Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners, 36480-36488 [2019-16048]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
36480
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 84, No. 145
Monday, July 29, 2019
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.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032]
RIN 1904–AE07
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial
Package Air Conditioners and WaterCooled Commercial Package Air
Conditioners
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current
energy conservation standards for
evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners and watercooled commercial package air
conditioners (referred to as
evaporatively-cooled commercial
unitary air conditioners (ECUACs) and
water-cooled commercial unitary air
conditioners (WCUACs) in this
document, respectively). Under the
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of
1975, as amended, DOE must review
these standards at least once every six
years and publish either a notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) to
propose new standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs or a notice of determination
that the existing standards do not need
to be amended. This request for
information (‘‘RFI’’) solicits information
from the public to help DOE determine
whether amended standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and whether such standards
would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on
any subject within the scope of this
document (including topics not raised
in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
accepted on or before September 12,
2019.
Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number and provide docket number
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032, by any of
the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email:
WCandECUAC2017STD0032@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032 in the
subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. 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: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza,
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. 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 this process, see section
III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.govindex. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD0032. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
ADDRESSES:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
in the docket. See section III for
information on how to submit
comments through https://
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
7335. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact
the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Requests for Information and Comments
A. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
B. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
1. General
2. Representativeness of IEER for
Evaporatively-Cooled and Water-cooled
Units
3. Representativeness of IEER for
Evaporatively-Cooled Units With
Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000
Btu/h
4. Burden of IEER Testing
C. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Other
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act of 1975, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(October 23, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
among other things, authorizes DOE to
regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA
established the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. This equipment includes
ECUACs and WCUACs, the subject of
this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA 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).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
other provisions set forth under 42
U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D).
EPCA contains mandatory energy
conservation standards for commercial
heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a))
Specifically, the statute sets standards
for small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, packaged
terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and
packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs),
warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous
water heaters, and unfired hot water
storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA
established Federal energy conservation
standards that generally correspond to
the levels in American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings, as in effect on October 24,
1992 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
1989). ECUACs and WCUACs are
covered under EPCA’s definition of
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6311(8)) EPCA established initial
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
with cooling capacity less than 240,000
Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a))
If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended
with respect to the standard levels or
design requirements applicable under
that standard for certain commercial
equipment, including ECUACs and
WCUACs, not later than 180 days after
the amendment of the standard, DOE
must publish in the Federal Register for
public comment an analysis of the
energy savings potential of amended
energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) With certain
exceptions,3 DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the
new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and
convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a morestringent efficiency level as a national
standard would produce significant
additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE adopts as a
national standard the efficiency levels
specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such
standard not later than 18 months after
publication of the amended industry
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I))
If DOE determines that a more-stringent
standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish
the more-stringent standard not later
than 30 months after publication of the
revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
EPCA also requires that every six
years DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for certain
commercial equipment, including
ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish
either a notice of determination that the
standards do not need to be amended,
36481
or a NOPR that includes new proposed
energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
EPCA further provides that, not later
than 3 years after the issuance of a final
determination not to amend standards,
DOE must publish either a notice of
determination that standards for the
product do not need to be amended, or
a NOPR including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the
analysis on which the determination is
based publicly available and provide an
opportunity for written comment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a
determination that more-stringent
standards would (1) result in significant
additional conservation of energy and
(2) be both technologically feasible and
economically justified must be
supported by clear and convincing
evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
Following an update to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010), DOE published a final rule
on May 16, 2012 (‘‘May 2012 final
rule’’), amending the standards for 12
classes of ECUACs and WCUACs by
adopting the energy efficiency ratio
(EER) levels for this equipment
established in ASHRAE 90.1–2010. 77
FR 28928. Since ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2010 was published, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 has undergone two
revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE
published ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2013, and on October 31, 2016,
ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2016. In neither of these
publications did ASHRAE amend
minimum EER levels for small, large,
and very large water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled unitary air
conditioners, and, thus, DOE was not
triggered to examine amended standards
for this equipment under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A). As a result, the current
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are
those set forth in the May 2012 final
rule and codified at 10 CFR 431.97.
These standards are reproduced in
Table I.1.
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED
COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
(Btu/h)
Heating type
Small Water-Cooled ...................
<65,000 ......................................
All ...............................................
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
3 DOE cannot adopt an ASHRAE standard that (1)
increases energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency or (2) results in the
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Minimum EER
12.1
Compliance date
October 29, 2003.
unavailability in any equipment class of
performance characteristics that are currently
available in the market. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii))
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
36482
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE I.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED
COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT—Continued
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
(Btu/h)
Heating type
Small Water-Cooled ...................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...............
Large Water-Cooled ...................
≥135,000 and <240,000 .............
Very Large Water-Cooled ...........
≥240,000 and <760,000 .............
Small Evaporatively-Cooled .......
Small Evaporatively-Cooled .......
<65,000 ......................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...............
Large Evaporatively-Cooled .......
≥135,000 and <240,000 .............
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled
≥240,000 and <760,000 .............
No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ........
No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ........
No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ........
All ...............................................
No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ........
No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ........
No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.
All Other Types of Heating ........
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information to inform its
decision consistent with its obligation
under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria for prescribing new or amended
standards for covered equipment. EPCA
requires that in order to adopt a morestringent standard for ECUACs and
WCUACs, DOE must determine,
supported by clear and convincing
evidence, that adoption of a morestringent efficiency level as a national
standard would produce significant
additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
Minimum EER
6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
To determine whether a standard is
economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the product compared to any increases
in the initial cost, or maintenance
expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy and water (if applicable) savings
likely to result directly from the
standard;
Compliance date
12.1
June 1, 2013.
11.9
12.5
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2014.
12.3
12.4
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
12.2
12.1
12.1
June 1, 2014.
October 29, 2003.
June 1, 2013.
11.9
12.0
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2014.
11.8
11.9
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
11.7
June 1, 2014.
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the products likely to
result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy and
water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of
Energy (Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
DOE fulfills these and other
applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the
rulemaking process. Table I.2 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I.2—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings .......................................................................
Technological Feasibility ..........................................................................
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ...................
2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for
the product.
3. Total projected energy savings .....................................................
4. Impact on utility or performance ...................................................
5. Impact of any lessening of competition ........................................
6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Markups for Product Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
36483
TABLE I.2—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS—Continued
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ............................
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE
is publishing this document seeking
input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of an energy use
analysis for ECUACs and WCUACs. The
issues relevant to the energy use
analysis are also relevant to the
technical and economic analyses should
DOE determine it necessary to conduct
them. In addition to the specific issues
identified in the following section on
which DOE requests comment, DOE
requests comment on its overall
approach and analyses used to evaluate
potential standard levels for ECUACs
and WCUACs.
II. Requests for Information and
Comments
DOE seeks comment on whether there
have been sufficient technological or
market changes since the most recent
standards update that may justify a new
rulemaking to consider more stringent
standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination because a more-stringent
standard: (1) Would not result in
significant additional savings of energy;
(2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is
not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of the foregoing. In the
following sections, DOE has identified a
variety of issues on which it seeks input
to aid in determining whether to
proceed with a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination or propose more-stringent
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Market Analysis
In preparation for this RFI, DOE
conducted a review of the current
market for ECUACs and WCUACs,
including equipment literature, and the
DOE Compliance Certification
Management System (CCMS) database.4
In addition, DOE reviewed market data
and stakeholder comments received as
part of the previous standards
rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs,
as well as the energy savings potential
for amended standards determined in
that rulemaking. The following
4 The DOE CCMS database can be found at: https://
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
•
•
•
•
•
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
subsections discuss DOE’s analysis of
the current market for ECUACs and
WCUACs as well as relevant results
from the May 2012 final rule, including
shipments estimates.
1. Shipments Estimates
As part of the previous rulemaking,
AHRI provided historical shipments
data from 1989 to 2009 for WCUACs by
cooling capacity range. DOE searched
for, but was unable to identify, publicly
available sources of shipments of
ECUACs and WCUACs.
Previously submitted historical AHRI
data showed strongly decreasing
shipments for certain small (i.e., greater
than 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000
Btu/h cooling capacity) and large
WCUACs over the period from 1989 to
2009. (Docket No. EERE–2011–BT–
STD–0029–0003) For the analyses
conducted for a notice of data
availability (NODA) published on May
5, 2011 (‘‘May 2011 NODA’’), DOE
developed shipments projections for
these equipment classes using an
exponential curve fit to the 21 years of
available data. 76 FR 25622, 25641–
25642. The energy savings estimates
from the May 2011 NODA (which
depend on the shipments projections)
were presented unchanged in the May
2012 final rule. 77 FR 28969–28971.
Because the historical trends showed a
steep decline in shipments for these
classes, the shipment projections
resulted in very few shipments by the
end of the 30-year analysis period. For
very large WCUACs, the decline in
shipments was less definitive, although
a linear fit of the available 21 years of
shipment data showed gradually
declining shipments. For each of the
WCUAC equipment classes analyzed,
DOE used these shipments data to
analyze two shipment scenarios: (1)
Based on historical trends of declining
shipments, and (2) based on shipments
remaining constant at 2009 levels. DOE
analyzed the energy savings potential by
equipment class for both scenarios to
provide a range of energy savings
estimates. 76 FR 25641–25642.
Estimates of annual shipments averaged
over the 30-year analysis periods used
in the previous rulemaking, 2013–2042
for small WCUACs and 2014–2043 for
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
large and very large WCUACs, resulted
in the shipment estimates shown in
Table II.1 for each equipment class.
In the May 2012 final rule analysis,
DOE did not identify any models of
certain small (i.e., greater than 65,000
Btu/h but less than 135,000 Btu/h
cooling capacity) or large ECUACs, and
thus DOE assumed no shipments for
these equipment classes. Id. At 76 FR
25639. DOE identified multiple models
of very large ECUACs. Because no
shipments data were available for
ECUACs, DOE developed shipment
estimates based on the ratio of the
number of identified models of very
large ECUACs (9) to the number of
models of very large WCUACs (35). Id.
at 76 FR 25642. The average of the
projected shipments per year (averaged
over the 30-year analysis period) under
both scenarios considered is shown in
Table II.1. Average shipment estimates
for ECUACs and WCUACs in Table II.1
are shown as ranges bounded by the
estimates for the two different analyzed
shipment scenarios (i.e., (1) based on
historical trends of declining shipments,
and (2) based on shipments remaining
constant at 2009 levels). Shipments for
ECUACs and WCUACs are also shown
as a percentage of package air
conditioner and package heat pump
annual shipments reported by AHRI,
averaged over the 5-year period from
2013–2017, for each cooling capacity
range.5
5 U.S. Manufacturers’ Shipments of Central Air
Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps by
Btu/h, AHRI Shipments Data. https://
www.ahrinet.org/Resources/Statistics/HistoricalData/Central-Air-Conditioners-and-Air-SourceHeat-Pumps.aspx (last accessed April 8, 2019). DOE
interprets the cited AHRI data as consisting of
shipments for air-cooled and water-cooled package
air conditioners and air-cooled heat pumps.
Because the AHRI data uses cooling capacity ranges
that differ from DOE’s equipment class structure,
AHRI shipments data for equipment with cooling
capacity between 135,000 and 249,900 Btu/h are
included in the row designated for equipment with
cooling capacity ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h in
Table II.1. Additionally, AHRI shipments data for
equipment with cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 640,000 Btu/h are included in the row
designated for equipment with cooling capacity
≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h in Table II.1. DOE
estimates that shipments of package air
conditioners with cooling capacity greater than
760,000 Btu/h are very small relative to shipments
of all very large packaged air conditioner and heat
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
Continued
29JYP1
36484
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.1—SHIPMENTS FOR WATER-COOLED, EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED, AND AIR-COOLED AIR-CONDITIONING AND
HEATING EQUIPMENT BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
Equipment type
Cooling capacity (Btu/h)
Small Water-Cooled ........................................
Large Water-Cooled ........................................
Very Large Water-Cooled ...............................
Small Evaporatively-Cooled ............................
Large Evaporatively-Cooled ............................
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled ...................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 .................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 .................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 .................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 .................................
Annual
shipments—
average over
30 years
(Low and High
Projections
from May
2012 Final
Rule) *
AHRI package
AC/HP annual
shipments **
Percentage of
AHRI package
AC/HP shipments
(%)
51–152
85–182
585–909
0
0
150–234
180,377
72,797
27,282
180,377
72,797
27,282
0.03–0.08
0.12–0.25
2.1–3.3
0
0
0.55–0.86
* Projected average annual shipments shown were averaged over the 30-year analysis periods used in the May 2012 final rule analysis: 2013–
2042 for small WCUACs, and 2014–2043 for large and very large WCUACs and very large ECUACs. Shipment estimates in the May 2012 final
rule were developed for two different scenarios: (1) Based on historical trends of declining shipments, and (2) based on shipments remaining
constant at 2009 levels. Estimates for the two different scenarios are the bounds for the ranges of shipments provided for each equipment class.
** U.S. Manufacturers’ Shipments of Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps by Btu/h, AHRI Shipments Data. https://
www.ahrinet.org/Resources/Statistics/Historical-Data/Central-Air-Conditioners-and-Air-Source-Heat-Pumps.aspx (last accessed April 8, 2019).
As shown in Table II.1, average
shipments of ECUAC and WCUACs
with cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h were previously
estimated to be less than 1,000 for each
equipment class and are only a small
fraction of shipments of air-cooled
commercial unitary air conditioners
(ACUACs). DOE is not aware of any
publicly-available shipments data for
ECUACs or WCUACs more recent than
the data presented in the May 2012 final
rule. On July 25, 2017, DOE published
an RFI for test procedures for several
categories of commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps, including
ECUACs and WCUACs (‘‘July 2017 TP
RFI’’). 82 FR 34427. In response to the
July 2017 TP RFI, Goodman Global, Inc
(Goodman) stated that the market for
WCUACs is extremely small and
represents only a fraction of a
percentage of ACUAC shipments.
(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–
0014 at p. 3)
Issue A.1 DOE seeks comment on
whether the shipments estimates for
WCUACs and ECUACs analyzed in the
May 2012 final rule are representative of
the current market.
Issue A.2 DOE requests feedback
and/or data on historical and recent
shipments for each of the current seven
equipment classes of WCUACs and
seven equipment classes of ECUACs,
including for units with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE
also seeks evidence or reasoning for
expected trends in future shipments that
differ from those analyzed in the May
2012 final rule.
Issue A.3 DOE requests feedback on
whether the historical decline in
shipments for WCUACs that was found
in the May 2012 final rule analysis still
applies for the current WCUAC market.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on
market forces that are expected to
influence future WCUAC shipment
trends and could support DOE’s
assessment of future shipments. DOE
also requests feedback on the market
forces affecting shipments for the
ECUAC market, and on whether there is
any information to suggest a growing or
declining market. DOE requests any
shipment data that maps into the model
counts as shown in table II.2.
2. Model Counts
For this RFI, DOE conducted a review
of the current market for WCUACs and
ECUACs based on models included in
the DOE CCMS database. DOE also
compared the number of ECUAC and
WCUAC models to the number of
ACUAC models listed in DOE’s CCMS
database. Table II.22 shows the number
of models listed within the DOE CCMS
database 6 that DOE has identified for
each class of ACUACs, ECUACs, and
WCUACs.
TABLE II.2—MODEL COUNTS FOR EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED, WATER-COOLED, AND AIR-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS BY
EQUIPMENT CLASS
Number of models
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h)
Evaporativelycooled
<65,000 ......................................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...............................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 .............................................................................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 .............................................................................................
Water-cooled
9
0
0
15
15
49
33
251
Air-cooled
* 2,307
2,301
1,975
2,843
* This <65,000 Btu/h air-cooled model count includes only unique basic models of three-phase air-cooled commercial air conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
pumps (i.e., with cooling capacity ≥240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000 Btu/h).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
6 Accessed
on April 1, 2019.
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
36485
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
As shown in Table II.22, the number
of models of ECUACs and WCUACs
currently on the market is significantly
less than the number of ACUAC models
on the market for all capacity ranges,
suggesting that the current market for
ECUACs and WCUACs is much smaller
than the market for ACUACs.
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did
not analyze small ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h. As shown in Table
II.22 of this RFI, DOE’s CCMS database
includes 9 models of ECUACs with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
and 15 models of WCUACs with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE
identified only one manufacturer of
ECUACs in this capacity range, and the
models offered by this manufacturer are
single-phase equipment and appear to
be predominantly marketed for
residential applications. Further,
examination of the manufacturer
literature for these models indicates that
they are marketed specifically toward
regions of the United States with hot
and dry climates, suggesting that there
are few if any shipments in other
regions of the United States. In contrast,
there are listings for over 3,000 basic
models of air-cooled residential central
air conditioners (CACs) in DOE’s CCMS
database, suggesting that evaporativelycooled units comprise a very small
share of the market for residential air
conditioners.
DOE’s CCMS database includes data
for only two distinct product lines of
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h. From examination of
manufacturer literature for WCUACs
with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h, the unit design and marketed
application of these WCUAC models
suggest that they do not comprise a
significant share of the market for air
conditioners in residential or
commercial applications. As shown in
Table II.22, the model count of
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h is less than 1 percent
of the model count of three-phase
ACUACs in this capacity range.
Issue A.4 DOE seeks comment on
the size of the current market for
ECUACs and WCUACs, as compared to
the market for ACUACs.
3. Current Market Efficiency
Distributions
For this RFI, DOE examined the
efficiency ratings of ECUACs and
WCUACs currently on the market. Table
II.3 presents the summary statistics by
equipment category and size of
equipment from DOE’s CCMS database.
As mentioned previously in section
II.A.2 of this document, there were no
ECUAC models listed in the DOE CCMS
Database with cooling capacities
between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000
Btu/h.
TABLE II.3—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR
CONDITIONERS MODELS
EER
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
Average
cooling
capacity
(Btu/h)
Number
of models
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Current
federal EER
standard
level
(no heat or
electric heat)
Current
federal EER
standard
level
(all other
types of
heating)
Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
<65,000 ........................
15
52,907
12.2
12.9
14.8
≥65,000 and <135,000
≥135,000 and <240,000
≥240,000 and <760,000
49
33
251
100,837
173,939
485,143
12.1
12.5
12.5
13.3
15.0
13.9
15.3
16.3
16.5
* 12.1
12.1
12.5
12.4
11.9
12.3
12.2
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
<65,000 ........................
9
38,300
13.2
14.8
16.0
≥65,000 and <135,000
≥135,000 and <240,000
≥240,000 and <760,000
0
0
15
N/A
N/A
440,267
N/A
N/A
11.8
N/A
N/A
12.7
N/A
N/A
13.4
* 12.1
12.1
12.0
11.9
11.9
11.8
11.7
* The <65,000 Btu/h equipment classes for Water-cooled and Evaporatively cooled Air Conditioners are not divided by heating type.
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Issue A.5 DOE seeks comment on the
range of efficiency levels currently on
the market for each equipment class of
ECUACs and-WCUACs, and on whether
efficiency levels above the current
baseline are achievable for equipment
across all cooling capacity ranges.
B. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
1. General
The current Federal energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs use EER as the energy
descriptor. DOE notes that in addition to
using EER for standard levels, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 also specifies standard
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
levels using the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER). Unlike the EER
metric, which only utilizes the
efficiency of the equipment operating at
full load, IEER factors in the efficiency
of operating at part loads of 75 percent,
50 percent, and 25 percent of capacity
as well as the efficiency at full load.
This is accomplished by weighting the
full- and part-load efficiencies with the
average amount of time operating at
each loading point. Additionally, IEER
incorporates reduced condenser
temperatures (i.e., reduced entering
water temperature for WCUACs and
reduced outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
bulb temperatures for ECUACs) for partload operation. ASHRAE 90.1 has
included minimum efficiency levels for
ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of both
EER and IEER since 2010.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI,
the Appliance Standards Awareness
Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy,
American Council for an EnergyEfficiency Economy (ACEEE),
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance
(NEEA), and Northwest Power and
Conservation Council encouraged DOE
to adopt IEER as the metric for WCUACs
and ECUACs, stating that WCUACs and
ECUACs provide the same function as
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
36486
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
ACUACs and, like ACUACs, spend most
of their operating hours at part load.
(Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–
0009 at p.4) In contrast, Goodman
commented that the WCUAC market is
so small that there would be no value
in revising the regulated metric to IEER
for WCUACs. (Docket No. EERE–2017–
BT–TP–0018–0014 at p.3)
In the following sub-sections, three
issues regarding IEER for ECUACs and
WCUACs are discussed: (1)
Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs
and WCUACs of all capacities; (2)
representativeness of IEER for ECUACs
with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h; and (3) potential burdens to
manufacturers of IEER testing.
2. Representativeness of IEER for
Evaporatively-Cooled and Water-Cooled
Units
As previously mentioned, IEER
includes lower condenser temperatures
for part-load tests. Specifically, Table
II.4 shows the IEER test conditions for
ECUACs and WCUACs specified in
AHRI 340/360–2019.
TABLE II.4—IEER TEST CONDITIONS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS FROM AHRI
340/360–2019
Water-cooled
Entering
water
temperature
(°F)
Percent load
100 ...................................................................................................................
75 .....................................................................................................................
50 .....................................................................................................................
25 .....................................................................................................................
Performance of equipment at each of
the four IEER testing conditions are
combined in a weighted average to
determine the IEER rating. The
following equation shows the weighting
factors for each testing condition.
IEER = (0.020 · A) + (0.617 · B) +
(0.238 · C) + (0.125 · D)
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Where (see Table II.4 for condenser
temperature for all four test points):
A = EER, Btu/W · h at 100% capacity at
standard rating conditions
B = EER, Btu/W · h at 75% capacity and
reduced condenser temperature
C = EER, Btu/W · h at 50% capacity and
reduced condenser temperature
D = EER, Btu/W · h at 25% capacity and
reduced condenser temperature.
The intent of this weighted average
across a range of condenser
temperatures is to produce an IEER
rating that is more representative of
outdoor conditions that air conditioners
face for much of the year, rather than
just the peak temperature experienced
in most climates for only a small
minority of operating hours. However,
these weighting factors may not be
representative of typical applications for
ECUACs. ECUACs may be
disproportionally marketed and sold in
relatively hot and dry climates in which
there is a larger efficiency benefit to
using evaporative condenser cooling. As
previously shown in the IEER equation,
the weighting factor for the full-load test
point is only 2 percent, so almost all of
the IEER rating reflects performance at
cooler outdoor air temperatures.
Marketing literature for one ECUAC
model line advertises its efficient
performance at high outdoor air
temperatures (90 °F and above) and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Entering
air dry-bulb
temperature
(°F)
85.0
73.5
62.0
55.0
states that the 95 °F outdoor air
temperature used to determine EER is
more representative of typical summer
heat in hot climates than the lower
outdoor air temperatures used to
determine the seasonal energy efficiency
ratio (SEER) rating (the seasonal cooling
metric used for residential central air
conditioners). (Docket No. EERE–2017–
BT–STD–0032–0001 at p. 4) Presumably
the same argument may apply for the
suitability of IEER for ECUACs, as 98
percent of performance in the IEER
rating is based on outdoor air dry-bulb
temperatures of 81.5 °F or less.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI,
the California Investor Owned Utilities
(CA IOUs) commented that their
locations regularly experience summer
ambient dry-bulb temperatures above
110 °F. CA IOUs further stated that the
highest ambient IEER test point, 95 °F,
does not reflect the conditions
experienced in the western climate, and
that IEER should include a ‘‘hot-dry’’
test point to reflect the conditions in the
western climate. (Docket No. EERE–
2017–BT–TP–0018–0007 at p. 3)
Issue B.1 DOE requests information
on whether the IEER metric and
weighting factors are representative of
the average use cycles for ECUACs and
WCUACs. Specifically, DOE seeks
comment on the extent to which
ECUACs and/or WCUACs are installed
in hot and dry climates as compared to
other climates. DOE also seeks comment
on the types of buildings that represent
the primary markets for ECUACs and
WCUACs. DOE requests this
information for all ECUAC and WCUAC
equipment classes, including units with
PO 00000
Evaporatively-cooled
95.0
81.5
68.0
65.0
Entering
air wet-bulb
temperature
(°F)
Makeup
water
temperature
(°F)
75.0
66.2
57.5
52.8
85.0
81.5
68.0
65.0
cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h.
3. Representativeness of IEER for
Evaporatively-Cooled Units With
Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/
h.
ASHRAE 90.1–2016 includes IEER
efficiency requirements for all classes of
ECUACs, including ECUACs with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
However, DOE’s preliminary analysis of
models in this equipment class certified
in DOE’s CCMS database suggests that
these units are primarily marketed for
residential applications. In contrast, the
IEER metric was developed for
commercial applications by analyzing
air conditioner energy use in
commercial buildings. Therefore, it is
not clear whether IEER is representative
of average use cycles for ECUACs with
cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h.
One issue is the condenser conditions
and weighting factors used for
determining IEER. Over a third of the
weighting for determining IEER for
ECUACs is based on performance at
outdoor air dry-bulb temperatures of
68 °F and 65 °F. While many commercial
buildings have substantial cooling loads
at these temperatures, residential
cooling loads at these temperatures are
likely significantly lower. Therefore, for
residential applications, IEER may
overweight cooling at lower outdoor
ambient temperatures and underweight
cooling at higher ambient temperatures.
Another issue is that the IEER
equation for adjusting for cyclic
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
degradation 7 (see equation 4 of AHRI
340/360–2019) assumes continuous
operation of the indoor fan when the
compressor is not operating. While this
may be representative of commercial
applications (in which the indoor fan
often runs continuously to provide
ventilation), the indoor fan presumably
does not run continuously in many
residential applications.
Issue B.2 DOE requests comment on
whether the IEER metric is
representative of the average use cycle
for ECUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h. Specifically, DOE
seeks comment on whether ECUACs in
this equipment class are typically
installed in residential or commercial
applications. Additionally, DOE seeks
feedback on whether the outdoor air
dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures and
weighting factors specified for IEER
testing of ECUACs in AHRI 340/360–
2019 are representative for ECUACs
with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h. Further, DOE requests comment
on whether the indoor fan typically runs
continuously for ECUACs in this
capacity range when installed in the
field.
4. Burden of IEER Testing
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
Some manufacturers already rate
performance in terms of EER and IEER
for ECUAC and WCUAC models, but
this is not the case for all models. IEER
testing involves significantly more tests
than an EER test—rather than a single
test for EER, an IEER test requires at
least four tests, and more tests can be
required if interpolation for the target
load fraction is needed for any part-load
tests.8
Issue B.3 DOE requests data on the
share of ECUAC and WCUAC models on
the market, by capacity range, that are
currently rated with both EER and IEER.
For models that are not already rated for
IEER, DOE also requests comment on
the extent to which testing to IEER
would impose testing and certification
burden on manufacturers, including
small business manufacturers.
7 For units that cannot reduce compressor
capacity sufficiently to meet a target IEER load
fraction during steady-state operation, the cyclic
degradation adjustment in AHRI 340/360–2019
quantifies the reduced efficiency that would be seen
in field applications from compressor cycling at
part-load conditions.
8 Per AHRI 340/360–2019, if a unit cannot
achieve the target part-load fraction (i.e., 75%, 50%,
or 25%) within tolerance but can operate at a load
above and below the part load test point at the
applicable reduced condenser temperature, the
results of both tests at the applicable condenser
temperature are used to interpolate the unit
performance at the target load fraction.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
C. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market
failure is a situation in which the
market outcome does not maximize
societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential
welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially
those in the context of amended energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs.
2. Other
DOE welcomes comments on other
issues relevant to the conduct of this
rulemaking that may not specifically be
identified in this document. In
particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,’’ Executive Branch agencies such
as DOE are directed to manage the costs
associated with the imposition of
expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339
(February 3, 2017). Consistent with that
Executive Order, DOE encourages the
public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standards
rulemakings, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, and compliance
and certification requirements
applicable to ECUACs and WCUACs
while remaining consistent with the
requirements of EPCA. Additionally,
DOE also recently published an RFI on
the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR
46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE
sought information to better understand
market trends and issues in the
emerging market for appliances and
commercial equipment that incorporate
smart technology. DOE’s intent in
issuing the RFI was to ensure that DOE
did not inadvertently impede such
innovation in fulfilling its statutory
obligations in setting efficiency
standards for covered products and
equipment. DOE seeks comments, data
and information on the issues presented
in the RFI as they may be applicable to
ECUACs and WCUACs.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by September 12,
2019, comments and information on
matters addressed in this notice and on
other matters relevant to DOE’s
consideration of amended energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs. After the close of the
comment period, DOE will review the
public comments received and may
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
36487
begin collecting data and conducting the
analyses discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page requires
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.
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 https://
www.regulations.gov information for
which disclosure is restricted by statute,
such as trade secrets and commercial or
financial information (hereinafter
referred to as Confidential Business
Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments
submitted through https://
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail also will be posted to
https://www.regulations.gov. If you do
not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
khammond on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with PROPOSALS
36488
Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 / Proposed Rules
not include it in your comment or any
accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on 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, please
provide all items on a CD, if feasible. 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, written in English, and 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:18 Jul 26, 2019
Jkt 247001
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).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
for developing energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the
public during the comment period in
each stage of the rulemaking process.
Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE
in the rulemaking process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and
information about this process or would
like to request a public meeting should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 22,
2019.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019–16048 Filed 7–26–19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
NATIONAL CREDIT UNION
ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Chapter VII
RIN 3133–AF02
Exceptions to Employment
Restrictions Under Section 205(d) of
the Federal Credit Union Act (‘‘Second
Chance IRPS’’)
National Credit Union
Administration (NCUA).
ACTION: Proposed interpretive ruling and
policy statement 19–1.
AGENCY:
The NCUA Board (Board) is
issuing for public comment a proposal
to update and revise its Interpretive
Ruling and Policy Statement (IRPS)
regarding statutory prohibitions
imposed by Section 205(d) of the
Federal Credit Union Act (FCU Act).
Section 205(d) prohibits, except with
the prior written consent of the Board,
any person who has been convicted of
any criminal offense involving
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
dishonesty or breach of trust, or who
has entered into a pretrial diversion or
similar program in connection with a
prosecution for such offense, from
participating in the affairs of an insured
credit union. Based on its experience
with IRPS 08–1 since its issuance in
2008, the Board is proposing to rescind
current IRPS 08–1 and to issue a revised
and updated IRPS to reduce regulatory
burden. The Board is proposing to
amend and expand the current de
minimis exception to reduce the scope
and number of offenses that would
require an application to the Board.
Specifically, the proposed IRPS would
not require an application for
insufficient funds checks of aggregate
moderate value, small dollar simple
theft, false identification, simple drug
possession, and isolated minor offenses
committed by covered persons as young
adults.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before September 27, 2019.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods (Please
send comments by one method only):
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• NCUA Website: https://
www.ncua.gov/regulation-supervision/
Pages/rules/proposed.aspx. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Email: Address to regcomments@
ncua.gov. Include ‘‘[Your name]
Comments on Notice of Proposed
Guidance Regarding Prohibitions
Imposed by Section 205(d) of the
Federal Credit Union’’ in the email
subject line.
• Fax: (703) 518–6319. Use the
subject line described above for email.
• Mail: Address to Gerard Poliquin,
Secretary of the Board, National Credit
Union Administration, 1775 Duke
Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314–
3428.
• Hand Delivery/Courier: Same as
mail address.
Public Inspection: You may view all
public comments on NCUA’s website at
https://www.ncua.gov/Legal/Regs/Pages/
PropRegs.aspx as submitted, except for
those we cannot post for technical
reasons. NCUA will not edit or remove
any identifying or contact information
from the public comments submitted.
You may inspect paper copies of
comments in NCUA’s law library at
1775 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia
22314, by appointment weekdays
between 9 a.m. and 3 p.m. To make an
appointment, call (703) 518–6546 or
send an email to OGCMail@ncua.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Pamela Yu, Special Counsel to the
E:\FR\FM\29JYP1.SGM
29JYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 145 (Monday, July 29, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 36480-36488]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-16048]
========================================================================
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. 84, No. 145 / Monday, July 29, 2019 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 36480]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032]
RIN 1904-AE07
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-
Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an
effort to determine whether to amend the current energy conservation
standards for evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners
and water-cooled commercial package air conditioners (referred to as
evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (ECUACs) and
water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (WCUACs) in this
document, respectively). Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
of 1975, as amended, DOE must review these standards at least once
every six years and publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking
(``NOPR'') to propose new standards for ECUACs and WCUACs or a notice
of determination that the existing standards do not need to be amended.
This request for information (``RFI'') solicits information from the
public to help DOE determine whether amended standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and whether such standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE welcomes written comments from the public
on any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not
raised in this RFI).
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before September 12, 2019.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number and provide
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032 in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. 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: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza, SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. 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 this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.govindex. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Requests for Information and Comments
A. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
B. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
1. General
2. Representativeness of IEER for Evaporatively-Cooled and
Water-cooled Units
3. Representativeness of IEER for Evaporatively-Cooled Units
With Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
4. Burden of IEER Testing
C. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Other
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended
(``EPCA''),\1\
[[Page 36481]]
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes ECUACs and WCUACs, the subject of this RFI. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (October 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA 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).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D).
EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for
commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged
terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers,
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot
water storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy
conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings, as in effect on October 24, 1992
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989). ECUACs and WCUACs are covered under
EPCA's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) EPCA established initial standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 240,000 Btu/h. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a))
If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard
levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for
certain commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, not later
than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in
the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy
savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) With certain exceptions,\3\ DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a
determination that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level as a
national standard would produce significant additional energy savings
and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE adopts as a national standard the efficiency
levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must
establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication of
the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE
determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the
statutory criteria, DOE must establish the more-stringent standard not
later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE cannot adopt an ASHRAE standard that (1) increases
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency or
(2) results in the unavailability in any equipment class of
performance characteristics that are currently available in the
market. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA also requires that every six years DOE evaluate the energy
conservation standards for certain commercial equipment, including
ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish either a notice of determination that
the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that,
not later than 3 years after the issuance of a final determination not
to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the product do not need to be amended, or a NOPR
including new proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE
must make the analysis on which the determination is based publicly
available and provide an opportunity for written comment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a determination that more-stringent
standards would (1) result in significant additional conservation of
energy and (2) be both technologically feasible and economically
justified must be supported by clear and convincing evidence. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
Following an update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2010), DOE published a final rule on May 16, 2012 (``May 2012
final rule''), amending the standards for 12 classes of ECUACs and
WCUACs by adopting the energy efficiency ratio (EER) levels for this
equipment established in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 77 FR 28928. Since ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2010 was published, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has undergone
two revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2013, and on October 31, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2016. In neither of these publications did ASHRAE amend minimum
EER levels for small, large, and very large water-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled unitary air conditioners, and, thus, DOE was not
triggered to examine amended standards for this equipment under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). As a result, the current standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs are those set forth in the May 2012 final rule and codified at
10 CFR 431.97. These standards are reproduced in Table I.1.
Table I.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package
Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling capacity
Equipment type (Btu/h) Heating type Minimum EER Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled............ <65,000.......... All............. 12.1 October 29, 2003.
[[Page 36482]]
Small Water-Cooled............ >=65,000 and No Heating or 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.9 June 1, 2013.
of Heating.
Large Water-Cooled............ >=135,000 and No Heating or 12.5 June 1, 2014.
<240,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 12.3 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Very Large Water-Cooled....... >=240,000 and No Heating or 12.4 June 1, 2014.
<760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 12.2 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.... <65,000.......... All............. 12.1 October 29, 2003.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.... >=65,000 and No Heating or 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.9 June 1, 2013.
of Heating.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled.... >=135,000 and No Heating or 12.0 June 1, 2014.
<240,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.8 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Very Large Evaporatively- >=240,000 and No Heating or 11.9 June 1, 2014.
Cooled. <760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.7 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
inform its decision consistent with its obligation under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing new or
amended standards for covered equipment. EPCA requires that in order to
adopt a more-stringent standard for ECUACs and WCUACs, DOE must
determine, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of
a more-stringent efficiency level as a national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) To determine whether a standard is economically
justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.2 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I.2--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Technological Feasibility.............. Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification: ...............................
1. Economic impact on manufacturers Manufacturer Impact
and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Determination.
product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings.. Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation. National Impact
Analysis.
[[Page 36483]]
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact
Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of
Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of an energy use analysis for ECUACs and WCUACs. The issues
relevant to the energy use analysis are also relevant to the technical
and economic analyses should DOE determine it necessary to conduct
them. In addition to the specific issues identified in the following
section on which DOE requests comment, DOE requests comment on its
overall approach and analyses used to evaluate potential standard
levels for ECUACs and WCUACs.
II. Requests for Information and Comments
DOE seeks comment on whether there have been sufficient
technological or market changes since the most recent standards update
that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more stringent standards.
Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more-stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in significant additional savings of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
the foregoing. In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety
of issues on which it seeks input to aid in determining whether to
proceed with a ``no new standard'' determination or propose more-
stringent standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
A. Market Analysis
In preparation for this RFI, DOE conducted a review of the current
market for ECUACs and WCUACs, including equipment literature, and the
DOE Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) database.\4\ In
addition, DOE reviewed market data and stakeholder comments received as
part of the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs, as
well as the energy savings potential for amended standards determined
in that rulemaking. The following subsections discuss DOE's analysis of
the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs as well as relevant results
from the May 2012 final rule, including shipments estimates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The DOE CCMS database can be found at: https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shipments Estimates
As part of the previous rulemaking, AHRI provided historical
shipments data from 1989 to 2009 for WCUACs by cooling capacity range.
DOE searched for, but was unable to identify, publicly available
sources of shipments of ECUACs and WCUACs.
Previously submitted historical AHRI data showed strongly
decreasing shipments for certain small (i.e., greater than 65,000 Btu/h
and less than 135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) and large WCUACs over the
period from 1989 to 2009. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0003) For
the analyses conducted for a notice of data availability (NODA)
published on May 5, 2011 (``May 2011 NODA''), DOE developed shipments
projections for these equipment classes using an exponential curve fit
to the 21 years of available data. 76 FR 25622, 25641-25642. The energy
savings estimates from the May 2011 NODA (which depend on the shipments
projections) were presented unchanged in the May 2012 final rule. 77 FR
28969-28971. Because the historical trends showed a steep decline in
shipments for these classes, the shipment projections resulted in very
few shipments by the end of the 30-year analysis period. For very large
WCUACs, the decline in shipments was less definitive, although a linear
fit of the available 21 years of shipment data showed gradually
declining shipments. For each of the WCUAC equipment classes analyzed,
DOE used these shipments data to analyze two shipment scenarios: (1)
Based on historical trends of declining shipments, and (2) based on
shipments remaining constant at 2009 levels. DOE analyzed the energy
savings potential by equipment class for both scenarios to provide a
range of energy savings estimates. 76 FR 25641-25642. Estimates of
annual shipments averaged over the 30-year analysis periods used in the
previous rulemaking, 2013-2042 for small WCUACs and 2014-2043 for large
and very large WCUACs, resulted in the shipment estimates shown in
Table II.1 for each equipment class.
In the May 2012 final rule analysis, DOE did not identify any
models of certain small (i.e., greater than 65,000 Btu/h but less than
135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) or large ECUACs, and thus DOE assumed
no shipments for these equipment classes. Id. At 76 FR 25639. DOE
identified multiple models of very large ECUACs. Because no shipments
data were available for ECUACs, DOE developed shipment estimates based
on the ratio of the number of identified models of very large ECUACs
(9) to the number of models of very large WCUACs (35). Id. at 76 FR
25642. The average of the projected shipments per year (averaged over
the 30-year analysis period) under both scenarios considered is shown
in Table II.1. Average shipment estimates for ECUACs and WCUACs in
Table II.1 are shown as ranges bounded by the estimates for the two
different analyzed shipment scenarios (i.e., (1) based on historical
trends of declining shipments, and (2) based on shipments remaining
constant at 2009 levels). Shipments for ECUACs and WCUACs are also
shown as a percentage of package air conditioner and package heat pump
annual shipments reported by AHRI, averaged over the 5-year period from
2013-2017, for each cooling capacity range.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ U.S. Manufacturers' Shipments of Central Air Conditioners
and Air-Source Heat Pumps by Btu/h, AHRI Shipments Data. https://www.ahrinet.org/Resources/Statistics/Historical-Data/Central-Air-Conditioners-and-Air-Source-Heat-Pumps.aspx (last accessed April 8,
2019). DOE interprets the cited AHRI data as consisting of shipments
for air-cooled and water-cooled package air conditioners and air-
cooled heat pumps. Because the AHRI data uses cooling capacity
ranges that differ from DOE's equipment class structure, AHRI
shipments data for equipment with cooling capacity between 135,000
and 249,900 Btu/h are included in the row designated for equipment
with cooling capacity >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h in Table II.1.
Additionally, AHRI shipments data for equipment with cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 640,000 Btu/h are included in the
row designated for equipment with cooling capacity >=240,000 and
<760,000 Btu/h in Table II.1. DOE estimates that shipments of
package air conditioners with cooling capacity greater than 760,000
Btu/h are very small relative to shipments of all very large
packaged air conditioner and heat pumps (i.e., with cooling capacity
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h).
[[Page 36484]]
Table II.1--Shipments for Water-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, and Air-Cooled Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment by Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual
shipments--
average over Percentage of
30 years (Low AHRI package AHRI package
Equipment type Cooling capacity (Btu/h) and High AC/HP annual AC/HP
Projections shipments ** shipments (%)
from May 2012
Final Rule) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled.................... >=65,000 and <135,000... 51-152 180,377 0.03-0.08
Large Water-Cooled.................... >=135,000 and <240,000.. 85-182 72,797 0.12-0.25
Very Large Water-Cooled............... >=240,000 and <760,000.. 585-909 27,282 2.1-3.3
Small Evaporatively-Cooled............ >=65,000 and <135,000... 0 180,377 0
Large Evaporatively-Cooled............ >=135,000 and <240,000.. 0 72,797 0
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled....... >=240,000 and <760,000.. 150-234 27,282 0.55-0.86
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Projected average annual shipments shown were averaged over the 30-year analysis periods used in the May 2012
final rule analysis: 2013-2042 for small WCUACs, and 2014-2043 for large and very large WCUACs and very large
ECUACs. Shipment estimates in the May 2012 final rule were developed for two different scenarios: (1) Based on
historical trends of declining shipments, and (2) based on shipments remaining constant at 2009 levels.
Estimates for the two different scenarios are the bounds for the ranges of shipments provided for each
equipment class.
** U.S. Manufacturers' Shipments of Central Air Conditioners and Air-Source Heat Pumps by Btu/h, AHRI Shipments
Data. https://www.ahrinet.org/Resources/Statistics/Historical-Data/Central-Air-Conditioners-and-Air-Source-Heat-Pumps.aspx (last accessed April 8, 2019).
As shown in Table II.1, average shipments of ECUAC and WCUACs with
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h were previously
estimated to be less than 1,000 for each equipment class and are only a
small fraction of shipments of air-cooled commercial unitary air
conditioners (ACUACs). DOE is not aware of any publicly-available
shipments data for ECUACs or WCUACs more recent than the data presented
in the May 2012 final rule. On July 25, 2017, DOE published an RFI for
test procedures for several categories of commercial air conditioners
and heat pumps, including ECUACs and WCUACs (``July 2017 TP RFI''). 82
FR 34427. In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Goodman Global, Inc
(Goodman) stated that the market for WCUACs is extremely small and
represents only a fraction of a percentage of ACUAC shipments. (Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 3)
Issue A.1 DOE seeks comment on whether the shipments estimates for
WCUACs and ECUACs analyzed in the May 2012 final rule are
representative of the current market.
Issue A.2 DOE requests feedback and/or data on historical and
recent shipments for each of the current seven equipment classes of
WCUACs and seven equipment classes of ECUACs, including for units with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE also seeks evidence or
reasoning for expected trends in future shipments that differ from
those analyzed in the May 2012 final rule.
Issue A.3 DOE requests feedback on whether the historical decline
in shipments for WCUACs that was found in the May 2012 final rule
analysis still applies for the current WCUAC market. Specifically, DOE
seeks information on market forces that are expected to influence
future WCUAC shipment trends and could support DOE's assessment of
future shipments. DOE also requests feedback on the market forces
affecting shipments for the ECUAC market, and on whether there is any
information to suggest a growing or declining market. DOE requests any
shipment data that maps into the model counts as shown in table II.2.
2. Model Counts
For this RFI, DOE conducted a review of the current market for
WCUACs and ECUACs based on models included in the DOE CCMS database.
DOE also compared the number of ECUAC and WCUAC models to the number of
ACUAC models listed in DOE's CCMS database. Table II.22 shows the
number of models listed within the DOE CCMS database \6\ that DOE has
identified for each class of ACUACs, ECUACs, and WCUACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Accessed on April 1, 2019.
Table II.2--Model Counts for Evaporatively-Cooled, Water-Cooled, and Air-Cooled Air Conditioners by Equipment
Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of models
--------------------------------------------------------
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) Evaporatively-
cooled Water-cooled Air-cooled
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................................ 9 15 * 2,307
>=65,000 and <135,000.................................. 0 49 2,301
>=135,000 and <240,000................................. 0 33 1,975
>=240,000 and <760,000................................. 15 251 2,843
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This <65,000 Btu/h air-cooled model count includes only unique basic models of three-phase air-cooled
commercial air conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
[[Page 36485]]
As shown in Table II.22, the number of models of ECUACs and WCUACs
currently on the market is significantly less than the number of ACUAC
models on the market for all capacity ranges, suggesting that the
current market for ECUACs and WCUACs is much smaller than the market
for ACUACs.
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did not analyze small ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. As shown in Table
II.22 of this RFI, DOE's CCMS database includes 9 models of ECUACs with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h and 15 models of WCUACs with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE identified only one
manufacturer of ECUACs in this capacity range, and the models offered
by this manufacturer are single-phase equipment and appear to be
predominantly marketed for residential applications. Further,
examination of the manufacturer literature for these models indicates
that they are marketed specifically toward regions of the United States
with hot and dry climates, suggesting that there are few if any
shipments in other regions of the United States. In contrast, there are
listings for over 3,000 basic models of air-cooled residential central
air conditioners (CACs) in DOE's CCMS database, suggesting that
evaporatively-cooled units comprise a very small share of the market
for residential air conditioners.
DOE's CCMS database includes data for only two distinct product
lines of WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. From
examination of manufacturer literature for WCUACs with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h, the unit design and marketed application of
these WCUAC models suggest that they do not comprise a significant
share of the market for air conditioners in residential or commercial
applications. As shown in Table II.22, the model count of WCUACs with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h is less than 1 percent of the
model count of three-phase ACUACs in this capacity range.
Issue A.4 DOE seeks comment on the size of the current market for
ECUACs and WCUACs, as compared to the market for ACUACs.
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
For this RFI, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of ECUACs and
WCUACs currently on the market. Table II.3 presents the summary
statistics by equipment category and size of equipment from DOE's CCMS
database. As mentioned previously in section II.A.2 of this document,
there were no ECUAC models listed in the DOE CCMS Database with cooling
capacities between 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h.
Table II.3--Current Market Efficiency Distributions for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners Models
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EER Current Current
Average ------------------------------------------------ federal EER federal EER
Number of cooling standard standard
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) models capacity (Btu/ level (no level (all
h) Minimum Average Maximum heat or other types
electric heat) of heating)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................. 15 52,907 12.2 12.9 14.8 * 12.1
-------------------------------
>=65,000 and <135,000................... 49 100,837 12.1 13.3 15.3 12.1 11.9
>=135,000 and <240,000.................. 33 173,939 12.5 15.0 16.3 12.5 12.3
>=240,000 and <760,000.................. 251 485,143 12.5 13.9 16.5 12.4 12.2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................. 9 38,300 13.2 14.8 16.0 * 12.1
-------------------------------
>=65,000 and <135,000................... 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.1 11.9
>=135,000 and <240,000.................. 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A 12.0 11.8
>=240,000 and <760,000.................. 15 440,267 11.8 12.7 13.4 11.9 11.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The <65,000 Btu/h equipment classes for Water-cooled and Evaporatively cooled Air Conditioners are not divided by heating type.
Issue A.5 DOE seeks comment on the range of efficiency levels
currently on the market for each equipment class of ECUACs and-WCUACs,
and on whether efficiency levels above the current baseline are
achievable for equipment across all cooling capacity ranges.
B. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
1. General
The current Federal energy conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs use EER as the energy descriptor. DOE notes that in addition to
using EER for standard levels, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 also specifies
standard levels using the integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER).
Unlike the EER metric, which only utilizes the efficiency of the
equipment operating at full load, IEER factors in the efficiency of
operating at part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of
capacity as well as the efficiency at full load. This is accomplished
by weighting the full- and part-load efficiencies with the average
amount of time operating at each loading point. Additionally, IEER
incorporates reduced condenser temperatures (i.e., reduced entering
water temperature for WCUACs and reduced outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-
bulb temperatures for ECUACs) for part-load operation. ASHRAE 90.1 has
included minimum efficiency levels for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of
both EER and IEER since 2010.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, the Appliance Standards
Awareness Project (ASAP), Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for
an Energy-Efficiency Economy (ACEEE), Northwest Energy Efficiency
Alliance (NEEA), and Northwest Power and Conservation Council
encouraged DOE to adopt IEER as the metric for WCUACs and ECUACs,
stating that WCUACs and ECUACs provide the same function as
[[Page 36486]]
ACUACs and, like ACUACs, spend most of their operating hours at part
load. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0009 at p.4) In contrast,
Goodman commented that the WCUAC market is so small that there would be
no value in revising the regulated metric to IEER for WCUACs. (Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p.3)
In the following sub-sections, three issues regarding IEER for
ECUACs and WCUACs are discussed: (1) Representativeness of IEER for
ECUACs and WCUACs of all capacities; (2) representativeness of IEER for
ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h; and (3) potential
burdens to manufacturers of IEER testing.
2. Representativeness of IEER for Evaporatively-Cooled and Water-Cooled
Units
As previously mentioned, IEER includes lower condenser temperatures
for part-load tests. Specifically, Table II.4 shows the IEER test
conditions for ECUACs and WCUACs specified in AHRI 340/360-2019.
Table II.4--IEER Test Conditions for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners From AHRI 340/360-
2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Evaporatively-cooled
---------------------------------------------------------------
Entering Entering air Entering air
Percent load water dry-bulb wet-bulb Makeup water
temperature temperature temperature temperature
([deg]F) ([deg]F) ([deg]F) ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100............................................. 85.0 95.0 75.0 85.0
75.............................................. 73.5 81.5 66.2 81.5
50.............................................. 62.0 68.0 57.5 68.0
25.............................................. 55.0 65.0 52.8 65.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance of equipment at each of the four IEER testing
conditions are combined in a weighted average to determine the IEER
rating. The following equation shows the weighting factors for each
testing condition.
IEER = (0.020 [middot] A) + (0.617 [middot] B) + (0.238 [middot] C) +
(0.125 [middot] D)
Where (see Table II.4 for condenser temperature for all four test
points):
A = EER, Btu/W [middot] h at 100% capacity at standard rating
conditions
B = EER, Btu/W [middot] h at 75% capacity and reduced condenser
temperature
C = EER, Btu/W [middot] h at 50% capacity and reduced condenser
temperature
D = EER, Btu/W [middot] h at 25% capacity and reduced condenser
temperature.
The intent of this weighted average across a range of condenser
temperatures is to produce an IEER rating that is more representative
of outdoor conditions that air conditioners face for much of the year,
rather than just the peak temperature experienced in most climates for
only a small minority of operating hours. However, these weighting
factors may not be representative of typical applications for ECUACs.
ECUACs may be disproportionally marketed and sold in relatively hot and
dry climates in which there is a larger efficiency benefit to using
evaporative condenser cooling. As previously shown in the IEER
equation, the weighting factor for the full-load test point is only 2
percent, so almost all of the IEER rating reflects performance at
cooler outdoor air temperatures.
Marketing literature for one ECUAC model line advertises its
efficient performance at high outdoor air temperatures (90 [deg]F and
above) and states that the 95 [deg]F outdoor air temperature used to
determine EER is more representative of typical summer heat in hot
climates than the lower outdoor air temperatures used to determine the
seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) rating (the seasonal cooling
metric used for residential central air conditioners). (Docket No.
EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032-0001 at p. 4) Presumably the same argument may
apply for the suitability of IEER for ECUACs, as 98 percent of
performance in the IEER rating is based on outdoor air dry-bulb
temperatures of 81.5 [deg]F or less.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, the California Investor Owned
Utilities (CA IOUs) commented that their locations regularly experience
summer ambient dry-bulb temperatures above 110 [deg]F. CA IOUs further
stated that the highest ambient IEER test point, 95 [deg]F, does not
reflect the conditions experienced in the western climate, and that
IEER should include a ``hot-dry'' test point to reflect the conditions
in the western climate. (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3)
Issue B.1 DOE requests information on whether the IEER metric and
weighting factors are representative of the average use cycles for
ECUACs and WCUACs. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on the extent to
which ECUACs and/or WCUACs are installed in hot and dry climates as
compared to other climates. DOE also seeks comment on the types of
buildings that represent the primary markets for ECUACs and WCUACs. DOE
requests this information for all ECUAC and WCUAC equipment classes,
including units with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h.
3. Representativeness of IEER for Evaporatively-Cooled Units With
Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h.
ASHRAE 90.1-2016 includes IEER efficiency requirements for all
classes of ECUACs, including ECUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h. However, DOE's preliminary analysis of models in this
equipment class certified in DOE's CCMS database suggests that these
units are primarily marketed for residential applications. In contrast,
the IEER metric was developed for commercial applications by analyzing
air conditioner energy use in commercial buildings. Therefore, it is
not clear whether IEER is representative of average use cycles for
ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
One issue is the condenser conditions and weighting factors used
for determining IEER. Over a third of the weighting for determining
IEER for ECUACs is based on performance at outdoor air dry-bulb
temperatures of 68 [deg]F and 65 [deg]F. While many commercial
buildings have substantial cooling loads at these temperatures,
residential cooling loads at these temperatures are likely
significantly lower. Therefore, for residential applications, IEER may
overweight cooling at lower outdoor ambient temperatures and
underweight cooling at higher ambient temperatures.
Another issue is that the IEER equation for adjusting for cyclic
[[Page 36487]]
degradation \7\ (see equation 4 of AHRI 340/360-2019) assumes
continuous operation of the indoor fan when the compressor is not
operating. While this may be representative of commercial applications
(in which the indoor fan often runs continuously to provide
ventilation), the indoor fan presumably does not run continuously in
many residential applications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ For units that cannot reduce compressor capacity
sufficiently to meet a target IEER load fraction during steady-state
operation, the cyclic degradation adjustment in AHRI 340/360-2019
quantifies the reduced efficiency that would be seen in field
applications from compressor cycling at part-load conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.2 DOE requests comment on whether the IEER metric is
representative of the average use cycle for ECUACs with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. Specifically, DOE seeks comment on
whether ECUACs in this equipment class are typically installed in
residential or commercial applications. Additionally, DOE seeks
feedback on whether the outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures
and weighting factors specified for IEER testing of ECUACs in AHRI 340/
360-2019 are representative for ECUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h. Further, DOE requests comment on whether the indoor fan
typically runs continuously for ECUACs in this capacity range when
installed in the field.
4. Burden of IEER Testing
Some manufacturers already rate performance in terms of EER and
IEER for ECUAC and WCUAC models, but this is not the case for all
models. IEER testing involves significantly more tests than an EER
test--rather than a single test for EER, an IEER test requires at least
four tests, and more tests can be required if interpolation for the
target load fraction is needed for any part-load tests.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Per AHRI 340/360-2019, if a unit cannot achieve the target
part-load fraction (i.e., 75%, 50%, or 25%) within tolerance but can
operate at a load above and below the part load test point at the
applicable reduced condenser temperature, the results of both tests
at the applicable condenser temperature are used to interpolate the
unit performance at the target load fraction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.3 DOE requests data on the share of ECUAC and WCUAC models
on the market, by capacity range, that are currently rated with both
EER and IEER. For models that are not already rated for IEER, DOE also
requests comment on the extent to which testing to IEER would impose
testing and certification burden on manufacturers, including small
business manufacturers.
C. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
2. Other
DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of
this rulemaking that may not specifically be identified in this
document. In particular, DOE notes that under Executive Order 13771,
``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive
Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage the costs associated
with the imposition of expenditures required to comply with Federal
regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (February 3, 2017). Consistent with that
Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy conservation standards
rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting requirements, and compliance
and certification requirements applicable to ECUACs and WCUACs while
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA. Additionally, DOE
also recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that
RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and
issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment
that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was
to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data and
information on the issues presented in the RFI as they may be
applicable to ECUACs and WCUACs.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by
September 12, 2019, comments and information on matters addressed in
this notice and on other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of
amended energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. After the
close of the comment period, DOE will review the public comments
received and may begin collecting data and conducting the analyses
discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires 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. 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 https://www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through https://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through https://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 https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail also will be
posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do
[[Page 36488]]
not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead,
provide your contact information on 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, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible. 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, written in English, and 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 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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and
information about this process or would like to request a public
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signed in Washington, DC, on July 22, 2019.
Daniel R. Simmons,
Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-16048 Filed 7-26-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
