65,000 British thermal units per hour 
(Btu/h) and 760,000 Btu/h. Similarly, for CWAFs, Congress established 
standards for equipment that (1) have a rated capacity (rated maximum 
input \3\) greater than or equal to 225,000 Btu/h, (2) can be gas-fired 
or oil-fired, and (3) are designed to heat commercial and industrial 
buildings. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ ``Rated maximum input'' means the maximum gas-burning 
capacity of a CWAF in Btus per hour, as specified by the 
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Collectively, CUACs/CUHPs and CWAFs are designed to heat and cool 
commercial buildings and are often located on a building's rooftop.
    Section 342(a) of EPCA concerns energy conservation standards for 
small, large, and very large, CUACs and CUHPs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) This 
category of equipment has a rated capacity between 65,000 Btu/h and 
760,000 Btu/h. This equipment is designed to heat and cool commercial 
buildings and is often located on the building's rooftop.
    The initial Federal energy conservation standards for CWAFs were 
added to EPCA by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (EPACT 1992), Public Law 
102-486 (Oct. 24, 1992). See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(4). These types of 
covered equipment have a rated capacity (rated maximum input \4\) 
greater than or equal to 225,000 Btu/h, can be gas-fired or oil-fired, 
and are designed to heat commercial and industrial buildings. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ ``Rated maximum input'' means the maximum gas-burning 
capacity of a CWAF in Btus per hour, as specified by the 
manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to section 342(a)(6) of EPCA, DOE is to consider amending 
the energy efficiency standards for certain types of commercial and 
industrial equipment whenever ASHRAE amends the standard levels or 
design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1, and 
whenever more than 6 years had elapsed since the issuance of the most 
recent final rule establishing or amending a standard for the equipment 
as of the date of AEMTCA's enactment, December 18, 2012. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(vi)) Because more than six years had elapsed since DOE 
issued a final rule with standards for CUACs and CUHPs or CWAFs on 
October 18, 2005 (see 70 FR 60407), DOE initiated the process to review 
these standards.
    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program for covered 
equipment consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing; (2) 
labeling; (3) the establishment of Federal energy conservation 
standards; and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Subject to 
certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to develop test 
procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated 
annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314) 
Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the prescribed DOE test 
procedure as the basis for certifying to DOE that their equipment 
comply with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted under 
EPCA and when making representations to the public regarding their 
energy use or efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) Similarly, DOE must use 
these test procedures to determine whether a given manufacturer's 
equipment complies with standards adopted pursuant to EPCA. The DOE 
test procedures for small, large, and very large CUACs/CUHPs and CWAFs 
currently appear at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations 
(``CFR'') 431.96 and 431.76, respectively.
    When setting standards for the equipment addressed by this 
document, EPCA prescribes that in deciding whether a proposed standard 
is economically justified, DOE must determine whether the benefits of 
the standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after 
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the 
maximum extent practicable, the following seven statutory factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products

[[Page 2113]]

which are likely to result from the standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    6. The need for national energy conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
    With respect to the types of equipment at issue in this document, 
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' provision, 
which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended standard that 
either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the 
minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended 
or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States of any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability, features, 
sizes, capacities, and volumes) that are substantially the same as 
those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II))(aa)
    With respect to the equipment addressed by this document, DOE notes 
that EPCA prescribes limits on the Agency's ability to promulgate a 
standard if DOE has made a finding that interested persons have 
established by a preponderance of the evidence that a standard is 
likely to result in the unavailability of any product type (or class) 
of performance characteristics that are substantially the same as those 
generally available in the United States at the time of the finding. 
See 42 U.S.C. 6313(B)(iii)(II).
    Additionally, EPCA generally specifies criteria to follow when 
promulgating multiple energy conservation standards for covered 
products based on different subcategories. In these cases, DOE must 
specify a different standard level for a type or class of product that 
has the same function or intended use if DOE determines that products 
within such group: (A) Consume a different kind of energy from that 
consumed by other covered products within such type (or class); or (B) 
have a capacity or other performance-related feature which other 
products within such type (or class) do not have and such feature 
justifies a higher or lower standard. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1). In 
determining whether a performance-related feature justifies a different 
standard for a group of products, DOE must consider such factors as the 
utility to the customer of such a feature and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. Id. Any rule prescribing such a standard must include an 
explanation of the basis on which such higher or lower level was 
established. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2). With respect to the equipment 
addressed by this supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking 
(``SNOPR''), DOE notes that EPCA prescribes limits on the Agency's 
ability to promulgate a standard if DOE has made a finding that 
interested persons have established by a preponderance of the evidence 
that a standard is likely to result in the unavailability of any 
product type (or class) of performance characteristics that are 
substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States at the time of the finding. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(B)(iii)(II).
    With particular regard to this document, the Energy Independence 
and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140 (December 
19, 2007), amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant DOE authority to 
issue a type of final rule (i.e., a ``direct final rule'') establishing 
an energy conservation standard for a product on receipt of a statement 
that is submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly 
representative of relevant points of view (including representatives of 
manufacturers of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates), 
as determined by the Secretary, and that contains recommendations with 
respect to an energy or water conservation standard. If the Secretary 
determines that the recommended standard contained in the statement is 
in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as 
applicable, the Secretary may issue a final rule establishing the 
recommended standard. A notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that 
proposes an identical energy efficiency standard is published 
simultaneously with the direct final rule. A public comment period of 
at least 110 days is provided. See 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4). Not later than 
120 days after the date on which a direct final rule issued under this 
authority is published in the Federal Register, the Secretary shall 
withdraw the direct final rule if the Secretary receives 1 or more 
adverse public comments relating to the direct final rule or any 
alternative joint recommendation and based on the rulemaking record 
relating to the direct final rule, the Secretary determines that such 
adverse public comments or alternative joint recommendation may provide 
a reasonable basis for withdrawing the direct final rule under 
subsection 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable 
law. On withdrawal of a direct final rule, the Secretary shall proceed 
with the notice of proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with 
the direct final rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons 
why the direct final rule was withdrawn. This direct final rule 
provision applies to the equipment at issue in this SNOPR. See 42 
U.S.C. 6316(b)(1). In this instance, because DOE has already published 
NOPRs related to the amendment of standards both CUACs/CUHPs and CWAFs, 
see 79 FR 58948 (September 30, 2014) (CUAC/CUHP proposal) and 80 FR 
6182 (February 4, 2015), DOE is publishing an SNOPR consistent with the 
direct final rule's statutory requirements.
    Responding to comments received from interested parties with 
respect to DOE's proposals, on April 1, 2015, DOE issued a Notice of 
Intent to Establish the Commercial Package Air Conditioners and 
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group to Negotiate Potential 
Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air Conditioners 
and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces. 80 FR 17363. The CUAC/CUHP-CWAF 
Working Group (in context, ``the Working Group'') was established under 
the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee 
(``ASRAC'') in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and 
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act with the purpose of discussing and, if 
possible, reaching consensus on a set of energy conservation standards 
to propose or finalize for CUACs, CUHPs and CWAFs. The Working Group 
was to consist of fairly representative parties having a defined stake 
in the outcome of the proposed standards, and would consult, as 
appropriate, with a range of experts on technical issues.
    DOE received 17 nominations for membership. Ultimately, the Working 
Group consisted of 17 members, including one member from ASRAC and one 
DOE representative.\5\ The Working

[[Page 2114]]

Group met six times (five times in-person and once by teleconference). 
The meetings were held on April 28, May 11-12, May 20-21, June 1-2, 
June 9-10, and June 15, 2015. As a result of these efforts, the Working 
Group successfully reached consensus on energy conservation standards 
for CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs. On June 15, 2015, it submitted a Term 
Sheet to ASRAC outlining its recommendations, which ASRAC subsequently 
adopted.\6\ See http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0007-0093.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The group members were John Cymbalsky (U.S. Department of 
Energy), Marshall Hunt (Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego 
Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Southern 
California Gas Company), Andrew deLaski (Appliance Standards 
Awareness Project), Louis Starr (Northwest Energy Efficiency 
Alliance), Meg Waltner (Natural Resources Defense Council), Jill 
Hootman (Ingersoll Rand/Trane), John Hurst (Lennox), Karen Meyers 
(Rheem Manufacturing Company), Charlie McCrudden (Air Conditioning 
Contractors of America), Harvey Sachs (American Council for an 
Energy Efficient Economy), Paul Doppel (Mitsubishi Electric), Robert 
Whitwell (United Technologies Corporation), Michael Shows 
(Underwriters Laboratories), Russell Tharp (Goodman Manufacturing), 
Sami Zendah (Emerson Climate Technologies), Mark Tezigni (Sheet 
Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, Inc.), 
Nick Mislak (Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 
Institute).
    \6\ Available at http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093. The following 
individuals served as members of ASRAC that received and approved 
the Term Sheet: Co-Chair John Mandyck (Carrier/United Technologies 
Corporation), Co-Chair Andrew deLaski (Appliance Standards Awareness 
Project), Ashley Armstrong (U.S. Department of Energy), John Caskey 
(National Electrical Manufacturers Association), Jennifer Cleary 
(Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers), Thomas Eckman 
(Northwest Power and Conservation Council), Charles Hon (True 
Manufacturing Company), Dr. David Hungerford (California Energy 
Commission), Dr. Diane Jakobs (Rheem Manufacturing Company), Kelley 
Kline (General Electric, Appliances), Deborah Miller (National 
Association of State Energy Officials), and Scott Blake Harris 
(Harris, Wiltshire & Grannis, LLP).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has determined that the statement containing recommendations 
with respect to energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs and 
CWAFs was submitted jointly by interested persons that are fairly 
representative of relevant points of view, in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(4)(A) and 6313(a)(6)(B).\7\ In reaching this determination, DOE 
took into consideration the fact that the Working Group, in conjunction 
with ASRAC members who approved the recommendations, consisted of 
representatives of manufacturers of covered products, States, and 
efficiency advocates--all of which are groups specifically identified 
by Congress as relevant parties to any consensus recommendation. (42 
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A) As delineated above, the Term Sheet was signed and 
submitted by a broad cross-section of interests, including the 
manufacturers of the subject equipment, trade associations representing 
these manufacturers and installation contractors, environmental and 
energy-efficiency advocacy organizations, and electric utility 
companies. The ASRAC Committee approving the Working Group's 
recommendations included at least two members representing States--one 
representing the National Association of State Energy Officials (NASEO) 
and one representing the State of California.\8\ By its plain terms, 
the statute contemplates that the Secretary will exercise discetion to 
determine whether a given statement is ``submitted jointly by 
interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of 
view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products, 
States, and efficiency advocates).'' In this case, given the broad 
range of persons participating in the process that led to the 
submission--in the Working Group and in ASRAC--and given the breadth of 
perspectives expressed in that process, DOE has determined that the 
statement it received meets this criterion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See 42 U.S.C. 6313(b) (applying 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) to 
energy conservation standard rulemakings involving a variety of 
industrial equipment, including CUACs, CUHPs, and CWAFs).
    \8\ These individuals were Deborah E. Miller (NASEO) and David 
Hungerford (California Energy Commission).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine 
whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water 
conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE has 
conducted an analysis to evaluate whether the potential energy 
conservation standards under consideration would meet these 
requirements. This evaluation is similar to the comprehensive approach 
that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential energy 
conservation standards for a given type of product or equipment. DOE 
applies the same principles to any consensus recommendations it may 
receive to satisfy its statutory obligation to ensure that any energy 
conservation standard that it adopts achieves the maximum improvement 
in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and economically 
justified and will result in the significant conservation of energy. 
Upon review, the Secretary determined that the Term Sheet submitted in 
the instant rulemaking comports with the standard-setting criteria set 
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). As a result, DOE published a 
direct final rule establishing energy conservation standards for CUACs/
CUHPs and CWAFs elsewhere in this Federal Register. If DOE receives 
adverse comments that may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal and 
withdraws the direct final rule, DOE will consider those comments and 
any other comments received in determining how to proceed with this 
proposed rule.
    For further background information on these proposed standards and 
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. That document includes additional 
discussion of the EPCA requirements for promulgation of energy 
conservation standards; the current standards for CUACs/CUHPs and 
CWAFs; the history of the standards rulemakings establishing such 
standards; and information on the test procedures used to measure the 
energy efficiency of CUACs/CUHPs and CWAFs. The document also contains 
an in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted in support of this 
rulemaking, the methodologies DOE used in conducting those analyses, 
and the analytical results.

II. Proposed Standards

    When considering more stringent standards for the equipment at 
issue, DOE must determine, supported by clear and convincing evidence 
that adopting those standards would result in the significant 
additional conservation of energy and be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii). In determining 
whether a standard is economically justified, the Secretary must 
determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by, 
to the greatest extent practicable, considering the seven statutory 
factors discussed previously. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
    DOE considered the impacts of amended standards for CUACs/CUHPs and 
CWAFs at each TSL, beginning with the maximum technologically feasible 
level, to determine whether that level would be economically justified. 
Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the 
next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it 
reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically 
feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of 
energy.
    To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of 
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of 
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the 
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other 
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification.

[[Page 2115]]

A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Small, Large, and Very 
Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment

    Table II.1 and Table II.2 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for CUACs and CUHPs. The national impacts are 
measured over the lifetime of CUACs and CUHPs purchased in the 2018-
2048 period. The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value of 
emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The efficiency 
levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of the direct 
final rule.

                Table II.1--Summary of Analytical Results for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment: National Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                    TSL 1                TSL 2              TSL 2.5        Recommended TSL*          TSL 3              TSL 3.5              TSL 4               TSL 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               National FFC Energy Savings (quads)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 5.3................  9.8...............  13.9..............  14.8..............  15.9..............  16.4..............  19.7..............  23.4
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            NPV of Consumer Benefits (2014$ billion)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate...............  18.0...............  32.8..............  47.5..............  50.0..............  53.7..............  55.3..............  64.1..............  68.2
7% discount rate...............  5.4................  10.1..............  15.1..............  15.2..............  16.8..............  17.1..............  19.2..............  18.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Cumulative Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (million metric tons)......  314................  578...............  824...............  873...............  943...............  973...............  1,167.............  1,383
SO2 (thousand tons)............  164................  303...............  431...............  454...............  493...............  508...............  610...............  722
NOX (thousand tons)............  586................  1,080.............  1,538.............  1,634.............  1,759.............  1,815.............  2,180.............  2,584
Hg (tons)......................  0.61...............  1.12..............  1.59..............  1.68..............  1.82..............  1.88..............  2.25..............  2.66
CH4 (thousand tons)............  1,401..............  2,582.............  3,677.............  3,917.............  4,208.............  4,342.............  5,215.............  6,185
N2O (thousand tons)............  3.45...............  6.35..............  9.05..............  9.54..............  10.34.............  10.67.............  12.80.............  15.16
CH4 (million tons CO2eq **)....  39.2...............  72.3..............  103.0.............  109.7.............  117.8.............  121.6.............  146.0.............  173.2
N2O (thousand tons CO2eq **)...  913................  1,682.............  2,397.............  2,528.............  2,741.............  2,828.............  3,392.............  4,017
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                       Value of Emissions Reduction (Total FFC Emissions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 (2014$ billion)[dagger]....  1.845 to 27.53.....  3.409 to 50.82....  4.870 to 72.52....  5.046 to 75.94....  5.556 to 82.83....  5.729 to 85.44....  6.860 to 102.4....  8.127 to 121.4
NOX--3% discount rate (2014$     1,828..............  3,376.............  4,820.............  5,038.............  5,503.............  5,677.............  6,804.............  8,067
 million).
NOX--7% discount rate (2014$     606................  1,121.............  1,604.............  1,614.............  1,826.............  1,881.............  2,245.............  2,652
 million).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For the Recommended TSL, the NES is forecasted over the lifetime of equipment sold from 2018-2048. For the other TSLs, the NES is forecasted over the lifetime of equipment sold from 2019-
  2048.
** CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP).
[dagger] Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.


       Table II.2--Summary of Analytical Results for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Category                    TSL 1                TSL 2              TSL 2.5         Recommended TSL          TSL 3              TSL 3.5              TSL 4               TSL 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Manufacturer Impacts
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2014$ million)     1,431.0 to 1,705.5.  1,421.9 to 1,758.6  1,300.5 to 1,721.1  1,204.1 to 1,606.1  1,197.4 to 1,697.0  1,138.2 to 1,670.3  1,025.0 to 1,660.9  762.7 to 1,737.6
 (No-new-standards case INPV =
 1,638.2).
Industry NPV (% change)........  (6.5) to 3.7.......  (13.5) to 6.9.....  (20.9) to 4.7.....  (26.8) to (2.3)...  (27.2) to 3.2.....  (30.8) to 1.6.....  (37.7) to 1.0.....  (53.6) to 5.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Commercial Consumer Average LCC Savings (2014$)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small CUACs....................  (210)..............  870...............  3,777.............  4,233.............  4,233.............  3,517.............  3,035.............  5,326
Large CUACs....................  3,997..............  3,728.............  7,991.............  10,135............  10,135............  12,266............  16,803............  12,900
Very Large CUACs...............  1,547..............  4,777.............  8,610.............  8,610.............  8,881.............  8,881.............  18,386............  18,338
Average *......................  1,045..............  1,971.............  5,340.............  6,220.............  6,238.............  6,396.............  8,370.............  8,697
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Commercial Consumer PBP (years)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small CUACs....................  14.9...............  8.5...............  4.9...............  4.9...............  4.9...............  2.6...............  2.5...............  4.6
Large CUACs....................  1.3................  2.4...............  2.4...............  2.6...............  2.6...............  2.6...............  2.5...............  4.6
Very Large CUACs...............  5.8................  7.0...............  6.2...............  6.2...............  7.2...............  7.2...............  5.6...............  6.3
Average *......................  10.6...............  6.7...............  4.3...............  4.4...............  4.5...............  3.0...............  2.8...............  4.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                             % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small CUACs....................  48.................  25................  5.................  5.................  5.................  13................  25................  16
Large CUACs....................  0..................  10................  5.................  2.................  2.................  1.................  1.................  11
Very Large CUACs...............  7..................  13................  7.................  7.................  23................  23................  3.................  6

[[Page 2116]]

 
Average *......................  32.................  20................  5.................  4.................  6.................  11................  16................  14
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parentheses indicate negative (-) values.
* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in the year of compliance.

    DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 5 would save 23.4 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer benefit would 
be $18.8 billion using a discount rate of 7-percent, and $68.2 billion 
using a discount rate of 3-percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 1,383 million Mt 
of CO2, 722 thousand tons of SO2, 2,584 thousand 
tons of NOX, 2.66 tons of Hg, 6,185 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 15.16 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 5 ranges from $8.127 billion to $121.4 billion.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings of $5,326 for small 
CUACs, $12,900 for large CUACs, and $18,338 for very large CUACs. The 
simple payback period is 4.6 years for small CUACs, 4.6 years for large 
CUACs, and 6.3 years for very large CUACs. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 16 percent for small CUACs, 11 percent 
for large CUACs, and 6 percent for very large CUACs. Although DOE did 
not estimate consumer impacts for CUHPs, the results would be very 
similar to those for CUACs for the reasons stated in section V.B.1 of 
the direct final rule.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$881.9 million to an increase of $93.1 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -53.7 percent and 5.7 percent, respectively. The industry is 
expected to incur $591.0 million in total conversion costs at this 
level. DOE projects that 98.7 percent of current equipment listings 
would require redesign at this level to meet this standard level today. 
At this level, DOE recognizes that manufacturers could face technical 
resource constraints. Manufacturers stated they would require 
additional engineering expertise and additional test laboratory 
capacity. It is unclear whether manufacturers could complete the hiring 
of the necessary technical expertise and construction of the necessary 
test facilities in time to allow for the redesign of all equipment to 
meet max-tech by 2019. Furthermore, DOE recognizes that a standard set 
at max-tech could greatly limit equipment differentiation in the CUAC/
CUHP market. By commoditizing a key differentiating feature, a standard 
set at max-tech would likely accelerate consolidaton in the industry.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for CUACs and 
CUHPs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction 
in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 
5 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 19.7 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $19.2 billion using a discount rate of 7-percent, and 
$64.1 billion using a discount rate of 3-percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 1,167 million Mt 
of CO2, 610 thousand tons of SO2, 2,180 thousand 
tons of NOX, 2.25 tons of Hg, 5,215 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 12.80 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 4 ranges from $6.860 billion to $102.4 billion.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3,035 for small 
CUACs, $16,803 for large CUACs, and $18,386 for very large CUACs. The 
simple payback period is 2.5 years for small CUACs, 2.5 years for large 
CUACs, and 5.6 years for very large CUACs. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 25 percent for small CUACs, 1 percent 
for large CUACs, and 3 percent for very large CUACs. Although DOE did 
not estimate consumer impacts for CUHPs, the results would be very 
similar to those for CUACs for the reasons stated in section V.B.1 of 
the direct final rule.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$619.6 million to an increase of $16.3 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -37.7 percent and 1.0 percent, respectively. The industry is 
expected to incur $538.8 million in total conversion costs at this 
level. DOE projects that 96.0 percent of current equipment listings 
would require redesign at this level to meet this standard level today.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for CUACs and 
CUHPs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in 
INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 
is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3.5. TSL 3.5 would save 16.4 quads of 
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3.5, the NPV of 
consumer benefit would be $17.1 billion using a discount rate of 7-
percent, and $55.3 billion using a discount rate of 3-percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3.5 are 973 million Mt 
of CO2, 508 thousand tons of SO2, 1,815 thousand 
tons of NOX, 1.88 tons of Hg, 4,342 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 10.67 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 3.5 ranges from $5.729 billion to $85.44 billion.
    At TSL 3.5, the average LCC impact is a savings of $3,517 for small 
CUACs, $12,266 for large CUACs, and $8,881 for very large CUACs. The 
simple payback period is 2.6 years for small CUACs, 2.6 years for large 
CUACs, and 7.2 years for very large CUACs. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 13 percent for small CUACs, 1 percent 
for large CUAC, and 23 percent for very large CUACs. Although DOE did 
not estimate consumer impacts for CUHPs, the results would be very 
similar to those for CUACs for the reasons stated in section V.B.1 of 
the direct final rule.
    At TSL 3.5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$506.4 million to an increase of $25.7 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -30.8 percent and 1.6 percent, respectively. The industry is 
expected to incur $489.2 million in total conversion costs at this 
level. DOE projects that 93.5 percent of current equipment listings 
would

[[Page 2117]]

require redesign at this level to meet this standard level today.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3.5 for CUACs and 
CUHPs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a reduction in 
INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 
3.5 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 15.9 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $16.8 billion using a discount rate of 7-percent, and 
$53.7 billion using a discount rate of 3-percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 943 million Mt of 
CO2, 493 thousand tons of SO2, 1,759 thousand 
tons of NOX, 1.82 tons of Hg, 4,208 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 10.34 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
TSL 3 ranges from $5.556 billion to $82.83 billion.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $4,233 for small 
CUACs, $10,135 for large CUACs, and $8,881 for very large CUACs. The 
simple payback period is 4.9 years for small CUACs, 2.6 years for large 
CUACs, and 7.2 years for very large CUACs. The fraction of consumers 
experiencing a net LCC cost is 5 percent for small CUACs, 2 percent for 
large CUAC, and 23 percent for very large CUACs. Although DOE did not 
estimate consumer impacts for CUHPs, the results would be very similar 
to those for CUACs for the reasons stated in section V.B.1 of the 
direct final rule.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$447.2 million to an increase of $52.4 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -27.2 percent and 3.2 percent, respectively. DOE projects 
that 81.6 percent of current equipment listings would require redesign 
at this level to meet this standard level today.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for CUACs and 
CUHPs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden on some 
consumers, and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion 
costs and profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction 
in INPV. Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 
3 is not economically justified.
    DOE then considered the Recommended TSL, which reflects the 
standard levels recommended by the Working Group. The Recommended TSL 
would save 14.8 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers significant. 
Under the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefit would be $15.2 
billion using a discount rate of 7-percent, and $50.0 billion using a 
discount rate of 3-percent.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are 873 
million Mt of CO2, 454 thousand tons of SO2, 
1,634 thousand tons of NOX, 1.68 tons of Hg, 3,917 thousand 
tons of CH4, and 9.54 thousand tons of N2O. The 
estimated monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at 
the Recommended TSL ranges from $5.046 billion to $75.94 billion.
    At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of 
$4,233 for small CUACs, $10,135 for large CUACs, and $8,610 for very 
large CUACs. The simple payback period is 4.9 years for small CUACs, 
2.6 years for large CUACs, and 6.2 years for very large CUACs. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 5 percent for 
small CUACs, 2 percent for large CUACs, and 7 percent for very large 
CUACs. Although DOE did not estimate consumer impacts for CUHPs, the 
results would be very similar to those for CUACs for the reasons stated 
in section V.B.1 of the direct final rule.
    The Recommended TSL, as presented by the Working Group and approved 
by ASRAC, aligns the effective dates of the CUAC/CUHP and CWAF 
rulemakings. That approach adopts the ASHRAE 90.1-2013 efficiency 
levels in 2018 and a higher level in in 2023 as recommended by the 
Working Group. DOE anticipates that aligning the effective dates will 
reduce total conversion costs and cumulative regulatory burden, while 
also allowing industry to gain clarity on potential regulations that 
could affect refrigerant availability before the higher appliance 
standard takes effect in 2023. DOE projects that 31.5 percent of 
current equipment listings would require redesign at this level to meet 
the 2018 standard level, while 79.6 percent of current equipment 
listings would require redesign at this level to meet the 2023 standard 
level.
    At the Recommended TSL, the projected change in INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $440.4 million to a decrease of $38.5 million, which 
corresponds to a change of -26.8 percent and -2.3 percent, 
respectively. The industry is expected to incur $520.8 million in total 
conversion costs at this level. However, the industry members of the 
Working Group noted that aligning the compliance dates for the CUAC/
CUHP and CWAF standards in the manner recommended would allow 
manufacturers to coordinate their redesign and testing expenses for 
these equipment. (CUAC: AHRI and ACEEE, No. 80 at p. 1). With this 
coordination, manufacturers explained that there would be a reduction 
in the total conversion costs associated with the direct final rule. 
The resulting synergies from aligning the CUAC/CUHP and CWAF compliance 
dates would produce INPV impacts that are less severe than the 
forecasted INPV range of -26.8 percent to -2.3 percent.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, DOE has tentatively determined that the recommended standards 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), which contains 
provisions for adopting a uniform national standard more stringent than 
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the equipment considered in this 
document. Specifically, the Secretary has tentatively determined, 
supported by clear and convincing evidence that such adoption would 
result in the significant additional conservation of energy and is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining 
whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the 
Secretary has tentatively determined that the benefits of the 
recommended standards exceed the burdens. Namely, the Secretary has 
tentatively concluded that under the recommended standards for CUACs 
and CUHPs, the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer 
benefits, emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the 
emissions reductions, and positive average LCC savings would outweigh 
the negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including 
the conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for 
manufacturers.
    The proposed amended energy conservation standards for CUACs and 
CUHPs, which prescribe the minimum allowable IEER and, for commercial 
unitary heat pumps, COP, are shown in Table II.3.

[[Page 2118]]



    Table II.3--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial
                                 Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                         Proposed energy
          Equipment type                             Heating type         conservation         Compliance date
                                                                            standard
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged AC and   AC..........  Electric Resistance  12.9 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
 HP (Air-Cooled)-->=65,000 Btu/h                  Heating or No       14.8 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
 and <135,000 Btu/h Cooling                       Heating.
 Capacity.
                                                 All Other Types of   12.7 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating.            14.6 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                   HP..........  Electric Resistance  12.2 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating or No       3.3 COP.............  ....................
                                                  Heating.            14.1 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                      3.4 COP.............
                                                 All Other Types of   12.0 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating.            3.3 COP.............  ....................
                                                                      13.9 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                      3.4 COP.............
Large Commercial Packaged AC and   AC..........  Electric Resistance  12.4 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
 HP (Air-Cooled)-->=135,000 Btu/h                 Heating or No       14.2 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
 and <240,000 Btu/h Cooling                       Heating.
 Capacity.
                                                 All Other Types of   12.2 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating.            14.0 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                   HP..........  Electric Resistance  11.6 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating or No       3.2 COP.............  ....................
                                                  Heating.            13.5 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                      3.3 COP.............
                                                 All Other Types of   11.4 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating.            3.2 COP.............  ....................
                                                                      13.3 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                      3.3 COP.............
Very Large Commercial Packaged AC  AC..........  Electric Resistance  11.6 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
 and HP (Air-Cooled)-->=240,000                   Heating or No       13.2 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h Cooling                 Heating.
 Capacity.
                                                 All Other Types of   11.4 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating.            13.0 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                   HP..........  Electric Resistance  10.6 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating or No       3.2 COP.............  ....................
                                                  Heating.            12.5 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                      3.2 COP.............
                                                 All Other Types of   10.4 IEER...........  January 1, 2018.
                                                  Heating.            3.2 COP.............  ....................
                                                                      12.3 IEER...........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                      3.2 COP.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 2119]]

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards--which mimic those 
found in the direct final rule--can also be expressed in terms of 
annualized values. The annualized net benefit is the sum of: (1) The 
annualized national economic value (expressed in 2014$) of the benefits 
from operating equipment that meet the adopted standards (consisting 
primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy, minus 
increases in product purchase costs, and (2) the annualized monetary 
value of the benefits of CO2 and NOX emission 
reductions.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ To convert the time-series of costs and benefits into 
annualized values, DOE calculated a present value in 2014, the year 
used for discounting the NPV of total consumer costs and savings. 
For the benefits, DOE calculated a present value associated with 
each year's shipments in the year in which the shipments occur 
(2020, 2030, etc.), and then discounted the present value from each 
year to 2015. The calculation uses discount rates of 3- and 7-
percent for all costs and benefits except for the value of 
CO2 reductions, for which DOE used case-specific discount 
rates. Using the present value, DOE then calculated the fixed annual 
payment over a 30-year period, starting in the compliance year that 
yields the same present value.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table II.4 shows the annualized values for CUACs and CUHPs under 
the Recommended TSL, expressed in 2014$. The results under the primary 
estimate are as follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits 
and costs other than CO2 reduction, (for which DOE used a 3-
percent discount rate along with the SCC series that has a value of 
$40.0/t in 2015),\10\ the estimated cost of the standards in this rule 
is $708 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the 
estimated annual benefits are $2,099 million in reduced equipment 
operating costs, $1,320 million in CO2 reductions, and 
$147.5 million in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the 
net benefit amounts to $2,859 million per year. Using a 3-percent 
discount rate for all benefits and costs and the SCC series has a value 
of $40.0/t in 2015, the estimated cost of the standards is $792 million 
per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated annual 
benefits are $3,441 million in reduced operating costs, $1,320 million 
in CO2 reductions, and $267.3 million in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to 
$4,237 million per year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE used a 3-percent discount rate because the SCC values 
for the series used in the calculation were derived using a 3-
percent discount rate.

   Table II.4--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled
                            Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Million 2014$/year
                                                     -----------------------------------------------------------
                                  Discount rate (%)                        Low net benefits    High net benefits
                                                       Primary estimate*       estimate            estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings  7..................  2,099.............  2,021.............  2,309
                                 3..................  3,441.............  3,287.............  3,830
CO2 Reduction Value ($12.2/t     5..................  357...............  355...............  361
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Value ($40.0/t     3..................  1,320.............  1,313.............  1,337
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Value ($62.3/t     2.5................  1,973.............  1,964.............  1,999
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Value ($117/t      3..................  4,028.............  4,009.............  4,080
 case)**.
NOX Reduction Value[dagger]....  7..................  147.5.............  146.7.............  149.5
                                 3..................  267.3.............  265.9.............  270.7
Total Benefits[dagger][dagger].  7% plus CO2 range..  2,603 to 6,275....  2,522 to 6,176....  2,820 to 6,539
                                 7..................  3,566.............  3,481.............  3,796
                                 3 plus CO2 range...  4,065 to 7,737....  3,908 to 7,561....  4,462 to 8,181
                                 3..................  5,028.............  4,866.............  5,438
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Product     7..................  708...............  888...............  275
 Costs.                          3..................  792...............  1028..............  231
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Net Benefits
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total[dagger][dagger]..........  7% plus CO2 range..  1,895 to 5,567....  1,635 to 5,288....  2,546 to 6,265
                                 7..................  2,859.............  2,593.............  3,521
                                 3 plus CO2 range...  3,274 to 6,945....  2,879 to 6,533....  4,232 to 7,951
                                 3..................  4,237.............  3,838.............  5,207
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with CUACs and CUHPs shipped in 2018-2048.
  These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2048 from the CUACs and CUHPs purchased in 2018-
  2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers due to the
  standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High
  Benefits estimates utilize projections of energy prices from the AEO 2015 Reference case, Low Economic Growth
  case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition, incremental product costs reflect a constant
  price trend in the Primary estimate, a slightly increasing price trend in the Low Benefits estimate, and a
  slightly decreasing price trend in the Low Benefits estimate. The methods used to project price trends are
  explained in section IV.D.1.
** The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the
  updated SCC values. The first three cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and
  2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th percentile of the SCC distribution
  calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor. [dagger] Total
  Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-
  percent discount rate ($40.0/t) case. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the
  operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and those values are added to
  the full range of CO2 values.

[[Page 2120]]

 
[dagger] The $/ton values used for NOX are described in section IV.L.2 of the direct final rule. DOE estimated
  the monetized value of NOx emissions reductions using benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact
  Analysis titled, ``Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission Standards for
  Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants,'' published in June 2014 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and
  Standards. (Available at: http://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf.) For DOE's
  Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, the agency is presenting a national benefit-per-ton estimate
  for particulate matter emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of premature
  mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). For DOE's High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-
  per-ton estimates were based on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), which are nearly two-and-a-half
  times larger than those from the ACS study. Because of the sensitivity of the benefit-per-ton estimate to the
  geographical considerations of sources and receptors of emission, DOE intends to investigate refinements to
  the agency's current approach of one national estimate by assessing the regional approach taken by EPA's
  Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power Plan Final Rule.
[dagger][dagger] Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the
  average SCC with 3-percent discount rate ($40.0/t) case. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3%
  plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the labeled discount rate, and
  those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

B. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for Commercial Warm Air 
Furnaces

    Table II.5 and Table II.6 summarize the quantitative impacts 
estimated for each TSL for CWAFs. For TSL 2, the national impacts are 
projected over the lifetime of equipment sold in 2023-2048. For the 
other TSLs, the impacts are projected over the lifetime of equipment 
sold in 2019-2048. The energy savings, emissions reductions, and value 
of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle results. The 
efficiency levels contained in each TSL are described in section V.A of 
the direct final rule.

                              Table II.5--Summary of Analytical Results for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces: National Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Trial standard level
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1                       2                       3                      4                      5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative FFC Energy Savings       0.25..................  0.23..................  0.41..................  0.41.................  2.4
 Quads.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    NPV of consumer costs and benefits 2014$ billion
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3% discount rate..................  1.1...................  1.0...................  -0.1..................  -0.1.................  2.6
7% discount rate..................  0.4...................  0.3...................  -0.4..................  -0.4.................  -0.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Cumulative FFC emissions reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 million metric tons...........  13.4..................  12.4..................  22.0..................  22.0.................  126
SO2 thousand tons.................  0.40..................  0.40..................  0.63..................  0.67.................  -10.2
NOX thousand tons.................  43.0..................  41.2..................  70.5..................  72.2.................  473
Hg tons...........................  0.001.................  0.001.................  0.002.................  0.002................  -0.04
CH4 thousand tons.................  159...................  146...................  260...................  260..................  1,673
CH4 thousand tons CO2eq*..........  4,440.................  4,096.................  7,289.................  7,292................  46,831
N2O thousand tons.................  0.03..................  0.03..................  0.05..................  0.06.................  0.08
N2O thousand tons CO2eq*..........  8.8...................  8.4...................  14.3..................  14.6.................  21.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Value of emissions reduction
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CO2 2014$ million**...............  79.8 to 1,185.........  71.4 to 1,078.........  126 to 1,891..........  126 to 1,897.........  713 to 10,809
NOX--3% discount rate 2014$         120 to 264............  110 to 243............  188 to 414............  192 to 424...........  1258 to 2772
 million.
NOX--7% discount rate 2014$         42.3 to 94.4..........  36.1 to 80.9..........  64.2 to 144...........  65.9 to 147..........  423 to 945
 million.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For TSL 2, the impacts are projected over the lifetime of equipment sold in 2023-2048. For the other TSLs, the impacts are projected over the lifetime
  of equipment sold in 2019-2048.
* CO2eq is the quantity of CO2 that would have the same global warming potential (GWP).
** Range of the economic value of CO2 reductions is based on estimates of the global benefit of reduced CO2 emissions.


                     Table II.6--Summary of Analytical Results for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces: Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts*
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Trial standard level
             Category              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               1                       2                       3                      4                      5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Manufacturer Impacts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industry NPV (2014$ million) (No-   85.8 to 92.6..........  83.0 to 90.5..........  65.5 to 125.2.........  60.4 to 124.8........  (19.3) to 143.5
 New-Standards Case INPV = 96.3).
Industry NPV (% change)...........  (11.0) to (3.9).......  (13.9) to (6.1).......  (32.0) to 29.9........  (37.3) to 29.5.......  (120.1) to 49.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Consumer average LCC savings (2014$)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Commercial Warm Air       $284..................  $284..................  $75...................  $75..................  $766
 Furnaces.
Oil-Fired Commercial Warm Air       NA....................  $400..................  NA....................  $400.................  $1,817
 Furnaces.
Average*..........................  $284..................  $285..................  $75...................  $79..................  $781
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 2121]]

 
                                                               Consumer simple PBP (years)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Commercial Warm Air       1.4...................  1.4...................  12.3..................  12.3.................  11.3
 Furnaces.
Oil-Fired Commercial Warm Air       NA....................  1.9...................  NA....................  1.9..................  7.5
 Furnaces.
Average*..........................  1.4...................  1.4...................  12.3..................  12.1.................  11.3
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                         % of Consumers that Experience Net Cost
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-Fired Commercial Warm Air       6%....................  6%....................  58%...................  58%..................  58%
 Furnaces.
Oil-Fired Commercial Warm Air       0%....................  11%...................  0%....................  11%..................  54%
 Furnaces.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2019.
[dagger] At max tech, the standard will likely require CWAF manufacturers to make design changes to the cooling components of commercial HVAC products
  and to the chassis that houses the heating and cooling components. Because these cooling system changes are triggered by the CWAF standard, they are
  taken into account in the MIA's estimate of conversion costs. The additional expense of updating the commercial cooling product contributes to an INPV
  loss that is greater than 100%.

    DOE first considered TSL 5, which represents the max-tech 
efficiency levels. TSL 5 would save 2.4 quads of energy, an amount DOE 
considers significant. Under TSL 5, the NPV of consumer cost would be 
$0.4 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and the NPV of consumer 
benefit would be $2.6 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 5 are 126 Mt of 
CO2, 473 thousand tons of NOX, 1,673 thousand 
tons of CH4, and 0.08 thousand tons of N2O. 
Projected emissions show an increase of 10.2 thousand tons of 
SO2 and 0.04 ton of Hg. The estimated monetary value of the 
CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 5 ranges from $713 million to 
$10,809 million.
    At TSL 5, the average LCC impact is a savings of $766 for gas-fired 
CWAFs and $1,817 for oil-fired CWAFs. The simple payback period is 11.3 
years for gas-fired CWAFs and 7.5 years for oil-fired CWAFs. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 58 percent for 
gas-fired CWAF and 54 percent for oil-fired CWAFs.
    At TSL 5, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$115.7 million to an increase of $47.2 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -120.1 percent and 49.0 percent, respectively. The industry 
is expected to incur $157.5 million in total conversion costs at this 
level. DOE projects that 99 percent of current equipment listings would 
require redesign at this level.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 5 for CWAFs, the 
benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits using a 
discount rate of 3 percent, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the 
economic burden on most consumers, the negative NPV of consumer 
benefits using a 7-percent discount rate, and the impacts on 
manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin impacts 
that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, the 
Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 5 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 4. TSL 4 would save 0.41 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer 
cost would be $0.4 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.1 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 22 Mt of 
CO2, 0.67 thousand tons of SO2, 72.2 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.002 ton of Hg, 260 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.06 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 4 
ranges from $126 million to $1,897 million.
    At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $75 for gas-fired 
CWAFs and $400 for oil-fired CWAFs. The simple payback period is 12.3 
years for gas-fired CWAFs and 1.9 years for oil-fired CWAFs. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 58 percent for 
gas-fired CWAFs, and 11 percent for oil-fired CWAFs.
    At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$35.9 million to an increase of $28.4 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -37.3 percent and 29.5 percent, respectively. The industry is 
expected to incur $47.6 million in total conversion costs at this 
level. DOE projects that 94 percent of current product listings would 
require redesign at this level.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 4 for CWAFs, the 
benefits of energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated 
monetary value of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the 
economic burden on many consumers, negative NPV of consumer benefits, 
and the impacts on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and 
profit margin impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. 
Consequently, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 4 is not 
economically justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 3. TSL 3 would save 0.41 quads of energy, 
an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer 
cost would be $0.4 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $0.1 
billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 3 are 22 Mt of 
CO2, 0.63 thousand tons of SO2, 70.5 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.002 ton of Hg, 260 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.05 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 3 
ranges from $126 million to $1,891 million.
    At TSL 3, the average LCC impact is a savings of $75 for gas-fired 
CWAFs. The simple payback period is 12.3 years for gas-fired CWAFs. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 58 percent for 
gas-fired CWAFs. The EL at TSL 3 for oil-fired CWAFs is the baseline, 
so there are no LCC impacts for oil-fired CWAFs at TSL 3.
    At TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of 
$30.9 million to an increase of $28.8 million, which corresponds to a 
change of -32.0 percent and 29.9 percent, respectively. The industry is 
expected to incur $41.0 million in total conversion costs at this 
level. DOE projects that 91 percent of current equipment listings would 
require redesign at this level.
    The Secretary tentatively concludes that at TSL 3 for CWAFs, the 
benefits of

[[Page 2122]]

energy savings, emission reductions, and the estimated monetary value 
of the emissions reductions would be outweighed by the economic burden 
on many consumers, negative NPV of consumer benefits, and the impacts 
on manufacturers, including the conversion costs and profit margin 
impacts that could result in a large reduction in INPV. Consequently, 
the Secretary has tentatively concluded that TSL 3 is not economically 
justified.
    DOE then considered TSL 2, which corresponds to the recommendations 
by the Working Group. TSL 2 would save 0.23 quads of energy, an amount 
DOE considers significant. Under TSL 2, the NPV of consumer benefit 
would be $0.3 billion using a 7-percent discount rate, and $1.0 billion 
using a 3-percent discount rate.
    The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 2 are 12.4 Mt of 
CO2, 0.40 thousand tons of SO2, 41.2 thousand 
tons of NOX, 0.001 ton of Hg, 146 thousand tons of 
CH4, and 0.03 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated 
monetary value of the CO2 emissions reduction at TSL 2 
ranges from $71.4 million to $1,078 million.
    At TSL 2, the average LCC impact is a savings of $284 for gas-fired 
CWAFs and $400 for oil-fired CWAFs. The simple payback period is 1.4 
years for gas-fired CWAF and 1.9 years for oil-fired CWAFs. The 
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 6 percent for gas-
fired CWAFs and 11 percent for oil-fired CWAFs.
    At TSL 2, 57 percent of current equipment listings would require 
redesign at this level. The projected change in INPV ranges from a 
decrease of $13.4 million to a decrease of $5.9 million, which 
corresponds to a decrease of 13.9 percent and 6.1 percent, 
respectively. The CWAF industry is expected to incur $22.2 million in 
total conversion costs. However, the industry noted that aligning the 
compliance dates for the CUAC/CUHP and CWAF standards, as recommended 
by the Working Group, would allow manufacturers to coordinate their 
redesign and testing expenses for this equipment. If this occurs, there 
could be a reduction in the total conversion costs associated with the 
DFR. The resulting synergies from aligning the compliance dates of the 
CUAC/CUHP and CWAF standards would produce INPV impacts that are less 
severe than the forecasted INPV range of -13.9 percent to -6.1 percent.
    After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and 
burdens, DOE has tentatively determined that the recommended standards 
are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), which contains 
provisions for adopting a uniform national standard more stringent than 
the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1 for the equipment considered in 
this document. Specifically, the Secretary has tentatively determined, 
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such adoption would 
result in significant additional conservation of energy and is 
technologically feasible and economically justified. In determining 
whether the recommended standards are economically justified, the 
Secretary has tentatively determined that the benefits of the 
recommended standards exceed the burdens. Namely, the Secretary has 
tentatively concluded that under the recommended standards for CWAFs, 
the benefits of energy savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, 
emission reductions, the estimated monetary value of the emissions 
reductions, and positive average LCC savings would outweigh the 
negative impacts on some consumers and on manufacturers, including the 
conversion costs that could result in a reduction in INPV for 
manufacturers.
    Based on the above analyses, DOE is proposing to amend the energy 
conservation standards for CWAFs--as expressed in terms of thermal 
efficiency--in the manner shown in Table II.7.

 Table II.7--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Warm
                              Air Furnaces
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Thermal
           Equipment type            Input capacity (Btu/h)   efficiency
                                                                 (%)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired CWAFs....................  >=225,000                        81
                                     Btu/h.................
Oil-fired CWAFs....................  >=225,000                        82
                                     Btu/h.................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be 
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is 
the sum of: (1) The annualized national economic value (expressed in 
2014$) of the benefits from operating equipment that meet the adopted 
standards (consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using 
less energy, minus increases in equipment purchase costs), and (2) the 
annualized monetary value of the benefits of CO2 and 
NOX emission reductions.
    Table II.8 shows the annualized values for CWAFs under TSL 2, 
expressed in 2014$. The results under the primary estimate are as 
follows. Using a 7-percent discount rate for benefits and costs other 
than CO2 reductions, (for which DOE used a 3-percent 
discount rate along with the average SCC series corresponding to a 
value of $40.0/ton in 2015 (2014$)), the estimated cost of the adopted 
standards for CWAFs is $4.31 million per year in increased equipment 
costs, while the estimated benefits are $49.0 million per year in 
reduced equipment operating costs, $24 million per year in 
CO2 reductions, and $5.49 million per year in reduced 
NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit amounts to $75 
million per year.
    Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs and the 
average SCC series corresponding to a value of $40.0/ton in 2015 (in 
2014$), the estimated cost of the adopted standards for CWAFs is $4.38 
million per year in increased equipment costs, while the estimated 
benefits are $71 million per year in reduced operating costs, $24.3 
million per year in CO2 reductions, and $8.76 million per 
year in reduced NOX emissions. In this case, the net benefit 
amounts to $100 million per year.

[[Page 2123]]



                        Table II.8--Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (TSL 2) for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Million 2014$/year
                                   ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                       Low  net benefits          High  net benefits
                                            Discount  rate  %             Primary  estimate *             estimate *                  estimate *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Operating Cost Savings...  7...............................  49........................  48........................  54
                                    3...............................  71........................  70........................  81
CO2 Reduction Value ($12.2/t        5...............................  6.99......................  7.08......................  7.37
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Value ($40.0/t        3...............................  24........................  25........................  26
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Value ($62.3/t        2.5.............................  36........................  36........................  38
 case)**.
CO2 Reduction Value ($117/t         3...............................  74........................  75........................  79
 case)**.
NOX Reduction Value[dagger].......  7...............................  5 to 11...................  5 to 11...................  5 to 11
                                    3...............................  8 to 17...................  8 to 17...................  8 to 18
Total Benefits[dagger][dagger]....  7 plus CO2 range................  61 to 134.................  60 to 134.................  67 to 144
                                    7...............................  78........................  78........................  85
                                    3 plus CO2 range................  86 to 162.................  84 to 162.................  96 to 177
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                    3...............................  103.......................  102.......................  114
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Costs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consumer Incremental Installed      7...............................  4.31......................  5.04......................  3.92
 Costs.                             3...............................  4.38......................  5.22......................  3.94
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                      Net Benefits
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total[dagger][dagger].............  7 plus CO2 range................  57 to 130.................  55 to 129.................  63 to 140
                                    7...............................  74........................  72........................  81
                                    3 plus CO2 range................  82 to 158.................  79 to 157.................  92 to 173
                                    3...............................  99........................  97........................  110
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*This table presents the annualized costs and benefits associated with CWAFs shipped in 2023-2048. These results include benefits to consumers which
  accrue after 2048 from the CWAFs purchased from 2023-2048. The results account for the incremental variable and fixed costs incurred by manufacturers
  due to the standard, some of which may be incurred in preparation for the rule. The Primary, Low Benefits, and High Benefits Estimates utilize
  projections of energy prices from the AEO 2015 Reference case, Low Economic Growth case, and High Economic Growth case, respectively. In addition,
  incremental equipment costs reflect a medium decline rate in the Primary Estimate, a low decline rate in the Low Benefits Estimate, and a high decline
  rate in the High Benefits Estimate.
**The CO2 values represent global monetized values of the SCC, in 2014$, in 2015 under several scenarios of the updated SCC values. The first three
  cases use the averages of SCC distributions calculated using 5%, 3%, and 2.5% discount rates, respectively. The fourth case represents the 95th
  percentile of the SCC distribution calculated using a 3% discount rate. The SCC time series incorporate an escalation factor.
[dagger]The $/ton values used for NOX are described in the Direct Final Rule. DOE estimated the monetized value of NOx emissions reductions using
  benefit per ton estimates from the Regulatory Impact Analysis titled, ``Proposed Carbon Pollution Guidelines for Existing Power Plants and Emission
  Standards for Modified and Reconstructed Power Plants,'' published in June 2014 by EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. (Available at:
  http://www3.epa.gov/ttnecas1/regdata/RIAs/111dproposalRIAfinal0602.pdf.) For DOE's Primary Estimate and Low Net Benefits Estimate, the agency is
  presenting a national benefit-per-ton estimate for particulate matter emitted from the Electric Generating Unit sector based on an estimate of
  premature mortality derived from the ACS study (Krewski et al., 2009). For DOE's High Net Benefits Estimate, the benefit-per-ton estimates were based
  on the Six Cities study (Lepuele et al., 2011), which are nearly two-and-a-half times larger than those from the ACS study. Because of the sensitivity
  of the benefit-per-ton estimate to the geographical considerations of sources and receptors of emission, DOE intends to investigate refinements to the
  agency's current approach of one national estimate by assessing the regional approach taken by EPA's Regulatory Impact Analysis for the Clean Power
  Plan Final Rule.
[dagger][dagger]Total Benefits for both the 3% and 7% cases are derived using the series corresponding to the average SCC with 3-percent discount rate
  ($40.0/t case. In the rows labeled ``7% plus CO2 range'' and ``3% plus CO2 range,'' the operating cost and NOX benefits are calculated using the
  labeled discount rate, and those values are added to the full range of CO2 values.

III. Public Participation

Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but no later than the 
date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed 
rule. Interested parties may submit comments, data, and other 
information using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as

[[Page 2124]]

Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section below.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail. 
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or 
mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in 
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No 
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
one copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items; (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry; (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources; (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality; (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person that would result from 
public disclosure; (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time; and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

    The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are 
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published 
elsewhere in this Federal Register. Please see the direct final rule 
for further details.

V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Small businesses.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on December 17, 2015.
David T. Danielson,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, to read as set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.

0
2. Section 431.77 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  431.77  Energy conservation standards and their effective dates.

    (a) Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces. Each gas-fired 
commercial warm air furnace must meet the following energy efficiency 
standard levels:
    (1) For gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces manufactured 
starting on January 1, 1994, until January 1, 2023, the TE at the 
maximum rated capacity (rated maximum input) must be not less than 80 
percent; and
    (2) For gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces manufactured 
starting on January 1, 2023, the TE at the maximum rated capacity 
(rated maximum input) must be not less than 81 percent.
    (b) Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces. Each oil-fired 
commercial warm air furnace must meet the following energy efficiency 
standard levels:
    (1) For oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces manufactured 
starting on January 1, 1994, until January 1, 2023, the TE at the 
maximum rated capacity (rated maximum input) must be not less than 81 
percent; and
    (2) For oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces manufactured 
starting on January 1, 2023, the TE at the maximum rated capacity 
(rated maximum input) must be not less than 82 percent.
0
3. Section 431.92 is amended by adding the definition of ``Double-duct 
air conditioner or heat pump means air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment'' in alphabetical order to read as 
follows:


Sec.  431.92  Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and 
heat pumps.

* * * * *
    Double-duct air conditioner or heat pump means air-cooled 
commercial

[[Page 2125]]

package air conditioning and heating equipment that--
    (1) Is either a horizontal single package or split-system unit; or 
a vertical unit that consists of two components that may be shipped or 
installed either connected or split;
    (2) Is intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air 
from the building exterior to and from the unit, as evidenced by the 
unit and/or all of its components being non-weatherized, including the 
absence of any marking (or listing) indicating compliance with UL 1995, 
``Heating and Cooling Equipment,'' or any other equivalent requirements 
for outdoor use;
    (3)(i) If it is a horizontal unit, a complete unit has a maximum 
height of 35 inches;
    (ii) If it is a vertical unit, a complete unit has a maximum depth 
of 35 inches; and
    (4) Has a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 
Btu/h and up to 300,000 Btu/h.
* * * * *
0
4. Section 431.97 is amended by:
    a. Redesignating Tables 5 through 11 as Tables 7 through 13;
    b. Revising paragraph (b) and the introductory text of paragraph 
(c);
    c. In paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, removing ``Table 7'' and 
adding in its place ``Table 9'';
    d. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text, removing ``Table 8'' and 
adding in its place ``Table 10''; and
    e. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, removing ``Table 9'' and 
adding in its place ``Table 11''.
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  431.97  Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (b) Each commercial air conditioner or heat pump (not including 
single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical 
heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal 
heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant 
flow systems) manufactured starting on the compliance date listed in 
the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy 
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1 through 6 of this 
section.

                        Table 1 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
[Not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal
                 heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, and variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Compliance date:
                                                                                                                                         Equipment
           Equipment type               Cooling capacity          Sub-category            Heating type         Efficiency level    manufactured starting
                                                                                                                                          on . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air         <65,000 Btu/h.........  AC....................  All..................  SEER = 13............  June 16, 2008.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Split-
 System).
                                                             HP....................  All..................  SEER = 13............  June 16, 2008.\1\
Small Commercial Package Air         <65,000 Btu/h.........  AC....................  All..................  SEER = 13............  June 16, 2008.\1\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Single-
 Package).
                                                             HP....................  All..................  SEER = 13............  June 16, 2008.\1\
Small Commercial Package Air         >=65,000 Btu/h and      AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 11.2...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <135,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                             HP....................  No Heating or          EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Electric Resistance
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 10.8...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Heating.
Large Commercial Package Air         >=135,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <240,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 10.8...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                             HP....................  No Heating or          EER = 10.6...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Electric Resistance
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 10.4...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Heating.
Very Large Commercial Package Air    >=240,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 10.0...........  January 1, 2010.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <760,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 9.8............  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                             HP....................  No Heating or          EER = 9.5............  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Electric Resistance
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 9.3............  January 1, 2010.\2\
                                                                                      Heating.
Small Commercial Package Air         <65,000 Btu/h.........  AC....................  All..................  EER = 12.1...........  October 29, 2003.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Water-Cooled).

[[Page 2126]]

 
                                     >=65,000 Btu/h and      AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 12.1...........  June 1, 2013.
                                      <135,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 11.9...........  June 1, 2013.
                                                                                      Heating.
Large Commercial Package Air-        >=135,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 12.5...........  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <240,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Water-Cooled).                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 12.3...........  June 1, 2014.
                                                                                      Heating.
Very Large Commercial Package Air-   >=240,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 12.4...........  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <760,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Water-Cooled).                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 12.2...........  June 1, 2014.
                                                                                      Heating.
Small Commercial Package Air-        <65,000 Btu/h.........  AC....................  All..................  EER = 12.1...........  October 29, 2003.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Evaporatively-Cooled).
                                     >=65,000 Btu/h and      AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 12.1...........  June 1, 2013.
                                      <135,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 11.9...........  June 1, 2013.
                                                                                      Heating.
Large Commercial Package Air-        >=135,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 12.0...........  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <240,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Evaporatively-Cooled).                                                              Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 11.8...........  June 1, 2014.
                                                                                      Heating.
Very Large Commercial Package Air    >=240,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  No Heating or          EER = 11.9...........  June 1, 2014.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <760,000 Btu/h.                                 Electric Resistance
 (Evaporatively-Cooled).                                                              Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     EER = 11.7...........  June 1, 2014.
                                                                                      Heating.
Small Commercial Package Air-        <17,000 Btu/h.........  HP....................  All..................  EER = 11.2...........  October 29, 2003.\3\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Water-Source: Water-to-Air, Water-
 Loop).
                                     >=17,000 Btu/h and      HP....................  All..................  EER = 12.0...........  October 29, 2003.\3\
                                      <65,000 Btu/h.
                                     >=65,000 Btu/h and      HP....................  All..................  EER = 12.0...........  October 29, 2003.\3\
                                      <135,000 Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before January 1, 2017. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
\2\ And manufactured before January 1, 2018. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.
\3\ And manufactured before October 9, 2015. See Table 3 of this section for updated efficiency standards.


    Table 2 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Heating Efficiency Standards for Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
                                                  [Heat pumps]
    [Not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged
terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, variable refrigerant
flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps, and double-duct air-cooled commercial package air conditioning
                                             and heating equipment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Compliance date:
            Equipment type                 Cooling capacity         Efficiency level      Equipment manufactured
                                                                                            starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air           <65,000 Btu/h..........  HSPF = 7.7.............  June 16, 2008.\1\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Split-System).
Small Commercial Package Air-          <65,000 Btu/h..........  HSPF = 7.7.............  June 16, 2008.\1\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Single-
 Package).
Small Commercial Package Air           >=65,000 Btu/h and       COP = 3.3..............  January 1, 2010.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment     <135,000 Btu/h.
 (Air-Cooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air          >=135,000 Btu/h and      COP = 3.2..............  January 1, 2010.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment     <240,000 Btu/h.
 (Air-Cooled).

[[Page 2127]]

 
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air     >=240,000 Btu/h and      COP = 3.2..............  January 1, 2010.\2\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment     <760,000 Btu/h.
 (Air-Cooled).
Small Commercial Packaged Air          <135,000 Btu/h.........  COP = 4.2..............  October 29, 2003.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Water-Source: Water-to-Air, Water-
 Loop).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before January 1, 2017. See Table 4 of this section for updated heating efficiency
  standards.
\2\ And manufactured before January 1, 2018. See Table 4 of this section for updated heating efficiency
  standards.


                Table 3 to Sec.   431.97--Updates to the Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
[Not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal
heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps, and double-duct air-cooled commercial
                                                     package air conditioning and heating equipment]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Compliance date:
                                                                                                                                         Equipment
           Equipment type               Cooling capacity          Sub-category            Heating type         Efficiency level    manufactured starting
                                                                                                                                          on . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air        >=65,000 Btu/h and      AC....................  Electric Resistance    IEER = 12.9..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <135,000 Btu/h.                                 Heating or No         IEER = 14.8..........  January 1, 2023.
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     IEER = 12.7..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating.              IEER = 14.6..........  January 1, 2023.
                                                             HP....................  Electric Resistance    IEER = 12.2..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating or No         IEER = 14.1..........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     IEER = 12.0..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating.              IEER = 13.9..........  January 1, 2023.
Large Commercial Packaged Air        >=135,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  Electric Resistance    IEER = 12.4..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <240,000 Btu/h.                                 Heating or No         IEER = 14.2..........  January 1, 2023.
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     IEER = 12.2..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating.              IEER = 14.0..........  January 1, 2023.
                                                             HP....................  Electric Resistance    IEER = 11.6..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating or No         IEER = 13.5..........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                                      Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     IEER = 11.4..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating.              IEER = 13.3..........  January 1, 2023.
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air   >=240,000 Btu/h and     AC....................  Electric Resistance    IEER = 11.6..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <760,000 Btu/h.                                 Heating or No         IEER = 13.2..........  January 1, 2023.
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                     All Other Types of     IEER = 11.4..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating.              IEER = 13.0..........  January 1, 2023.
                                                             HP....................  Electric Resistance    IEER = 10.6..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating or No         IEER = 12.5..........  January 1, 2023.
                                                                                      Heating.

[[Page 2128]]

 
                                                                                     All Other Types of     IEER = 10.4..........  January 1, 2018.\1\
                                                                                      Heating.              IEER = 12.3..........  January 1, 2023.
Small Commercial Package Air-        <65,000 Btu/h.........  AC....................  All..................  SEER = 13.0..........  June 16, 2008.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Split-
 System).
                                                             HP....................  All..................  SEER = 14.0..........  January 1, 2017.
Small Commercial Package Air-        <65,000 Btu/h.........  AC....................  All..................  SEER = 14.0..........  January 1, 2017.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Single-
 Package).
                                                             HP....................  All..................  SEER = 14.0..........  January 1, 2017.
Small Commercial Packaged Air-       <17,000 Btu/h.........  HP....................  All..................  EER = 12.2...........  October 9, 2015.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Water Source: Water-to-Air, Water-
 Loop).
                                     >=17,000 Btu/h and      HP....................  All..................  EER = 13.0...........  October 9, 2015.
                                      <65,000 Btu/h.
                                     >=65,000 Btu/h and      HP....................  All..................  EER = 13.0...........  October 9, 2015.
                                      <135,000 Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before January 1, 2023.


  Table 4 to Sec.   431.97--Updates to the Minimum Heating Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled Air Conditioning
                                              and Heating Equipment
                                                  [Heat Pumps]
    [Not including single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, packaged
terminal air conditioners and packaged terminal heat pumps, computer room air conditioners, variable refrigerant
flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps, and double-duct air-cooled commercial package air conditioning
                                             and heating equipment]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Compliance date:
            Equipment type                 Cooling capacity       Efficiency level \1\    equipment manufactured
                                                                                            starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air           <65,000 Btu/h..........  HSPF = 8.2.............  January 1, 2017.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Split-Sytem).
Small Commercial Package Air           <65,000 Btu/h..........  HSPF = 8.0.............  January 1, 2017.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, Single
 Package).
Small Commercial Package Air           <135,000 Btu/h.........  COP = 4.3..............  October 9, 2015.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment
 (Water-Source: Water-to-Air, Water-
 Loop).
Small Commercial Packaged Air          >=65,000 Btu/h and       COP = 3.3..............  January 1, 2018.\2\.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment     <135,000 Btu/h.         COP = 3.4..............  January 1, 2023.
 (Air-Cooled).
Large Commercial Packaged Air          >=135,000 Btu/h and      COP = 3.2..............  January 1, 2018.\2\.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment     <240,000 Btu/h.         COP = 3.3..............  January 1, 2023.
 (Air-Cooled).
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air     >=240,000 Btu/h and      COP = 3.2..............  January 1, 2018.
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment     <760,000 Btu/h.
 (Air-Cooled).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For units tested using the relevant AHRI Standards, all COP values must be rated at 47[emsp14][deg]F outdoor
  dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled equipment.
\2\ And manufactured before January 1, 2023.


[[Page 2129]]


                  Table 5 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Double-Duct Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Compliance date:
                                                                                                                                          equipment
          Equipment type               Cooling capacity           Sub-category             Heating type         Efficiency level        manufactured
                                                                                                                                      starting on. . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Double-Duct Commercial        >=65,000 Btu/h and     AC                          Electric Resistance   EER = 11.2...........  January 1, 2010.
 Packaged Air Conditioning and       <135,000 Btu/h.                                    Heating or No
 Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).                                                        Heating.
                                                                                       All Other Types of    EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating.
                                                           HP                          Electric Resistance   EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating or No
                                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                       All Other Types of    EER = 10.8...........  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating.
Large Commercial Double-Duct        >=135,000 Btu/h and    AC                          Electric Resistance   EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.
 Packaged Air Conditioning and       <240,000 Btu/h.                                    Heating or No
 Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).                                                        Heating.
                                                                                       All Other Types of    EER = 10.8...........  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating.
                                                           HP                          Electric Resistance   EER = 10.6...........  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating or No
                                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                       All Other Types of    EER = 10.4...........  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating.
Very Large Double-Duct Commercial   >=240,000 Btu/h and    AC                          Electric Resistance   EER = 10.0...........  January 1, 2010.
 Packaged Air Conditioning and       <300,000 Btu/h.                                    Heating or No
 Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).                                                        Heating.
                                                                                       All Other Types of    EER = 9.8............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating.
                                                           HP                          Electric Resistance   EER = 9.5............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating or No
                                                                                        Heating.
                                                                                       All Other Types of    EER = 9.3............  January 1, 2010.
                                                                                        Heating.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table 6 to Sec.   431.97--Minimum Heating Efficiency Standards for Double-Duct Air-Cooled Air Conditioning and
                                                Heating Equipment
                                                  [Heat pumps]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                               Compliance date:
                                                                           Efficiency level        Equipment
         Equipment type           Cooling capacity      Heating type             \1\             manufactured
                                                                                               starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air    >=65,000 Btu/h and  Electric            COP = 3.3..........  January 1, 2010.
 Conditioning and Heating         <135,000 Btu/h      Resistance
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).                              Heating or No
                                                      Heating.
                                                     All Other Types of  COP = 3.3..........  January 1, 2010.
                                                      Heating.
Large Commercial Packaged Air-   >=135,000 Btu/h     Electric            COP = 3.2..........  January 1, 2010.
 Conditioning and Heating         and <240,000 Btu/   Resistance
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).          h                   Heating or No
                                                      Heating.
                                                     All Other Types of  COP = 3.2..........  January 1, 2010.
                                                      Heating
Very Large Commercial Packaged   >=240,000 Btu/h     Electric            COP = 3.2            January 1, 2010.
 Air Conditioning and Heating     and <300,000 Btu/   Resistance
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).          h                   Heating or No
                                                      Heating.
                                                     All Other Types of  COP = 3.2            January 1, 2010.
                                                      Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For units tested using the relevant AHRI Standards, all COP values must be rated at 47[emsp14][deg]F outdoor
  dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled equipment.

    (c) Each packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and packaged 
terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured starting on January 1, 1994, but 
before October 8, 2012 (for standard size PTACs and PTHPs) and before 
October 7, 2010 (for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs) must meet the 
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 
Table 7 of this section. Each standard size PTAC and PTHP manufactured 
starting on October 8, 2012, and each non-standard size PTAC and PTHP 
manufactured starting on October 7, 2010, must meet the applicable 
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 6 of 
this section.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2015-33069 Filed 1-14-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P