Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners, 57149-57165 [2020-18800]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
patient tissue doses that exceed existing
NRC medical reporting limits and can
harm patients in many ways. In light of
this evidence, the petition requests that
the NRC revisit the policy established in
1980 and require the reporting of
medical events of extravasations that
result in a localized dose equivalent
exceeding 50 rem (0.5 Sv). The petition
asserts that the reporting of certain
extravasations as medical events will
not only alert the NRC to instances of
serious misuse of byproduct material,
but also will incentivize practitioners to
improve injection and infusion quality.
The petition states that this is intended
to ensure that diagnostic and
therapeutic nuclear medicine patients
are protected from avoidable irradiation
and given access to vital information to
understand when and how medical
events impact their care.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
V. Request for Public Comment
The NRC’s Medical Use Policy
Statement (65 FR 47654) states, in part,
that the NRC will not intrude into
medical judgments affecting patients,
except as necessary to provide for the
radiation safety of workers and the
general public. It also states that the
NRC will, when justified by the risk to
patients, regulate the radiation safety of
patients primarily to assure the use of
radionuclides is in accordance with the
physician’s directions. Considering
these policy objectives and how they
may relate to radiopharmaceutical
extravasations, the NRC is requesting
public comment on the following
specific questions.
Injection Quality Monitoring
The NRC encourages licensees to use
quality assurance tools and available
technology to ensure that the licensee
delivers the administration that the
physician intended. The NRC requires
certain quality assurance procedures—
such as calibrating instruments used to
measure patient dosages and recording
dosages administered—but there are
other procedures that the NRC does not
require that could be relevant to
extravasation. The NRC is seeking
information on use of quality assurance
tools and technologies for
radiopharmaceutical injection quality
monitoring and extravasation.
1. How frequently does
radiopharmaceutical extravasation
occur?
2. Do you know of any extravasations
that have resulted in harm to patients?
If so and without including information
that could lead to the identification of
the individual, describe the
circumstances, type of effect harm, and
the impacts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
3. For medical use licensees, does
your facility currently monitor for
radiopharmaceutical extravasation? If
so, why and how do you monitor? If not,
why not?
4. Do you expect that monitoring for
extravasation and reviewing the results
would improve radiopharmaceutical
administration techniques at medical
use licensee facilities? If so, how? If not,
why not?
5. Do you believe an NRC regulatory
action requiring monitoring and review
of extravasation would improve patient
radiological health and safety? If so,
how? If not, why not?
Medical Event Classification and
Reporting Criteria
Currently, the NRC excludes
extravasation of radiopharmaceuticals
from its medical event reporting
regulations. Medical events may not
necessarily result in harm to the patient,
but they can indicate a potential
problem in a medical facility’s use of
radioactive materials or in
administration as directed by the
physician. Because licensees are not
required to report extravasations to the
NRC, extravasation events are not
documented in the NRC’s Nuclear
Material Events Database (NMED),
which contains records of events
involving nuclear material reported to
the NRC.
1. Are there any benefits, not related
to medical techniques, to monitoring
and reporting certain extravasations as
medical events? What would be the
burden associated with monitoring for
and reporting certain extravasations as
medical events?
2. If the NRC were to require that
licensees report certain extravasations
as medical events (recorded in NMED),
what reporting criteria should be used
to provide the NRC data that can be
used to identify problems, monitor
trends, and ensure that the licensee
takes corrective action(s)?
3. If the NRC requires reporting of
extravasations that meet medical event
reporting criteria, should a distinction
be made between reporting
extravasations of diagnostic and
therapeutic radiopharmaceuticals? If so,
why? If not, why not?
VI. Conclusion
The NRC has determined that the
petition meets the sufficiency
requirements for docketing at § 2.803.
The NRC will examine the issues raised
in PRM–35–22 and any comments
received on this document to determine
whether these issues should be
considered in rulemaking.
Dated: September 3, 2020.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57149
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020–19903 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
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: Notice of proposed
determination and request for comment.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’), as
amended, prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including 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). EPCA also requires the U.S.
Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to
periodically determine whether more
stringent, amended standards would
result in significant additional
conservation of energy, be
technologically feasible, and be
economically justified. In this notice of
proposed determination (‘‘NOPD’’), DOE
has tentatively determined that the
standards for small (cooling capacity
less than 135,000 Btu/h), large (cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 135,000
and less than 240,000 Btu/h), and very
large (cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 240,000 and less than 760,000
Btu/h) ECUACs and WCUACs do not
need to be amended, and DOE requests
comment on this proposed
determination and the associated
analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on
Thursday, October 1, 2020, from 10:00
a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for webinar registration
information, participant instructions,
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
57150
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants.
Comments: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before November 30,
2020.
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 EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032
and/or regulatory information number
(RIN) 1904–AE07, 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 telefacsimiles (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process,
see section V 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.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
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,
in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for information on how
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
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) 586–
6636 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
A. General Comments
B. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
C. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
1. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs
and WCUACs
2. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs
With Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000
Btu/h
3. Burden of IEER Testing
4. Maintaining the EER Metric
D. Proposed Determination
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771
and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Information Quality
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
B. Submission of Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed
Determination
Title III, Part C 1 of EPCA 2 established
the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified) This
equipment includes ECUACs and
WCUACs, the subject of this NOPD. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D))
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to
EPCA’s requirement 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 notice of
proposed rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that
includes new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a
final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
For this proposed determination, DOE
analyzed ECUACs and WCUACs subject
to standards specified in 10 CFR 431.97.
Based on the analysis and comments
received, DOE proposes that the
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do
not need to be amended, because there
is not clear and convincing evidence
that amended standards would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination,
as well as the historical background
relevant to the establishment of
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, among other things, authorizes
DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. Title III,
Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law
95–619, Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency.
This equipment includes the ECUACs
and WCUACs that are the subject of this
NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D))
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
2 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
(Oct. 23, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the
establishment of Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA specifically include definitions
(42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation
standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling
provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the
authority to require information and
reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C.
6316).
Federal energy conservation
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 AirConditioning Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’)
Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings,’’ 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Within certain
exceptions,3 DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the
new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines
that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a determination
that the adoption of a more stringent
efficiency level as a uniform national
standard would produce significant
additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
On February 14, 2020, DOE published
an update to appendix A to subpart C
of 10 CFR part 430, ‘‘Procedures for Use
in New or Revised Energy Conservation
Standards and Test Procedures for
Consumer Products and Commercial/
Industrial Equipment’’ (‘‘Process Rule’’).
85 FR 8626. The updated Process Rule 4
codifies in regulation the ‘‘clear and
convincing’’ threshold that EPCA
requires DOE meet when establishing
standards more-stringent than those
specified by ASHRAE 90.1. 85 FR 8626,
8704–8708; Section 9(a)(1) of appendix
A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE
will establish more stringent standards
only if it can meet the very high bar to
demonstrate the ‘‘clear and convincing
evidence’’ threshold, which only exists
where the specific facts and data made
available to DOE demonstrate that there
is no substantial doubt that a standard
more stringent than that contained in
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment
is permitted because it would result in
a significant additional amount of
energy savings, is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Id.;
Section 9(b) of appendix A to subpart C
of 10 CFR part 430.
DOE also established a significance
threshold for energy savings in the
updated Process Rule. Specifically, DOE
established a two-step approach that
considers both an absolute site energy
savings threshold value (over a 30-year
period) of 0.3 quadrillion Btu (‘‘quads’’)
and a percentage threshold value of a 10
percent reduction in the covered
product or equipment’s energy use. Id.;
Section 6(a) of appendix A to subpart C
of 10 CFR part 430. DOE first evaluates
the projected energy savings from a
potential maximum technologically
feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) standard against
3 DOE cannot adopt an ASHRAE standard that (1)
increases energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii))
4 As updated, the Process Rule explicitly applies
to the evaluation of ASHRAE equipment under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). 85 FR 8626, 8704–8708; Sections
2 and 9 of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part
430.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57151
the 0.3 quads of site energy threshold.
Id.; Section 6(b)(2) of appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the 0.3
quad-threshold is not met or exceeded,
DOE then compares the max-tech
savings to the total energy usage of the
covered equipment to calculate a
percentage reduction in energy usage.
Id.; Section 6(b)(3) of appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If this
comparison does not yield a reduction
in site energy use of at least 10 percent
over a 30-year period, DOE proposes
that no significant energy savings would
likely result from setting new or
amended standards. Id.; Section 6(b)(4)
of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR
part 430. If either one of these
thresholds is reached, DOE will conduct
analyses to ascertain whether a standard
can be prescribed that produces the
maximum improvement in energy
efficiency that is both technologically
feasible and economically justified and
still constitutes significant energy
savings at the level determined to be
economically justified. Id.; Section
6(b)(5) of appendix A to subpart C of 10
CFR part 430. The two-step approach
allows DOE to ascertain whether a
potential standard considered satisfies
EPCA’s significant energy savings
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)
to ensure that DOE avoids setting a
standard that ‘‘will not result in
significant conservation of energy.’’ 85
FR 8626, 8655.
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))(I)–(VII))
If DOE decides to adopt as a uniform
national standard the efficiency levels
specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
57152
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
standard not later than 18 months after
publication of the amended industry
standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I))
However, if DOE determines, supported
by clear and convincing evidence, that
a more stringent uniform national
standard would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified, then DOE must
establish the more stringent standard
not later than 30 months after
publication of the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i))
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 three 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); 85 FR 8626, 8704–
8708; Section 9(c) of appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430)
DOE is publishing this NOPD
pursuant to the six-year review required
by EPCA, having initially determined
that amended standards for ECUACs
and WCUACs would not result in
significant additional conservation of
energy, be technologically feasible, and
be economically justified.
B. Rulemaking History
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE
updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with
respect to small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment (i.e., ASHRAE
90.1–2010). With regard to ECUACs and
WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1–2010 updated
efficiency levels for certain small (i.e.,
cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/
h), large, and very large ECUACs and
WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1–2010 also
updated its referenced test procedures
for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1–2010
did not amend the efficiency levels for
certain small (i.e., cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and
ECUACs, but did amend the test
procedure for this equipment.
In a final rule published May 16,
2012, DOE amended the standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting the
energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) levels for
this equipment established in ASHRAE
90.1–2010. 77 FR 28928 (‘‘May 2012
final rule’’). For certain small (i.e.,
cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/
h), large, and very large WCUACs and
ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy
savings potential of standards at the
max-tech 5 efficiency levels over those
efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2010
(i.e., energy savings estimates for maxtech levels do not include the energy
savings from increasing the Federal
standard at the time to the level found
in ASHRAE 90.1–2010). 76 FR 25622,
25644–25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on
an analysis of two different shipment
scenarios (shipments based on historical
trends and constant shipments fixed to
2009 shipment levels), DOE estimated
that efficiency standards at the max-tech
level would result in additional energy
savings of between 0.0061 to 0.0102
quads primary energy savings for the six
classes of small, large, and very large
WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622,
25644–25645), representing
approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent
of estimated WCUAC energy use during
the analysis period. DOE estimated that
efficiency standards at the max-tech
level would result in additional energy
savings of between 0.0013 to 0.0021
quads primary energy for the two
classes of very large ECUACs analyzed
(76 FR 25622, 25646), representing
approximately 3.7 percent to 3.9 percent
of estimated ECUAC energy use during
the analysis period. DOE did not
examine certain small WCUACs and
ECUACs (i.e., equipment less than
65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because
the levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2010 for
such equipment were not amended. 76
FR 25622, 25631. Additionally, DOE did
not assess potential energy savings for
ECUACs with cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less
than 240,000 Btu/h because it did not
find any equipment in this capacity
range on the U.S. market. Id.
Based on its analysis and the review
of the market, DOE determined that it
did not have ‘‘clear and convincing
evidence’’ that significant additional
conservation of energy would result
from adoption of more stringent
standard levels than those in ASHRAE
90.1–2010 for ECUACs and WCUACs.
77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not
conduct an economic analysis of
standards more stringent than the
ASHRAE 90.1–2010 levels for ECUACs
and WCUACs because of the conclusion
that more stringent standards would
result in minimal energy savings. Id.
Since ASHRAE 90.1–2010 was
published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone
three revisions. On October 9, 2013,
ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1–
2013; on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE
published ASHRAE 90.1–2016; and on
October 24, 2019, ASHRAE published
ASHRAE 90.1–2019. In none of these
publications did ASHRAE amend
minimum EER levels for small, large,
and very large WCUACs or ECUACs;
therefore, 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
Federal standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs are those set forth in the May
2012 final rule and codified in Table 1
of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and
their compliance dates are provided in
Table II.1 of this NOPD.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE II.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
Minimum
EER
Small Water-Cooled ...............................
<65,000 .................................................
All ..........................................................
5 The max-tech level represented the highest
efficiency level of equipment available on the
market at the time of the analysis.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
12.1
Compliance
date
October 29, 2003.
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
57153
TABLE II.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 ...................
On July 29, 2019, DOE published a
request for information (‘‘RFI’’) to
collect information and data to consider
amendments to DOE’s energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (‘‘July 2019 ECS
RFI’’). In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
solicited information to help 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. 84 FR 36480,
36483. DOE specifically sought
information and data on whether the
market size and shipment data used in
the May 2012 final rule reflect the
current market size and shipments of
WCUACs and ECUACs; the range of
efficiency levels currently on the market
for each equipment class of ECUACs
and WCUACs; the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (‘‘IEER’’) metric and
weighting factors and its applicability to
the average use cycles of ECUACs and
WCUACs; the share of ECUAC and
WCUAC models on the market that are
currently rated for both EER and IEER;
and any information regarding the
Minimum
EER
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.
regulatory burden amended standards
might impose on manufacturers. 84 FR
36480.
DOE received several comments from
interested parties in response to the
publication of the July 2019 ECS RFI.
Table II.2 lists the commenters, their
abbreviated names used throughout this
NOPD, and organization type.
Discussion of the relevant comments
provided by these organizations and
DOE’s responses are provided in the
appropriate sections of this document.
TABLE II.2—INTERESTED PARTIES THAT PROVIDED COMMENT ON THE JULY 2019 ECS RFI
Name
Abbreviation
Trane ..............................................................................................................................
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ...................................................
California Investor Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego
Gas and Electric, and California Edison).
Appliance Standards Awareness Project; Natural Resources Defense Council ..........
Trane ..................................
AHRI ...................................
CA IOUs .............................
Manufacturer.
Industry Representative.
Utilities.
ASAP and NRDC ...............
Efficiency/Environmental
Advocates.
III. Discussion and Rationale
DOE developed this proposed
determination after considering
comments, data, and information from
interested parties that represent a
variety of interests. This notice
addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
A. General Comments
CA IOUs expressed general support
for analyzing updated energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4)
ASAP and NRDC commented that DOE
should analyze the potential for energy
savings from amended standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs, and in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
particular for ‘‘large’’ and ‘‘very large’’
WCUACs. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p.
1) CA IOUs recommended that DOE
complete the test procedure rulemaking
prior to initiating any energy
conservation standards rulemaking to
provide an opportunity for stakeholders
to understand the test procedure on
which equipment is being rated before
analyzing more stringent energy
conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6
at p. 3) As stated and explained further
in the subsequent sections, DOE is not
proposing more stringent standards for
WCUACs or ECUACs. CA IOUs also
suggested consolidating any energy
conservation standards rulemaking for
ECUACs and WCUACs with that of
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Organization type
water-source heat pumps (‘‘WSHPs’’).
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4) CA IOUs stated
given the technical similarities among
ECUACs, WCUACs, and WSHPs, and
the limited shipments of this
equipment, DOE should consolidate the
rulemakings for all three equipment
categories as a means to reduce
regulatory burden for industry and DOE.
Id. While these equipment categories
may share some technical similarities,
WSHPs are subject to different test
procedures and standards than those of
ECUACs and WCUACs. Furthermore,
the WSHP market is about 100 times
larger than the ECUAC and WCUAC
market combined, with about 200,000
shipments annually. (Docket EERE–
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
57154
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
2014–BT–STD–0015–0043 at p. 133) For
these reasons, DOE has not consolidated
the evaluation of ECUAC and WCUAC
energy conservation standards with that
of WSHPs.
Trane commented generally about the
cumulative regulatory burden that
manufacturers face, stressing that
increased Federal efficiency standards
for air-cooled commercial unitary air
conditioners (‘‘ACUACs’’) and
commercial warm air furnaces
(‘‘CWAFs’’) as well as alternative
refrigerant requirements would make
testing and product development for
ECUACs and WCUACs particularly
burdensome. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 3)
Again, as discussed in the following
sections, DOE is not proposing to amend
standards for ECUACs or WCUACs.
B. Market Analysis
For this proposed determination, DOE
conducted a review of the current
market for ECUACs and WCUACs,
including equipment literature, the
AHRI Directory of Certified Product
Performance (‘‘AHRI Directory’’),6 and
the DOE Compliance Certification
Management System (‘‘CCMS’’)
database.7 DOE also considered market
data and stakeholder comments
received in response to the July 2019
ECS RFI, the analysis performed in the
previous standards rulemaking for
ECUACs and WCUACs, and the energy
savings potential for amended standards
determined in the May 2012 final rule.
The following sub-sections discuss
DOE’s analysis of the current market for
ECUACs and WCUACs, relevant
analyses and results from the May 2012
final rule, including shipments
estimates, and comments received in
response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
1. Shipments Estimates
As part of the previous standards
rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs,
AHRI provided historical shipments
data from 1989 to 2009 for WCUACs by
cooling capacity range. (Docket No.
EERE–2011–BT–STD–0029–0005 at pp.
54–55) This previously submitted
historical data showed strongly
decreasing shipments for certain small
(i.e., 65,000 to 134,900 Btu/h cooling
capacity), large (i.e., 135,000 to 249,000
Btu/h cooling capacity), and very large
6 The AHRI Directory for unitary large equipment
can be found at https://www.ahridirectory.org/
Search/SearchHome. AHRI’s certification program
does not currently include ECUACs of any cooling
capacities or WCUACs with cooling capacity greater
than 250,000 Btu/h.
7 Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the
July 2019 ECS RFI was accessed on April 1, 2019.
Updated data for this document was accessed on
December 16, 2019. This database can be found at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
(i.e., 250,000 Btu/h and over cooling
capacity) WCUACs from 1989 to 2009.
DOE developed shipments projections
for the two smaller equipment classes
using an exponential curve fit to the
available historical data. 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. 76 FR 25622, 25642.
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 the historical shipments data
to analyze two shipment scenarios: (1)
Based on historical trends of declining
shipments described earlier in this
paragraph, 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 25622, 25641–25642.
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. 76 FR 25622,
25639. DOE identified multiple models
of very large ECUACs, but 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). 76
FR 25622, 25642.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
presented the shipment estimates relied
on in the May 2012 final rule, noting
that average shipments of ECUACs 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
noted that such equipment is only a
small fraction of shipments of the
commercial unitary air conditioner
(‘‘CUAC’’) market. 84 FR 36480, 36484.
In development of the present
evaluation, DOE searched for, but was
unable to identify, publicly available
sources of shipments of ECUACs and
WCUACs. In the July 2019 ECS RFI,
DOE presented a model count of the
available models certified in the CCMS
database and preliminarily finding that
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
WCUACs is much smaller than the
present-day market for ACUACs. 84 FR
36480, 36484–36485.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether the
shipments estimates for WCUACs and
ECUACs analyzed in the May 2012 final
rule are representative of the current
market. DOE also requested data on
historical and recent shipments for each
of the equipment classes of WCUACs
and ECUACs, including for units with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
DOE requested 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, and
specifically, information on market
forces that are expected to influence
future WCUAC and ECUAC shipment
trends, and whether there is any
information to suggest a growing or
declining ECUAC market. 84 FR 36480,
36484–36485.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI,
Trane agreed with DOE’s assessment
that the WCUAC and ECUAC market is
a fraction of all CUAC shipments, and
that the historical data from the last
rulemaking is generally representative
of the WCUAC market. (Trane, No. 4 at
p. 1) Trane stated that it may be prudent
to add more recent shipping history to
the analysis to determine if it changes
any assumptions as this market is tied
specifically to multi-floor office
building construction. Id. AHRI also
stated most WCUAC products are linked
to multi-floor office buildings. (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI further stated that
DOE’s WCUAC shipment estimates from
the May 2012 final rule do not reflect
the current market trend. (AHRI, No. 5
at p. 2) Trane and AHRI commented that
estimates developed for the May 2012
final rule were based on shipment
analysis data through 2009, which was
at a point of a very large downturn in
the market due to the great recession.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 5 at p.
2) AHRI stated that for this reason, and
the fact that shipments are linked to
investment in the commercial building
sector, DOE’s 30-year shipment
prediction models are not based on
representative data and do not reflect
reasonable assumptions. (AHRI, No. 5 at
p. 2) Trane commented that the market
has since rebounded and grown to more
typical historical levels. (Trane, No. 4 at
p. 1) Trane and CA IOUs recommended
adding more recent WCUAC shipments
history to the analysis, with the CA
IOUs stating that the data did not break
out shipments by cooling type or
geographic locations of where
shipments are sold. (Trane, No. 4 at p.
1; CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3) Trane
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
recommended the shipments analysis
should reflect the relationship to multifloor office building construction.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 1) AHRI provided
recent data on the current WCUAC
market size and trend. (AHRI, No. 5 at
p. 5)
Trane stated that the ECUAC market
is declining as other manufacturers have
exited this market. Trane also stated
both the ECUAC and WCUAC markets
are small and that it is questionable
whether additional analysis would
significantly affect conclusions about
the market size. (Trane, No. 4 at pp. 1–
2) Trane suggested that because of the
small market size for this equipment
and the significant burden associated
with compliance with recent regulations
for similar equipment (i.e., ACUACs and
CWAFs), if the energy conservation
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
were to exceed the requirements in
ASHRAE 90.1, manufacturers would
consider exiting the market. (Trane, No.
4 at p. 3)
DOE acknowledges the market
downturn that occurred in the years at
the end of the range of historical
shipments used in the May 2012 final
rule. DOE incorporated the additional
shipments data from AHRI to develop
57155
revised shipment projections using the
same model specification as used for the
May 2012 final rule. Table III.1 presents
the historical shipments for WCUACs
from the May 2012 final rule (1984–
2009) along with historical shipments in
the following years as provided by AHRI
(2010–2018). As shown in Table III.1 for
the small and large WCUACs, shipments
starting in 2009 are lower than in prior
years. The very large WCUAC
shipments fell in the years immediately
following 2008, and while the
shipments have rebounded, they did not
rebound to the highest shipment levels
seen previously.
TABLE III.1—HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS DATA FOR WCUACS
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
Small AC
water-cooled
(65 to 134.9
kBtu/h)
Small AC
water-cooled
(<64.9 kBtu/h)
Year *
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
..................................................................................................................
91 .............................................................................................................
119 ...........................................................................................................
84 .............................................................................................................
95 .............................................................................................................
59 .............................................................................................................
54 .............................................................................................................
52 .............................................................................................................
44 .............................................................................................................
45 .............................................................................................................
39 .............................................................................................................
1,437
1,503
1,107
1,068
985
922
1,121
1,217
989
795
874
1,478
606
502
390
447
177
316
359
282
152
139
209
230
198
216
137
105
62
106
Large AC
water-cooled
(135 to 249
kBtu/h)
793
779
621
537
520
504
493
652
522
623
477
1,621
409
355
287
291
188
278
317
311
182
186
180
137
164
114
147
154
128
108
Very large AC
water-cooled
(≥250 kBtu/h)
1,622
1,211
908
720
668
815
805
1,020
1,216
1,886
898
1,170
762
1,227
740
711
861
1,231
1,231
1,390
585
531
609
624
751
829
770
946
985
844
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* Data for 1989–2009 from the May 2012 Final Rule. This data does not include WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h because this class was not included in that rulemaking. Data for 2009–2018 provided by AHRI in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.
Similar to the approach in the May
2012 final rule, for this analysis DOE
developed two shipment projections;
one based on historical trends and one
that held shipments constant at the 2018
shipment level (referred to as ‘‘2019
trend’’ and ‘‘2019 constant’’,
respectively). The 2019 trend and 2019
constant projections are compared to
projections from the May 2012 final rule
that were based on the historical trends
and fixed at the level of the 2009
shipments (referred to as ‘‘2012 trend’’
and ‘‘2012 constant’’, respectively). This
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
comparison is shown in Table III.2 of
this document.
DOE was unable to identify shipments
data for the ECUAC equipment classes
and none were provided by the
stakeholders. As was the approach used
in the May 2012 final rule for the
present analysis, shipment projections
were developed by scaling the WCUAC
shipment projections using a ratio of
unique model counts for each
equipment class (see section III.B.3 of
this document). For the small (cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
class of products, the shipment
projection was further adjusted by a
factor of 0.5 to better reflect the
approximate size of the market in the
mid-2000s.8
AHRI commented that WCUACs are
typically sold as part of a large project
8 Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Emerging
Technologies Program, Application Assessment
Report # 0605. Evaluation of the Freus Residential
Evaporative Condenser System in PG&E Service
Territory. https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/
files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf
accessed December 18, 2019.
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
57156
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
(i.e., a multi-tenant, multi-story office
building). (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) To
account for shipments being a function
of large office construction, DOE also
developed a third projection for the very
large WCUAC equipment class, using a
regression analysis with historical data
and projections of large office existing
floor space and large office additions as
the variables (referred to as ‘‘2019
regression’’ in Table III.2 of this
document).
TABLE III.2—COMPARISON OF SHIPMENTS FOR WCUACS AND ECUACS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend .................................................................................................
2012 constant (=2009) ..............................................................................
2019 trend .................................................................................................
2019 constant (=2018) ..............................................................................
Small WCUAC, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend .................................................................................................
2012 constant (=2009) ..............................................................................
2019 trend .................................................................................................
2019 constant (=2018) ..............................................................................
Large WCUAC, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend .................................................................................................
2012 constant (=2009) ..............................................................................
2019 trend .................................................................................................
2019 constant (=2018) ..............................................................................
Very Large WCUAC, ≥240,000 and ≤760,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend .................................................................................................
2012 constant (=2009) ..............................................................................
2019 trend .................................................................................................
2019 constant (=2018) ..............................................................................
2019 regression ........................................................................................
Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend .................................................................................................
2012 constant (=2009) ..............................................................................
2019 trend .................................................................................................
2019 constant (=2018) ..............................................................................
Very Large ECUAC, ≥240,000 and ≤760,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend .................................................................................................
2012 constant (=2009) ..............................................................................
2019 trend .................................................................................................
2019 constant (=2018) ..............................................................................
2019 regression ........................................................................................
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did
not analyze small ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h. For the July 2019
ECS RFI, DOE identified a single
manufacturer of ECUACs in this
capacity range, and the models offered
are single-phase equipment and appear
to be predominantly marketed for
residential applications in 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. 84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE
identified only two distinct product
lines of WCUACs with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h, and DOE’s
examination of manufacturer literature
for these WCUACs suggested that these
models do not comprise a significant
share of the market for air conditioners
in residential or commercial
applications. Id.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI,
AHRI provided shipment data for
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 5)
Based on the shipments data, DOE’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
2018
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
............
............
39
39
............
............
33
39
............
............
18
39
............
............
10
39
............
............
6
39
............
............
3
39
............
............
2
39
93
152
106
106
76
152
87
106
46
152
52
106
28
152
32
106
17
152
19
106
10
152
11
106
6
152
7
106
132
182
108
108
117
182
110
108
87
182
78
108
64
182
55
108
47
182
39
108
35
182
28
108
26
182
20
108
953
585
844
844
844
944
585
777
844
1,000
923
585
721
844
929
903
585
664
844
927
882
585
608
844
865
861
585
551
844
844
840
585
495
844
828
............
............
156
156
............
............
132
156
............
............
72
156
............
............
40
156
............
............
24
156
............
............
12
156
............
............
8
156
245
150
14
14
14
243
150
13
14
17
238
150
12
14
16
232
150
11
14
16
227
150
10
14
14
221
150
9
14
14
216
150
9
14
14
analysis points to declining future
shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs
with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h.
The projected trends from the May
2012 final rule and those based on the
updated data both generally show
declines in shipments for small (≥65,000
and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very
large WCUACs, and very large ECUACs.
The shipment levels under the 2019
constant projections are lower than the
2012 constant projections for small
(≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h) and large
WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The
2019 constant projections for very large
WCUACs are higher than the 2012
constant projections (but lower than the
2012 trend projections). The 2019
regression projections for very large
WCUACs and ECUACs show a more
stable level of shipments over the
analysis period than the 2019 trend
models, but are lower than the 2012
trend projection.
As DOE did not analyze ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h for the May 2012
final rule, no comparisons to the current
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
projections are possible. The current
trended shipments projections for the
small (cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h) equipment classes reach 10 or
fewer shipments by 2045.
2. Model Counts
For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
conducted a review of the current
market for WCUACs and ECUACs,
based on models included in the DOE
CCMS database.7 84 FR 36480, 36484.
DOE also compared the number of
ECUAC and WCUAC models to the
number of ACUAC models listed in
DOE’s CCMS database.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
requested comment on the size of the
current market for ECUACs and
WCUACs, as compared to the market for
ACUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36485. Trane
commented that DOE’s analysis clearly
shows that the market for ECUACs and
WCUACs is much smaller than the
market for ACUACs. Trane further
stated that ECUACs and WCUACs differ
from ACUACs in that shipments of
ECUACs and WCUACs are somewhat
regionalized in the United States due to
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
57157
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
their more niche applications. (Trane,
No. 4 at p. 2)
Table III.3 shows the number of
models listed within the DOE CCMS
database that DOE identified for each
class of ACUACs, ECUACs, and
WCUACs.7
TABLE III.3—MODEL COUNTS FOR ECUACS, WCUACS, AND ACUACS
Number of models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
ECUAC
<65,000 ........................................................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .................................................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...............................................................................................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...............................................................................................................
WCUAC
11
0
0
15
9
47
34
363
ACUAC
* 2,748
2,274
2,194
4,817
* This <65,000 Btu/h air-cooled model count includes only basic models of three-phase air-cooled commercial air conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
As shown in Table III.3, the number
of ECUAC and WCUAC models
currently on the market is substantially
less than the number of ACUAC models
on the market for all capacity ranges.
This is consistent with the relationship
between model counts identified in the
May 2012 final rule, further suggesting
that the current market for ECUACs and
WCUACs is much smaller than the
market for ACUACs.
3. Current Market Efficiency
Distributions
For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
examined the efficiency ratings of
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the
market. DOE requested comment on the
range of efficiency levels for each
equipment class of ECUACs and
WCUACs currently on the market and
on whether efficiency levels above the
current baseline standard are achievable
for equipment across all cooling
capacity ranges. 84 FR 36480, 36485.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI,
ASAP and NRDC encouraged DOE to
analyze energy savings potential from
amended standards for both ECUACs
and WCUACs, particularly those of large
and very large WCUACs. They stated
that the efficiency distribution for
WCUACs presented in the July 2019
ECS RFI illustrates that the average and
maximum EERs of WCUACs on the
market are significantly higher than the
current standard. (ASAP and NRDC, No.
7 at pp. 1–2) They stated that this shows
there is a wide availability of models
that exceed the standard across all
covered capacity ranges. (ASAP and
NRDC, No. 7 at p. 1)
AHRI recommended that DOE not
change the baseline standard for
WCUACs. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI
also commented that a significant part
of WCUAC shipments are moving
towards replacement installations in
renovated buildings, specifically in
mechanical rooms of office buildings,
which constrains the size and thus the
potential for increased EER
performance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI
also stated the potential improvements
in EER ratings are limited for WCUACs
based on existing technology. (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 2) Trane also stated that
WCUACs are typically only available
from a manufacturer in one efficiency
tier, and are therefore not offered as part
of ‘‘standard’’ or ‘‘high efficiency’’
model lines. Trane also commented that
the WCUAC EER data from the CCMS
Database presented in the July 2019 ECS
RFI is representative of what is
currently available today in the market.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) With respect to
ECUACs, Trane stated that the market is
primarily for replacement purposes and
that because of this, ECUACs face size
constraints similar to WCUACs despite
being installed outdoors, which limits
the potential for increased EER levels.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
In response to comments, DOE
updated the estimated energy savings
and percent of no-new-standards energy
consumption for 30 years of shipments
(2020–2049) using the 2012 final rule
model and input assumptions, but
updated the shipment projections to
reflect more recent information outlined
in sections above. DOE also updated
efficiency distributions to reflect the
current market and Table III.4 presents
the summary of statistics by equipment
category and capacity range of
equipment for unique models 9 from
DOE’s CCMS Database.7
TABLE III.4—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUACS
Average
cooling
capacity
(Btu/h)
Number of
unique
models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
EER
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Current
Federal EER
standard
level *
Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
<65,000 ....................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .............................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...........................
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...........................
1
23
15
234
58,000
99,478
175,600
493,556
12.2
12.1
13.5
12.5
12.2
12.8
14.6
13.8
12.2
15.3
16.3
16.1
12.1
12.1
12.5
12.4
15
N/A
N/A
16.0
N/A
N/A
12.1
N/A
N/A
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
<65,000 ....................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .............................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...........................
8
0
0
9 The count of unique models excludes basic
models that appear to be duplicates—i.e., basic
models sharing the same manufacturer and certified
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
37,950
N/A
N/A
13.2
N/A
N/A
cooling capacity and EER ratings. For basic models
that had multiple individual models certified with
different capacities and different EER ratings, the
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
individual models were considered to be unique
models.
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
57158
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.4—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUACS—Continued
Average
cooling
capacity
(Btu/h)
Number of
unique
models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...........................
4
EER
Minimum
442,750
Average
11.8
Maximum
12.7
13.4
Current
Federal EER
standard
level *
11.7
* For all capacity ranges except very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, the Federal EER standard listed is for ‘‘no heat or electric
heat’’ class. For the very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioner class, the Federal EER standard listed is the ‘‘all other types of heating’’
class.
Savings were estimated based on the
forecasted shipments labeled 2019
trend, 2019 constant, and 2019
regression. For the savings estimates
labeled 2019 regression, as noted in
Section III.B.1 of this NOPD, a
regression projection was only
developed for the very large equipment
class.
As mentioned in section II.B of this
NOPD, the cumulative site energy
savings are calculated using the maxtech level, which is the highest value of
efficiency in DOE’s CCMS Database
within each capacity range of ECUACs
and WCUACs (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h,
65,000–135,000 Btu/h, 135,000–240,000
Btu/h, and 240,000–760,000 Btu/h).
However, for very large WCUACs,
consideration of the highest efficiency
value in DOE’s CCMS database may not
be appropriate for evaluating potential
amendments to the energy conservation
standards.
The very large WCUAC equipment
class represents a wide range of cooling
capacities (≥240,000 and <760,000 Btu/
h). For the very large WCUAC class,
there is only one individual model rated
at the highest level of 16.1 EER, and that
individual model is part of a larger
model line with many other offerings,
all of which have EER ratings
significantly lower than 16.1. As
explained in the following discussion,
DOE’s examination of this model line
indicates that the individual model in
question is an outlier among: (1) Models
in the product line rated within the
same basic model (and at approximately
the same capacity as) the individual
model in question; as well as (2) models
in the product line rated at capacities
across the capacity range of the very
large equipment class. This individual
model rated at 16.1 EER is within a
basic model for which all other
individual models (with similar
technology options and approximately
the same cooling capacity as the model
rated at 16.1 EER) have an EER rating of
15 or lower. Within this product line,
the model numbers certified in DOE’s
CCMS Database indicate that among
individual models rated as part of the
same basic model, the differences in
these models’ rated efficiencies depend
on fan diameter and number of fan
blades. This unique model (rated at 16.1
EER) shows a relationship between
technology options and rated efficiency
that appears inconsistent with all other
models of the product line. Specifically,
there are two options for number of fan
blades, and all other individual models
in the basic model except for the model
rated at 16.1 EER show that for the same
fan diameter, the model with the higher
number of fan blades has a lower EER
rating. It is unclear why a higher
number of fan blades results in a higher
EER rating for only this specific
individual model.
Moreover, there are basic models
within this product line rated at a wide
range of capacities across the very large
WCUAC class that have the same
combination of technology options that
distinguish the individual model rated
at 16.1 EER. However, the EER ratings
for all of these models are significantly
lower than 16.1, between 13.5–14.5. It is
not clear why this combination of
technology options results in a higher
efficiency at only one rated capacity;
and this discrepancy suggests that a 16.1
EER level may not be achievable with
these technology options at other
capacities within the very large WCUAC
equipment class. Therefore, DOE
considered the model rated at 16.1 to be
an outlier. As such, DOE calculated the
energy savings from potential amended
standards for very large WCUACs using
the next highest level that was
achievable across the range of capacities
(i.e., an EER of 15).
The estimated energy savings, which
vary by shipment scenario and
equipment class, are presented in Table
III.5 of this NOPD. Selecting the
minimum and maximum estimated
savings level for each equipment class
resulted in a range of total estimated site
energy savings for the WCUAC classes
of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of
estimated site energy use) and 0.0046
quads (8.6 percent of estimated site
energy use), and for the ECUAC classes
of 0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of
estimated site energy use) and 0.00011
quads (6.0 percent of estimated site
energy use) during the analysis period.
For all equipment classes, the resulting
estimated savings ranged between
0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of estimated
site energy consumption) and 0.0047
quads (8.5 percent of estimated site
energy consumption) during the
analysis period.
TABLE III.5—ESTIMATED NATIONAL SITE ENERGY SAVINGS AND PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTIONS FOR WCUACS AND
ECUACS AT THE MAX-TECH LEVEL
Cumulative site national energy savings
(quads) *
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Trend
Constant
Regression
Reduction in
national site
energy
consumption
(percent)
WCUACs
<65,000 ..........................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 .................................................................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 .................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
0.00000
0.00005
0.00011
0.00287
0.00000
0.00019
0.00025
0.00395
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
........................
........................
........................
0.00413
15SEP1
0.0
13.3
10.1
8.4
57159
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.5—ESTIMATED NATIONAL SITE ENERGY SAVINGS AND PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTIONS FOR WCUACS AND
ECUACS AT THE MAX-TECH LEVEL—Continued
Cumulative site national energy savings
(quads) *
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
Trend
Constant
Regression
Reduction in
national site
energy
consumption
(percent)
ECUACs
<65,000 ..........................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 ...................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 .................................................................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 .................................................................................
0.00001
N/A
N/A
0.00005
0.00004
N/A
N/A
0.00006
........................
N/A
N/A
0.00007
5.3
N/A
N/A
6.5
* Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30-year analysis period
(2020–2049).
For the May 2012 final rule analysis,
DOE did not incorporate changing
trends in shipments by efficiency over
time in the no-new-standards case, and
the updated energy savings estimates
presented in Table III.5 of this NOPD
also use a constant efficiency
distribution of shipments over time.
DOE does not have data on efficiency
trends for WCUAC and ECUACs and
seeks comment on efficiency trends
specific to this equipment.
C. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
The current energy efficiency
descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR
431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 specifies both
EER and IEER minimum efficiency
levels. The EER metric represents the
efficiency of the equipment operating at
full load. The IEER metric 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. The IEER metric weights the
full- and part-load efficiencies based on
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 wetbulb temperatures for ECUACs) to
reflect the representative ambient
conditions for part-load operation in the
field. ASHRAE 90.1 has included
minimum efficiency levels for ECUACs
and WCUACs in terms of both EER and
IEER since 2010. In the July 2019 ECS
RFI, DOE requested comment on the
representativeness of IEER for WCUACs
and ECUACs, and more specifically that
of ECUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h, and the burden that
IEER testing may impose on
manufacturers. 84 FR 36480, 36486–
36487.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI,
Trane and AHRI generally supported
adopting the IEER metric for the Federal
standards for WCUACs. (Trane, No. 4 at
p. 2; AHRI No. 5 at p. 3) Trane also
supported adopting the IEER metric for
Federal standards for ECUACs. Trane
further stated that WCUACs and
ECUACs are space constrained, which
significantly limits the ability to
develop products with any further
increase in full load efficiency, and that
a part load metric therefore provides
many more opportunities to increase
efficiency performance without
requiring physically larger units. (Trane,
No. 4 at p. 2) ASAP and NRDC stated
that it would make sense to move to a
part-load metric for ECUACs and
WCUACs to better represent field
performance and reflect the efficiency
benefits of technologies that improve
part-load performance, and encouraged
DOE to investigate appropriate test
points and weighting factors that could
be used for a part-load metric for
ECUACs and WCUACs. (ASAP and
NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs
recommended that DOE maintain the
current performance metric of EER. (CA
IOUs, No. 6 at p. 1) CA IOUs expressed
general support for including part-load
conditions in an integrated metric, but
strongly recommended that DOE not
adopt IEER as it is currently specified in
the industry standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6
at p. 3)
As discussed in the following
subsections, DOE is not proposing to
change the metric for the ECUAC and
WCUAC energy conservation standards.
1. Representativeness of IEER for
ECUACs and WCUACs
As previously mentioned, IEER
includes lower condenser temperatures
for part-load tests. Table III.6 shows the
IEER test conditions for ECUACs and
WCUACs specified in AHRI Standard
340/360–2019, ‘‘Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Airconditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360–2019’’).10
TABLE III.6—IEER TEST CONDITIONS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS FROM AHRI
340/360–2019
Water-cooled
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Percent load
10 AHRI 340/360–2019 is the industry test
procedure referenced in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Entering air
dry-bulb
temperature
(°F)
Entering water
temperature
(°F)
100 ...................................................................................................
75 .....................................................................................................
50 .....................................................................................................
Evaporatively-cooled
85.0
73.5
62.0
Entering air
wet-bulb
temperature
(°F)
95.0
81.5
68.0
75.0
66.2
57.5
testing CUACs with cooling capacity greater than or
equal to 65,000 Btu/h.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
Makeup water
temperature
(°F)
85.0
81.5
68.0
57160
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.6—IEER TEST CONDITIONS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS FROM AHRI
340/360–2019—Continued
Water-cooled
Percent load
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)
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Where (see Table III.6 for condenser
temperature for all four test points):
A = EER, Btu/W·h, at 100 percent capacity at
standard rating conditions
B = EER, Btu/W·h, at 75 percent capacity and
reduced condenser temperature
C = EER, Btu/W·h, at 50 percent capacity and
reduced condenser temperature
D = EER, Btu/W·h, at 25 percent 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.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether the
weighting factors and IEER metric are an
appropriate representation of average
use cycles for ECUACs and WCUACs.
84 FR 36480, 36486. DOE also sought
comment on the extent to which
ECUACs and/or WCUACs are installed
in hot and dry climates as compared to
other climates as well as the types of
building that represent the primary
markets for all equipment classes of
ECUACs and WCUACs. Id.
Trane stated that IEER is more
representative of the applied energy
efficiency performance of WCUACs and
ECUACs than EER, which is only
representative of full load operation,
and that the current IEER test conditions
and weightings in the industry
standards are representative of typical
applications and average use cycles for
WCUACs and ECUACs. (Trane, No. 4 at
p. 2) AHRI supported adopting IEER for
WCUACs as defined by AHRI Standard
340/360 and AHRI Standard 210/240,
‘‘Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
Entering air
dry-bulb
temperature
(°F)
Entering water
temperature
(°F)
25 .....................................................................................................
55.0
conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment’’.11 (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3)
Trane stated that WCUACs are
installed primarily in 6- to 10-story
office buildings in large metropolitan
areas with varying climates in the
Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and
South. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) AHRI stated
that WCUACs are mostly installed in
office buildings, and that IEER was
developed, in part, based on operation
in such building types, and as such
IEER is a representative metric for
WCUACs. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI
commented that the small market size
prohibits a full study of WCUACspecific IEER weighting factors. (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 3)
ASAP and NRDC encouraged DOE to
investigate appropriate test conditions
and weighting factors for IEER for both
ECUACs and WCUACs based on the
wide range of EER performance for
WCUACs (see section III.B.3). (ASAP
and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs
suggested aligning the temperature test
points of WCUACs with that of watercooled variable refrigerant flow
equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
CA IOUs recommended that DOE
determine the geographic concentration
of ECUAC sales to ensure the
temperature test conditions and
weightings are reflective of their
installation locations; CA IOUs
provided data on the reference climates
for California’s 16 climate zones with
some of the hottest, driest regions in the
country where ECUACs may be
installed, emphasizing that the average
U.S. climate is not where ECUACs are
installed and so the IEER metric based
on the average U.S. climate has limited
utility. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 2) Trane
stated that the IEER weighting factors
and test conditions were representative
for ECUACs and also stated that
ECUACs are installed more frequently
in low humidity regions like the West.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
For ECUACs, the weighting factors for
IEER may not be representative of
typical applications. As suggested by
11 AHRI 210/240 is an industry test procedure for
testing CUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Evaporatively-cooled
Entering air
wet-bulb
temperature
(°F)
65.0
Makeup water
temperature
(°F)
52.8
65.0
commenters, 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
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 for ECUACs reflects
performance at outdoor air temperatures
cooler than what would be typically
experienced in hot and dry climates.
Regarding WCUACs, the IEER
weighting factors were developed based
on an analysis of ACUACs. AHRI’s
comment indicates that an analysis of
IEER weighting factors specific to
WCUACs has not been conducted. As
such, it is uncertain whether the IEER
weighting factors appropriately reflect
the average use of WCUACs, and
therefore, whether the IEER metric is
representative of typical applications for
WCUACs.
2. Representativeness of IEER for
ECUACs 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 would be
representative of average use cycles for
ECUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h.
Several issues relating to the
representativeness of average use cycles
for ECUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h and
the IEER metric are apparent. One issue
is the condenser conditions and
weighting factors used for determining
IEER. Over one-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
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
have substantial cooling loads at these
temperatures, residential cooling loads
at these temperatures are likely
significantly lower. This is due in part
to the lower density of people and
electronics (both of which generate heat)
typically seen in residential buildings as
compared to commercial buildings.
Also, commercial buildings tend to be
larger and thus have lower surface area
to volume ratios than low-rise
residential buildings, which results in
less heat loss through the building
envelope per volume of conditioned air
in commercial buildings (all other
things being equal). Therefore, for
residential applications, IEER may
overweight cooling at lower outdoor
ambient temperatures and underweight
cooling at higher ambient temperatures.
Another issue relating to the
representativeness of average use cycles
for ECUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h and
the IEER metric is that the IEER
equation for adjusting for cyclic
degradation 12 (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 because most
residential air conditioning systems are
not installed to provide ventilation.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
requested 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 sought feedback on
whether the outdoor air dry-bulb and
wet-bulb temperatures and IEER
weighting factors from AHRI 340/360–
2019 are representative for this
equipment class. DOE also sought
comment on whether this equipment
class of ECUACs is typically installed
residentially or commercially and
whether the indoor fan runs
continuously in the field. 84 FR 36480,
36487. DOE received no comments
regarding this issue.
3. Burden of IEER Testing
IEER requires at least four tests
whereas EER requires a single test. In
the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested
comment on the share of ECUAC and
WCUAC models that rate with both EER
12 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
and IEER. For those models that are not
already rated for IEER, DOE requested
comment on the extent to which IEER
would impose testing and certification
burden on manufacturers. 84 FR 36480,
36487.
AHRI indicated that all its members
that manufacture WCUACs already rate
most products with both EER and IEER
because IEER is required for ASHRAE
90.1 compliance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3)
Trane stated that although it rates all its
WCUAC and ECUAC equipment with
EER and IEER, it would need to do some
design work and testing in order to
comply with a newly-instated Federal
IEER standard. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
Trane stated that this burden might be
reduced by adopting the test conditions
and definition for IEER in ASHRAE
90.1. Id.
AHRI urged DOE to delay
implementation of a new WCUAC
metric until after 2023 to reduce the
cumulative regulatory burden for
manufacturers that make several types
of air-conditioning equipment covered
by DOE. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI
requested clarification on the estimated
implementation timeline if IEER were to
be adopted for WCUACs, and on
whether the timeline would be similar
to the timeline and compliance date for
the May 2012 final rule. (Id., at p. 4)
Of the models listed in the CCMS
database,7 62 out of 115 WCUAC basic
models did not have any online product
literature demonstrating that they are
rated with IEER. For ECUACs, 8 out of
12 basic models listed in the CCMS
database 7 also did not have any online
product literature with IEER ratings.
This suggests that many WCUAC and
ECUAC models would need to be
retested in order to comply with Federal
IEER standards.
4. Maintaining the EER Metric
DOE is not proposing to adopt
standards in terms of IEER for WCUACs
and ECUACs. As discussed, it is unclear
whether the IEER weighting factors are
representative of typical installations of
WCUACs. It is even less clear whether
the weighting factors and test conditions
of IEER as currently calculated under
the industry standard are appropriately
representative of the average use of
ECUACs, including ECUACs with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
In addition, a survey of the market
indicates that a number of basic models
of WCUACs and ECUACs do not
currently rate to IEER. Complying with
Federal standards in terms of IEER for
WCUACs and ECUACs would require
additional testing and certification, and
given the small market, may be unduly
burdensome.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57161
D. Proposed Determination
DOE proposes that the energy
conservation standards for WCUACs
and ECUACs do not need to be
amended, having initially determined
that it lacks ‘‘clear and convincing’’
evidence that amended standards would
result in significant additional
conservation of energy. EPCA specifies
that for any commercial and industrial
equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and
ECUACs, DOE may prescribe an energy
conservation standard more stringent
than the level for such equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ‘‘clear
and convincing evidence’’ shows that a
more stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) As discussed, the
‘‘clear and convincing’’ threshold is a
very high bar. ASHRAE not acting to
amend the minimum efficiency levels in
Standard 90.1, as in the present case for
the classes of WCUACs and ECUACs
evaluated in this document, is
tantamount to a decision that the
existing Federal standards, which align
with the minimum levels in Standard
90.1, remain in place and requires clear
and convincing evidence for DOE to
determine otherwise. 85 FR 8626, 8704–
8708; Section 9(c) of appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430.
In considering more stringent
efficiency levels for WCUACs and
ECUACs than those specified by the
current ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
evaluated the significance of their
potential energy savings as well as the
specific facts and data made available to
DOE.
As stated in section II.A of this NOPD,
the Process Rule establishes a two-step
process for determining the significance
of energy savings using an absolute and
percentage threshold. Id.; Section 6 of
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part
430. DOE first evaluates whether
standards at the max-tech level would
result in a minimum site-energy savings
of 0.3 quads over a 30-year period. Id.;
Section 6(b)(2) of appendix A to subpart
C of 10 CFR part 430. If the 0.3 quads
threshold is not met, DOE then
evaluates whether energy savings at the
max-tech level represent at least 10
percent of the total energy usage of the
covered equipment over a 30-year
period. Id.; Section 6(b)(3) of appendix
A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the
percentage threshold is not met by a
showing of clear and convincing
evidence, DOE proposes to determine
that no significant energy savings would
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
57162
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
likely result from setting amended
standards. Id.; Section 6(b)(4) of
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part
430.
An analysis of updated shipments
data and a review of the CCMS database
and the AHRI Directory indicate that
WCUACs and ECUACs continue to be a
minor portion of total commercial aircooled shipments with total combined
shipments of less than 1,300 units in
2018. The shipments of very large
WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to
investment in commercial buildings, but
the shipment projections also suggest
that shipments may be continuing to
decline.
Using updated shipments and
efficiency ratings from the CCMS
database, DOE estimated that amended
standards at current max-tech levels
would result in additional site energy
savings of between 0.00006 quads (6.2
percent of estimated site energy use)
and 0.00011 quads (6.0 percent of
estimated site energy use) for the
ECUAC classes during the analysis
period.13 Neither the estimated absolute
savings nor the estimated percentage
savings meet the applicable significance
thresholds. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that no
significant energy savings would likely
result from setting amended standards
for ECUACs.
For WCUACs, DOE estimated the
additional energy savings based on the
max-tech levels for small and large
WCUACs, which were determined by
identifying the highest efficiency ratings
in the DOE CCMS Database. For very
large WCUACs DOE initially
determined that there is substantial
doubt as to the appropriateness of using
the highest efficiency reported in the
DOE CCMS Database as the max-tech
level. As discussed, there is a
substantial question of whether the
combination of technologies used to
achieve the highest reported level for
very large WCUACs is practicable for
basic models across the capacity range
of that equipment class. As such, DOE
has initially determined that an energy
savings calculation that would rely on
the highest reported efficiency for very
large WCUACs would not meet the
‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’
threshold required by EPCA. Instead
DOE analyzed the next most efficient
level reported in the DOE CCMS
Database for very large WCUACs, which
did not raise similar concerns, as the
max-tech level for very large WCUACs.
Using this next highest efficiency
level for very large WCUACs, DOE
calculated that amended standards
would result in additional site energy
savings of between 0.0030 quads (8.5
percent of estimated site energy use)
and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of
estimated site energy use) for all
WCUAC classes during the analysis
period.14 Neither the estimated absolute
savings nor the estimated percentage
savings meet the applicable significance
thresholds. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively determined that no
significant energy savings would likely
result from setting amended standards
for WCUACs.
DOE requests comment and data on
its tentative determinations regarding
the energy savings from amended
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
13 The range of site energy savings for ECUACs
was determined using the resulting minimum and
maximum estimated energy savings by shipment
projection scenario at the equipment class level
(presented in Table III.5 of this NOPD).
14 The range of site energy savings for WCUACs
was determined using the resulting minimum and
maximum estimated energy savings by shipment
projection scenario at the equipment class level
(presented in Table III.5 of this NOPD).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
This proposed determination is not a
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management
and Budget.
B. Review Under Executive Orders
13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President
issued Executive Order (E.O.) 13771,
‘‘Reducing Regulation and Controlling
Regulatory Costs.’’ E.O. 13771 stated the
policy of the executive branch is to be
prudent and financially responsible in
the expenditure of funds, from both
public and private sources. E.O. 13771
stated it is essential to manage the costs
associated with the governmental
imposition of private expenditures
required to comply with Federal
regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017,
the President issued E.O. 13777,
‘‘Enforcing the Regulatory Reform
Agenda.’’ E.O. 13777 required the head
of each agency to designate an agency
official as its Regulatory Reform Officer
(‘‘RRO’’). Each RRO oversees the
implementation of regulatory reform
initiatives and policies to ensure that
agencies effectively carry out regulatory
reforms, consistent with applicable law.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Further, E.O. 13777 requires the
establishment of a regulatory task force
at each agency. The regulatory task force
is required to make recommendations to
the agency head regarding the repeal,
replacement, or modification of existing
regulations, consistent with applicable
law. At a minimum, each regulatory
reform task force must attempt to
identify regulations that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job
creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or
ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with regulatory
reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the
requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to
that Act, in particular those regulations
that rely in whole or in part on data,
information, or methods that are not
publicly available or that are
insufficiently transparent to meet the
standard for reproducibility; or
(6) Derive from or implement
Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently
rescinded or substantially modified.
DOE initially concludes that this
determination is consistent with the
directives set forth in these executive
orders.
As discussed in this document, DOE
is proposing not to amend energy
conservation standards for WCUACs
and ECUACs. Therefore, if finalized as
proposed, this determination is
expected to be an E.O. 13771 other
action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by
law must be proposed for public
comment, unless the agency certifies
that the rule, if promulgated, will not
have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed
determination under the provisions of
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. Because DOE is
proposing not to amend standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs, if adopted, the
determination would not amend any
energy conservation standards. On the
basis of the foregoing, DOE certifies that
the proposed determination, if adopted,
would have no significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not
prepared an IRFA for this proposed
determination. DOE will transmit this
certification and supporting statement
of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for
Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration for review under 5
U.S.C. 605(b).
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
D. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act
Manufacturers of ECUACs and
WCUACs must certify to DOE that their
equipment complies with any
applicable energy conservation
standards. In certifying compliance,
manufacturers must test their
equipment according to the DOE test
procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs,
including any amendments adopted for
those test procedures. DOE has
established regulations for the
certification and recordkeeping
requirements for all covered consumer
products and commercial equipment,
including ECUACs and WCUACs. 76 FR
12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan.
30, 2015). The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and
recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This
requirement has been approved by OMB
under OMB control number 1910–1400.
Public reporting burden for the
certification is estimated to average 35
hours per response, including the time
for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection
of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision
of the law, no person is required to
respond to, nor shall any person be
subject to a penalty for failure to comply
with, a collection of information subject
to the requirements of the PRA, unless
that collection of information displays a
currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action
in accordance with the National
Environmental Policy Act (‘‘NEPA’’)
and DOE’s NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE’s
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
regulations include a categorical
exclusion for actions that are
interpretations or rulings with respect to
existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, Appendix A4. DOE
anticipates that this action qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an
interpretation or ruling in regard to an
existing regulation and otherwise meets
the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR
1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA
review before issuing the final action.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’
64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes
certain requirements on Federal
agencies formulating and implementing
policies or regulations that preempt
State law or that have Federalism
implications. The Executive Order
requires agencies to examine the
constitutional and statutory authority
supporting any action that would limit
the policymaking discretion of the
States and to carefully assess the
necessity for such actions. The
Executive Order also requires agencies
to have an accountable process to
ensure meaningful and timely input by
State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that
have Federalism implications. On
March 14, 2000, DOE published a
statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process
it will follow in the development of
such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has
examined this proposed determination
and has tentatively determined that it
would not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the products
that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for
exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 5316(a) and (b); 42
U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further
action is required by Executive Order
13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing
regulations and the promulgation of
new regulations, section 3(a) of
Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice
Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies
the general duty to adhere to the
following requirements: (1) Eliminate
drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write
regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57163
provide a clear legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general
standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb.
7, 1996). Regarding the review required
by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive
Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every
reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly
specifies any effect on existing Federal
law or regulation, (3) provides a clear
legal standard for affected conduct
while promoting simplification and
burden reduction, (4) specifies the
retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately
defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any
guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order
12988 requires Executive agencies to
review regulations in light of applicable
standards in section 3(a) and section
3(b) to determine whether they are met
or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the
required review and determined that, to
the extent permitted by law, this NOPD
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires
each Federal agency to assess the effects
of Federal regulatory actions on State,
local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec.
201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a
proposed regulatory action likely to
result in a rule that may cause the
expenditure by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector of $100 million or more
in any one year (adjusted annually for
inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires
a Federal agency to publish a written
statement that estimates the resulting
costs, benefits, and other effects on the
national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b))
The UMRA also requires a Federal
agency to develop an effective process
to permit timely input by elected
officers of State, local, and Tribal
governments on a proposed ‘‘significant
intergovernmental mandate,’’ and
requires an agency plan for giving notice
and opportunity for timely input to
potentially affected small governments
before establishing any requirements
that might significantly or uniquely
affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE
published a statement of policy on its
process for intergovernmental
consultation under UMRA. 62 FR
12820. DOE’s policy statement is also
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
57164
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
available at https://energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_
97.pdf. This proposed determination
contains neither an intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditure of $100 million or more in
one year by the private sector. As a
result, the analytical requirements of
UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
proposed determination would not have
any impact on the autonomy or integrity
of the family as an institution.
Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it
is not necessary to prepare a Family
Policymaking Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630,
‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference
with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988),
DOE has determined that this proposed
determination would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
K. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for Federal agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under information quality
guidelines established by each agency
pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published
at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE’s guidelines were published at 67
FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has
reviewed this NOPD under the OMB
and DOE guidelines and has concluded
that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions
Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May
22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to
prepare and submit to OIRA at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any
proposed significant energy action. A
‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as
any action by an agency that
promulgates or is expected to lead to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
promulgation of a final rule, and that (1)
is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor
order; and (2) is likely to have a
significant adverse effect on the supply,
distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is
designated by the Administrator of
OIRA as a significant energy action. For
any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use
should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the
action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this proposed determination
does not propose amended energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs, it is not a significant energy
action, nor has it been designated as
such by the Administrator at OIRA.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
Statement of Energy Effects.
M. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in
consultation with the Office of Science
and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’),
issued its Final Information Quality
Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the
Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005).
The Bulletin establishes that certain
scientific information shall be peer
reviewed by qualified specialists before
it is disseminated by the Federal
Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency
regulatory actions. The purpose of the
bulletin is to enhance the quality and
credibility of the Government’s
scientific information. Under the
Bulletin, the energy conservation
standards rulemaking analyses are
‘‘influential scientific information,’’
which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific
information the agency reasonably can
determine will have, or does have, a
clear and substantial impact on
important public policies or private
sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE
conducted formal peer reviews of the
energy conservation standards
development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared
a report describing that peer review.15
Generation of this report involved a
rigorous, formal, and documented
evaluation using objective criteria and
qualified and independent reviewers to
make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or
anticipated results, and the productivity
15 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking
Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at https://
energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
and management effectiveness of
programs and/or projects. DOE has
determined that the peer-reviewed
analytical process continues to reflect
current practice, and the Department
followed that process for developing
energy conservation standards in the
case of the present rulemaking.
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are
listed in the DATES section at the
beginning of this document. Webinar
registration information, participant
instructions, and information about the
capabilities available to webinar
participants will be published on DOE’s
website: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
standards.aspx?productid=3.
Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the
webinar software.
B. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rulemaking no later than the date
provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule.
Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information
on using any of the methods described
in the ADDRESSES section at the
beginning of this document.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
jbell on DSKJLSW7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 179 / Tuesday, September 15, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, 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 not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:25 Sep 14, 2020
Jkt 250001
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier two well-marked
copies: One copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
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) 586–
6636 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
determination.
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on August 21, 2020,
by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, pursuant to
delegated authority from the Secretary
of Energy. That document with the
original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
57165
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 21,
2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–18800 Filed 9–14–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0797; Product
Identifier 2018–SW–081–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo
S.p.a. Helicopters (Type Certificate
Previously Held by Agusta S.p.A.)
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to
supersede Airworthiness Directive (AD)
2017–23–08 for Agusta S.p.A. (now
Leonardo S.p.a.) Model AB139 and
AW139 helicopters. AD 2017–23–08
requires repetitively inspecting the main
rotor (M/R) rotating scissors, removing
certain lower half scissor spherical
bearings (bearings) from service,
replacing the removed bearings with a
new bearing, and installing a special
nut. Since the FAA issued AD 2017–23–
08, investigation results determined that
a quality control issue may have
affected the production of the affected
bearings. This proposed AD would
retain the requirements of AD 2017–23–
08 and require replacing each affected
bearing with a certain part-numbered
bearing. The actions of this proposed
AD are intended to address an unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by October 30,
2020.
SUMMARY:
You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
ADDRESSES:
E:\FR\FM\15SEP1.SGM
15SEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57149-57165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18800]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Notice of proposed determination and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), as amended,
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including
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). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy
(``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more stringent, amended
standards would result in significant additional conservation of
energy, be technologically feasible, and be economically justified. In
this notice of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has tentatively
determined that the standards for small (cooling capacity less than
135,000 Btu/h), large (cooling capacity greater than or equal to
135,000 and less than 240,000 Btu/h), and very large (cooling capacity
greater than or equal to 240,000 and less than 760,000 Btu/h) ECUACs
and WCUACs do not need to be amended, and DOE requests comment on this
proposed determination and the associated analyses and results.
DATES:
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Thursday, October 1, 2020, from
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for
webinar registration information, participant instructions,
[[Page 57150]]
and information about the capabilities available to webinar
participants.
Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will
be accepted on or before November 30, 2020.
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 EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032
and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AE07, 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 telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the
rulemaking process, see section V 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.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
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 V, ``Public Participation,'' 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) 586-6636 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
A. General Comments
B. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
C. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
1. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs and WCUACs
2. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs With Cooling Capacity
Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
3. Burden of IEER Testing
4. Maintaining the EER Metric
D. Proposed Determination
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
M. Information Quality
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Submission of Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) This equipment includes ECUACs and
WCUACs, the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
\2\ 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 (Oct. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to EPCA's requirement 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 notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes new
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed ECUACs and WCUACs
subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 431.97. Based on the analysis
and comments received, DOE proposes that the standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs do not need to be amended, because there is not clear and
convincing evidence that amended standards would result in significant
additional conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed determination, as well as the historical
background relevant to the establishment of standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs.
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, among other things,
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C
of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes the
ECUACs and WCUACs that are the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(B)-(D))
[[Page 57151]]
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy conservation 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,'' 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)) Within certain exceptions,\3\ DOE must adopt amended
energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a determination that the adoption of a more
stringent efficiency level as a uniform national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE cannot adopt an ASHRAE standard that (1) increases
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 14, 2020, DOE published an update to appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430, ``Procedures for Use in New or Revised
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products
and Commercial/Industrial Equipment'' (``Process Rule''). 85 FR 8626.
The updated Process Rule \4\ codifies in regulation the ``clear and
convincing'' threshold that EPCA requires DOE meet when establishing
standards more-stringent than those specified by ASHRAE 90.1. 85 FR
8626, 8704-8708; Section 9(a)(1) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR
part 430. DOE will establish more stringent standards only if it can
meet the very high bar to demonstrate the ``clear and convincing
evidence'' threshold, which only exists where the specific facts and
data made available to DOE demonstrate that there is no substantial
doubt that a standard more stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted because it would result in a
significant additional amount of energy savings, is technologically
feasible and economically justified. Id.; Section 9(b) of appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As updated, the Process Rule explicitly applies to the
evaluation of ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). 85 FR
8626, 8704-8708; Sections 2 and 9 of appendix A to subpart C of 10
CFR part 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE also established a significance threshold for energy savings in
the updated Process Rule. Specifically, DOE established a two-step
approach that considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold
value (over a 30-year period) of 0.3 quadrillion Btu (``quads'') and a
percentage threshold value of a 10 percent reduction in the covered
product or equipment's energy use. Id.; Section 6(a) of appendix A to
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE first evaluates the projected energy
savings from a potential maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') standard against the 0.3 quads of site energy threshold. Id.;
Section 6(b)(2) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the
0.3 quad-threshold is not met or exceeded, DOE then compares the max-
tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered equipment to
calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. Id.; Section 6(b)(3)
of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If this comparison does
not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a
30-year period, DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would
likely result from setting new or amended standards. Id.; Section
6(b)(4) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If either one of
these thresholds is reached, DOE will conduct analyses to ascertain
whether a standard can be prescribed that produces the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible
and economically justified and still constitutes significant energy
savings at the level determined to be economically justified. Id.;
Section 6(b)(5) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. The two-
step approach allows DOE to ascertain whether a potential standard
considered satisfies EPCA's significant energy savings requirements in
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) to ensure that DOE avoids setting a standard
that ``will not result in significant conservation of energy.'' 85 FR
8626, 8655.
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))(I)-(VII))
If DOE decides to adopt as a uniform national standard the
efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
must establish such
[[Page 57152]]
standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended
industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a more
stringent uniform national standard would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and
economically justified, then DOE must establish the more stringent
standard not later than 30 months after publication of the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i))
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 three 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); 85 FR 8626, 8704-8708; Section 9(c) of appendix A
to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430)
DOE is publishing this NOPD pursuant to the six-year review
required by EPCA, having initially determined that amended standards
for ECUACs and WCUACs would not result in significant additional
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be
economically justified.
B. Rulemaking History
On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with
respect to small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010). With
regard to ECUACs and WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 updated efficiency levels
for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large ECUACs
and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test
procedures for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 did not amend the
efficiency levels for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and ECUACs, but did amend the test procedure for
this equipment.
In a final rule published May 16, 2012, DOE amended the standards
for ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting the energy efficiency ratio (``EER'')
levels for this equipment established in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 77 FR 28928
(``May 2012 final rule''). For certain small (i.e., cooling capacity
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h),
large, and very large WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy
savings potential of standards at the max-tech \5\ efficiency levels
over those efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (i.e., energy savings
estimates for max-tech levels do not include the energy savings from
increasing the Federal standard at the time to the level found in
ASHRAE 90.1-2010). 76 FR 25622, 25644-25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on an
analysis of two different shipment scenarios (shipments based on
historical trends and constant shipments fixed to 2009 shipment
levels), DOE estimated that efficiency standards at the max-tech level
would result in additional energy savings of between 0.0061 to 0.0102
quads primary energy savings for the six classes of small, large, and
very large WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 25644-25645), representing
approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent of estimated WCUAC energy use
during the analysis period. DOE estimated that efficiency standards at
the max-tech level would result in additional energy savings of between
0.0013 to 0.0021 quads primary energy for the two classes of very large
ECUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 25646), representing approximately 3.7
percent to 3.9 percent of estimated ECUAC energy use during the
analysis period. DOE did not examine certain small WCUACs and ECUACs
(i.e., equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because the
levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for such equipment were not amended. 76 FR
25622, 25631. Additionally, DOE did not assess potential energy savings
for ECUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
but less than 240,000 Btu/h because it did not find any equipment in
this capacity range on the U.S. market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The max-tech level represented the highest efficiency level
of equipment available on the market at the time of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on its analysis and the review of the market, DOE determined
that it did not have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant
additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more
stringent standard levels than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for ECUACs and
WCUACs. 77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not conduct an economic analysis of
standards more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 levels for ECUACs
and WCUACs because of the conclusion that more stringent standards
would result in minimal energy savings. Id.
Since ASHRAE 90.1-2010 was published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone
three revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2013;
on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2016; and on October
24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019. In none of these
publications did ASHRAE amend minimum EER levels for small, large, and
very large WCUACs or ECUACs; therefore, 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 Federal standards for ECUACs
and WCUACs are those set forth in the May 2012 final rule and codified
in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and their compliance dates
are provided in Table II.1 of this NOPD.
Table II.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 57153]]
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-Cooled >=240,000 and No Heating or 11.9 June 1, 2014.
<760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.7 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2019, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
to collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE's energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (``July 2019
ECS RFI''). In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE solicited information to help
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.
84 FR 36480, 36483. DOE specifically sought information and data on
whether the market size and shipment data used in the May 2012 final
rule reflect the current market size and shipments of WCUACs and
ECUACs; the range of efficiency levels currently on the market for each
equipment class of ECUACs and WCUACs; the integrated energy efficiency
ratio (``IEER'') metric and weighting factors and its applicability to
the average use cycles of ECUACs and WCUACs; the share of ECUAC and
WCUAC models on the market that are currently rated for both EER and
IEER; and any information regarding the regulatory burden amended
standards might impose on manufacturers. 84 FR 36480.
DOE received several comments from interested parties in response
to the publication of the July 2019 ECS RFI. Table II.2 lists the
commenters, their abbreviated names used throughout this NOPD, and
organization type. Discussion of the relevant comments provided by
these organizations and DOE's responses are provided in the appropriate
sections of this document.
Table II.2--Interested Parties That Provided Comment on the July 2019
ECS RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Abbreviation Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane............................ Trane............. Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI.............. Industry
Refrigeration Institute. Representative.
California Investor Owned CA IOUs........... Utilities.
Utilities (Pacific Gas and
Electric Company, San Diego Gas
and Electric, and California
Edison).
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP and NRDC..... Efficiency/
Project; Natural Resources Environmental
Defense Council. Advocates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Rationale
DOE developed this proposed determination after considering
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent
a variety of interests. This notice addresses issues raised by these
commenters.
A. General Comments
CA IOUs expressed general support for analyzing updated energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4)
ASAP and NRDC commented that DOE should analyze the potential for
energy savings from amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, and in
particular for ``large'' and ``very large'' WCUACs. (ASAP and NRDC, No.
7 at p. 1) CA IOUs recommended that DOE complete the test procedure
rulemaking prior to initiating any energy conservation standards
rulemaking to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to understand the
test procedure on which equipment is being rated before analyzing more
stringent energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3) As
stated and explained further in the subsequent sections, DOE is not
proposing more stringent standards for WCUACs or ECUACs. CA IOUs also
suggested consolidating any energy conservation standards rulemaking
for ECUACs and WCUACs with that of water-source heat pumps (``WSHPs'').
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4) CA IOUs stated given the technical
similarities among ECUACs, WCUACs, and WSHPs, and the limited shipments
of this equipment, DOE should consolidate the rulemakings for all three
equipment categories as a means to reduce regulatory burden for
industry and DOE. Id. While these equipment categories may share some
technical similarities, WSHPs are subject to different test procedures
and standards than those of ECUACs and WCUACs. Furthermore, the WSHP
market is about 100 times larger than the ECUAC and WCUAC market
combined, with about 200,000 shipments annually. (Docket EERE-
[[Page 57154]]
2014-BT-STD-0015-0043 at p. 133) For these reasons, DOE has not
consolidated the evaluation of ECUAC and WCUAC energy conservation
standards with that of WSHPs.
Trane commented generally about the cumulative regulatory burden
that manufacturers face, stressing that increased Federal efficiency
standards for air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners
(``ACUACs'') and commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs'') as well as
alternative refrigerant requirements would make testing and product
development for ECUACs and WCUACs particularly burdensome. (Trane, No.
4 at p. 3) Again, as discussed in the following sections, DOE is not
proposing to amend standards for ECUACs or WCUACs.
B. Market Analysis
For this proposed determination, DOE conducted a review of the
current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, including equipment literature,
the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance (``AHRI
Directory''),\6\ and the DOE Compliance Certification Management System
(``CCMS'') database.\7\ DOE also considered market data and stakeholder
comments received in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, the analysis
performed in the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs,
and the energy savings potential for amended standards determined in
the May 2012 final rule. The following sub-sections discuss DOE's
analysis of the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, relevant analyses
and results from the May 2012 final rule, including shipments
estimates, and comments received in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The AHRI Directory for unitary large equipment can be found
at https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome. AHRI's
certification program does not currently include ECUACs of any
cooling capacities or WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than
250,000 Btu/h.
\7\ Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the July 2019 ECS
RFI was accessed on April 1, 2019. Updated data for this document
was accessed on December 16, 2019. This database can be found at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shipments Estimates
As part of the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs,
AHRI provided historical shipments data from 1989 to 2009 for WCUACs by
cooling capacity range. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0005 at pp.
54-55) This previously submitted historical data showed strongly
decreasing shipments for certain small (i.e., 65,000 to 134,900 Btu/h
cooling capacity), large (i.e., 135,000 to 249,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity), and very large (i.e., 250,000 Btu/h and over cooling
capacity) WCUACs from 1989 to 2009. DOE developed shipments projections
for the two smaller equipment classes using an exponential curve fit to
the available historical data. 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. 76 FR 25622, 25642. 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 the historical
shipments data to analyze two shipment scenarios: (1) Based on
historical trends of declining shipments described earlier in this
paragraph, 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 25622, 25641-25642.
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. 76 FR 25622, 25639. DOE
identified multiple models of very large ECUACs, but 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). 76
FR 25622, 25642.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE presented the shipment estimates
relied on in the May 2012 final rule, noting that average shipments of
ECUACs 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 noted that such equipment is only a small fraction
of shipments of the commercial unitary air conditioner (``CUAC'')
market. 84 FR 36480, 36484. In development of the present evaluation,
DOE searched for, but was unable to identify, publicly available
sources of shipments of ECUACs and WCUACs. In the July 2019 ECS RFI,
DOE presented a model count of the available models certified in the
CCMS database and preliminarily finding that 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 present-day market for ACUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36484-
36485.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the
shipments estimates for WCUACs and ECUACs analyzed in the May 2012
final rule are representative of the current market. DOE also requested
data on historical and recent shipments for each of the equipment
classes of WCUACs and ECUACs, including for units with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE requested 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,
and specifically, information on market forces that are expected to
influence future WCUAC and ECUAC shipment trends, and whether there is
any information to suggest a growing or declining ECUAC market. 84 FR
36480, 36484-36485.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, Trane agreed with DOE's
assessment that the WCUAC and ECUAC market is a fraction of all CUAC
shipments, and that the historical data from the last rulemaking is
generally representative of the WCUAC market. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 1)
Trane stated that it may be prudent to add more recent shipping history
to the analysis to determine if it changes any assumptions as this
market is tied specifically to multi-floor office building
construction. Id. AHRI also stated most WCUAC products are linked to
multi-floor office buildings. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI further stated
that DOE's WCUAC shipment estimates from the May 2012 final rule do not
reflect the current market trend. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) Trane and AHRI
commented that estimates developed for the May 2012 final rule were
based on shipment analysis data through 2009, which was at a point of a
very large downturn in the market due to the great recession. (Trane,
No. 4 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI stated that for this reason,
and the fact that shipments are linked to investment in the commercial
building sector, DOE's 30-year shipment prediction models are not based
on representative data and do not reflect reasonable assumptions.
(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) Trane commented that the market has since
rebounded and grown to more typical historical levels. (Trane, No. 4 at
p. 1) Trane and CA IOUs recommended adding more recent WCUAC shipments
history to the analysis, with the CA IOUs stating that the data did not
break out shipments by cooling type or geographic locations of where
shipments are sold. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
Trane
[[Page 57155]]
recommended the shipments analysis should reflect the relationship to
multi-floor office building construction. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 1) AHRI
provided recent data on the current WCUAC market size and trend. (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 5)
Trane stated that the ECUAC market is declining as other
manufacturers have exited this market. Trane also stated both the ECUAC
and WCUAC markets are small and that it is questionable whether
additional analysis would significantly affect conclusions about the
market size. (Trane, No. 4 at pp. 1-2) Trane suggested that because of
the small market size for this equipment and the significant burden
associated with compliance with recent regulations for similar
equipment (i.e., ACUACs and CWAFs), if the energy conservation
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs were to exceed the requirements in
ASHRAE 90.1, manufacturers would consider exiting the market. (Trane,
No. 4 at p. 3)
DOE acknowledges the market downturn that occurred in the years at
the end of the range of historical shipments used in the May 2012 final
rule. DOE incorporated the additional shipments data from AHRI to
develop revised shipment projections using the same model specification
as used for the May 2012 final rule. Table III.1 presents the
historical shipments for WCUACs from the May 2012 final rule (1984-
2009) along with historical shipments in the following years as
provided by AHRI (2010-2018). As shown in Table III.1 for the small and
large WCUACs, shipments starting in 2009 are lower than in prior years.
The very large WCUAC shipments fell in the years immediately following
2008, and while the shipments have rebounded, they did not rebound to
the highest shipment levels seen previously.
Table III.1--Historical Shipments Data for WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small AC water- Large AC water- Very large AC
Year * Small AC water-cooled cooled (65 to cooled (135 to water-cooled
(<64.9 kBtu/h) 134.9 kBtu/h) 249 kBtu/h) (>=250 kBtu/h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989.................................. ........................ 1,437 793 1,622
1990.................................. ........................ 1,503 779 1,211
1991.................................. ........................ 1,107 621 908
1992.................................. ........................ 1,068 537 720
1993.................................. ........................ 985 520 668
1994.................................. ........................ 922 504 815
1995.................................. ........................ 1,121 493 805
1996.................................. ........................ 1,217 652 1,020
1997.................................. ........................ 989 522 1,216
1998.................................. ........................ 795 623 1,886
1999.................................. ........................ 874 477 898
2000.................................. ........................ 1,478 1,621 1,170
2001.................................. ........................ 606 409 762
2002.................................. ........................ 502 355 1,227
2003.................................. ........................ 390 287 740
2004.................................. ........................ 447 291 711
2005.................................. ........................ 177 188 861
2006.................................. ........................ 316 278 1,231
2007.................................. ........................ 359 317 1,231
2008.................................. ........................ 282 311 1,390
2009.................................. 91...................... 152 182 585
2010.................................. 119..................... 139 186 531
2011.................................. 84...................... 209 180 609
2012.................................. 95...................... 230 137 624
2013.................................. 59...................... 198 164 751
2014.................................. 54...................... 216 114 829
2015.................................. 52...................... 137 147 770
2016.................................. 44...................... 105 154 946
2017.................................. 45...................... 62 128 985
2018.................................. 39...................... 106 108 844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data for 1989-2009 from the May 2012 Final Rule. This data does not include WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h because this class was not included in that rulemaking. Data for 2009-2018 provided by AHRI
in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.
Similar to the approach in the May 2012 final rule, for this
analysis DOE developed two shipment projections; one based on
historical trends and one that held shipments constant at the 2018
shipment level (referred to as ``2019 trend'' and ``2019 constant'',
respectively). The 2019 trend and 2019 constant projections are
compared to projections from the May 2012 final rule that were based on
the historical trends and fixed at the level of the 2009 shipments
(referred to as ``2012 trend'' and ``2012 constant'', respectively).
This comparison is shown in Table III.2 of this document.
DOE was unable to identify shipments data for the ECUAC equipment
classes and none were provided by the stakeholders. As was the approach
used in the May 2012 final rule for the present analysis, shipment
projections were developed by scaling the WCUAC shipment projections
using a ratio of unique model counts for each equipment class (see
section III.B.3 of this document). For the small (cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC class of products, the shipment projection was
further adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to better reflect the approximate
size of the market in the mid-2000s.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Emerging Technologies
Program, Application Assessment Report # 0605. Evaluation of the
Freus Residential Evaporative Condenser System in PG&E Service
Territory. https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf accessed December 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI commented that WCUACs are typically sold as part of a large
project
[[Page 57156]]
(i.e., a multi-tenant, multi-story office building). (AHRI, No. 5 at p.
4) To account for shipments being a function of large office
construction, DOE also developed a third projection for the very large
WCUAC equipment class, using a regression analysis with historical data
and projections of large office existing floor space and large office
additions as the variables (referred to as ``2019 regression'' in Table
III.2 of this document).
Table III.2--Comparison of Shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs by Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2012 constant (=2009)........................ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2019 trend................................... 39 33 18 10 6 3 2
2019 constant (=2018)........................ 39 39 39 39 39 39 39
Small WCUAC, >=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend................................... 93 76 46 28 17 10 6
2012 constant (=2009)........................ 152 152 152 152 152 152 152
2019 trend................................... 106 87 52 32 19 11 7
2019 constant (=2018)........................ 106 106 106 106 106 106 106
Large WCUAC, >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend................................... 132 117 87 64 47 35 26
2012 constant (=2009)........................ 182 182 182 182 182 182 182
2019 trend................................... 108 110 78 55 39 28 20
2019 constant (=2018)........................ 108 108 108 108 108 108 108
Very Large WCUAC, >=240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend................................... 953 944 923 903 882 861 840
2012 constant (=2009)........................ 585 585 585 585 585 585 585
2019 trend................................... 844 777 721 664 608 551 495
2019 constant (=2018)........................ 844 844 844 844 844 844 844
2019 regression.............................. 844 1,000 929 927 865 844 828
Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend................................... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2012 constant (=2009)........................ ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... ....... .......
2019 trend................................... 156 132 72 40 24 12 8
2019 constant (=2018)........................ 156 156 156 156 156 156 156
Very Large ECUAC, >=240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h:
2012 trend................................... 245 243 238 232 227 221 216
2012 constant (=2009)........................ 150 150 150 150 150 150 150
2019 trend................................... 14 13 12 11 10 9 9
2019 constant (=2018)........................ 14 14 14 14 14 14 14
2019 regression.............................. 14 17 16 16 14 14 14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did not analyze small ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. For the July 2019
ECS RFI, DOE identified a single manufacturer of ECUACs in this
capacity range, and the models offered are single-phase equipment and
appear to be predominantly marketed for residential applications in
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.
84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE identified only two distinct product lines of
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and DOE's
examination of manufacturer literature for these WCUACs suggested that
these models do not comprise a significant share of the market for air
conditioners in residential or commercial applications. Id.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, AHRI provided shipment data
for WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 5
at p. 5) Based on the shipments data, DOE's analysis points to
declining future shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h.
The projected trends from the May 2012 final rule and those based
on the updated data both generally show declines in shipments for small
(>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very large WCUACs, and very
large ECUACs. The shipment levels under the 2019 constant projections
are lower than the 2012 constant projections for small (>=65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h) and large WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The 2019
constant projections for very large WCUACs are higher than the 2012
constant projections (but lower than the 2012 trend projections). The
2019 regression projections for very large WCUACs and ECUACs show a
more stable level of shipments over the analysis period than the 2019
trend models, but are lower than the 2012 trend projection.
As DOE did not analyze ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h for the May 2012 final rule, no comparisons to the
current projections are possible. The current trended shipments
projections for the small (cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h)
equipment classes reach 10 or fewer shipments by 2045.
2. Model Counts
For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the current
market for WCUACs and ECUACs, based on models included in the DOE CCMS
database.\7\ 84 FR 36480, 36484. DOE also compared the number of ECUAC
and WCUAC models to the number of ACUAC models listed in DOE's CCMS
database.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on the size of the
current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, as compared to the market for
ACUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36485. Trane commented that DOE's analysis clearly
shows that the market for ECUACs and WCUACs is much smaller than the
market for ACUACs. Trane further stated that ECUACs and WCUACs differ
from ACUACs in that shipments of ECUACs and WCUACs are somewhat
regionalized in the United States due to
[[Page 57157]]
their more niche applications. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
Table III.3 shows the number of models listed within the DOE CCMS
database that DOE identified for each class of ACUACs, ECUACs, and
WCUACs.\7\
Table III.3--Model Counts for ECUACs, WCUACs, and ACUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of models
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) -----------------------------------------------
ECUAC WCUAC ACUAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000......................................................... 11 9 * 2,748
>=65,000 and <135,000........................................... 0 47 2,274
>=135,000 and <240,000.......................................... 0 34 2,194
>=240,000 and <760,000.......................................... 15 363 4,817
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This <65,000 Btu/h air-cooled model count includes only basic models of three-phase air-cooled commercial air
conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
As shown in Table III.3, the number of ECUAC and WCUAC models
currently on the market is substantially less than the number of ACUAC
models on the market for all capacity ranges. This is consistent with
the relationship between model counts identified in the May 2012 final
rule, further suggesting that the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs
is much smaller than the market for ACUACs.
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market. DOE requested comment on the
range of efficiency levels for each equipment class of ECUACs and
WCUACs currently on the market and on whether efficiency levels above
the current baseline standard are achievable for equipment across all
cooling capacity ranges. 84 FR 36480, 36485.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, ASAP and NRDC encouraged DOE
to analyze energy savings potential from amended standards for both
ECUACs and WCUACs, particularly those of large and very large WCUACs.
They stated that the efficiency distribution for WCUACs presented in
the July 2019 ECS RFI illustrates that the average and maximum EERs of
WCUACs on the market are significantly higher than the current
standard. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at pp. 1-2) They stated that this shows
there is a wide availability of models that exceed the standard across
all covered capacity ranges. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 1)
AHRI recommended that DOE not change the baseline standard for
WCUACs. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI also commented that a significant
part of WCUAC shipments are moving towards replacement installations in
renovated buildings, specifically in mechanical rooms of office
buildings, which constrains the size and thus the potential for
increased EER performance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI also stated the
potential improvements in EER ratings are limited for WCUACs based on
existing technology. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) Trane also stated that
WCUACs are typically only available from a manufacturer in one
efficiency tier, and are therefore not offered as part of ``standard''
or ``high efficiency'' model lines. Trane also commented that the WCUAC
EER data from the CCMS Database presented in the July 2019 ECS RFI is
representative of what is currently available today in the market.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) With respect to ECUACs, Trane stated that the
market is primarily for replacement purposes and that because of this,
ECUACs face size constraints similar to WCUACs despite being installed
outdoors, which limits the potential for increased EER levels. (Trane,
No. 4 at p. 2)
In response to comments, DOE updated the estimated energy savings
and percent of no-new-standards energy consumption for 30 years of
shipments (2020-2049) using the 2012 final rule model and input
assumptions, but updated the shipment projections to reflect more
recent information outlined in sections above. DOE also updated
efficiency distributions to reflect the current market and Table III.4
presents the summary of statistics by equipment category and capacity
range of equipment for unique models \9\ from DOE's CCMS Database.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ The count of unique models excludes basic models that appear
to be duplicates--i.e., basic models sharing the same manufacturer
and certified cooling capacity and EER ratings. For basic models
that had multiple individual models certified with different
capacities and different EER ratings, the individual models were
considered to be unique models.
Table III.4--Current Market Efficiency Distributions for WCUACs and ECUACs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average EER Current
Number of cooling ------------------------------------------------ Federal EER
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) unique models capacity (Btu/ standard level
h) Minimum Average Maximum *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................................. 1 58,000 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000................................... 23 99,478 12.1 12.8 15.3 12.1
>=135,000 and <240,000.................................. 15 175,600 13.5 14.6 16.3 12.5
>=240,000 and <760,000.................................. 234 493,556 12.5 13.8 16.1 12.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................................. 8 37,950 13.2 15 16.0 12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000................................... 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000.................................. 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
[[Page 57158]]
>=240,000 and <760,000.................................. 4 442,750 11.8 12.7 13.4 11.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all capacity ranges except very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, the Federal EER standard listed is for ``no heat or electric heat''
class. For the very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioner class, the Federal EER standard listed is the ``all other types of heating'' class.
Savings were estimated based on the forecasted shipments labeled
2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression. For the savings
estimates labeled 2019 regression, as noted in Section III.B.1 of this
NOPD, a regression projection was only developed for the very large
equipment class.
As mentioned in section II.B of this NOPD, the cumulative site
energy savings are calculated using the max-tech level, which is the
highest value of efficiency in DOE's CCMS Database within each capacity
range of ECUACs and WCUACs (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h, 65,000-135,000 Btu/h,
135,000-240,000 Btu/h, and 240,000-760,000 Btu/h). However, for very
large WCUACs, consideration of the highest efficiency value in DOE's
CCMS database may not be appropriate for evaluating potential
amendments to the energy conservation standards.
The very large WCUAC equipment class represents a wide range of
cooling capacities (>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h). For the very large
WCUAC class, there is only one individual model rated at the highest
level of 16.1 EER, and that individual model is part of a larger model
line with many other offerings, all of which have EER ratings
significantly lower than 16.1. As explained in the following
discussion, DOE's examination of this model line indicates that the
individual model in question is an outlier among: (1) Models in the
product line rated within the same basic model (and at approximately
the same capacity as) the individual model in question; as well as (2)
models in the product line rated at capacities across the capacity
range of the very large equipment class. This individual model rated at
16.1 EER is within a basic model for which all other individual models
(with similar technology options and approximately the same cooling
capacity as the model rated at 16.1 EER) have an EER rating of 15 or
lower. Within this product line, the model numbers certified in DOE's
CCMS Database indicate that among individual models rated as part of
the same basic model, the differences in these models' rated
efficiencies depend on fan diameter and number of fan blades. This
unique model (rated at 16.1 EER) shows a relationship between
technology options and rated efficiency that appears inconsistent with
all other models of the product line. Specifically, there are two
options for number of fan blades, and all other individual models in
the basic model except for the model rated at 16.1 EER show that for
the same fan diameter, the model with the higher number of fan blades
has a lower EER rating. It is unclear why a higher number of fan blades
results in a higher EER rating for only this specific individual model.
Moreover, there are basic models within this product line rated at
a wide range of capacities across the very large WCUAC class that have
the same combination of technology options that distinguish the
individual model rated at 16.1 EER. However, the EER ratings for all of
these models are significantly lower than 16.1, between 13.5-14.5. It
is not clear why this combination of technology options results in a
higher efficiency at only one rated capacity; and this discrepancy
suggests that a 16.1 EER level may not be achievable with these
technology options at other capacities within the very large WCUAC
equipment class. Therefore, DOE considered the model rated at 16.1 to
be an outlier. As such, DOE calculated the energy savings from
potential amended standards for very large WCUACs using the next
highest level that was achievable across the range of capacities (i.e.,
an EER of 15).
The estimated energy savings, which vary by shipment scenario and
equipment class, are presented in Table III.5 of this NOPD. Selecting
the minimum and maximum estimated savings level for each equipment
class resulted in a range of total estimated site energy savings for
the WCUAC classes of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of estimated
site energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy
use), and for the ECUAC classes of 0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of
estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated
site energy use) during the analysis period. For all equipment classes,
the resulting estimated savings ranged between 0.0031 quads (8.5
percent of estimated site energy consumption) and 0.0047 quads (8.5
percent of estimated site energy consumption) during the analysis
period.
Table III.5--Estimated National Site Energy Savings and Percent Energy Reductions for WCUACs and ECUACs at the
Max-Tech Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cumulative site national energy savings Reduction in
(quads) * national site
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) ------------------------------------------------ energy
consumption
Trend Constant Regression (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................................ 0.00000 0.00000 .............. 0.0
>=65,000 and <135,000.......................... 0.00005 0.00019 .............. 13.3
>=135,000 and <240,000......................... 0.00011 0.00025 .............. 10.1
>=240,000 and <760,000......................... 0.00287 0.00395 0.00413 8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 57159]]
ECUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................................ 0.00001 0.00004 .............. 5.3
>=65,000 and <135,000.......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000......................... N/A N/A N/A N/A
>=240,000 and <760,000......................... 0.00005 0.00006 0.00007 6.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30-
year analysis period (2020-2049).
For the May 2012 final rule analysis, DOE did not incorporate
changing trends in shipments by efficiency over time in the no-new-
standards case, and the updated energy savings estimates presented in
Table III.5 of this NOPD also use a constant efficiency distribution of
shipments over time. DOE does not have data on efficiency trends for
WCUAC and ECUACs and seeks comment on efficiency trends specific to
this equipment.
C. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
The current energy efficiency descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 specifies both EER
and IEER minimum efficiency levels. The EER metric represents the
efficiency of the equipment operating at full load. The IEER metric
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. The IEER metric weights the full- and part-load efficiencies
based on 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) to reflect the
representative ambient conditions for part-load operation in the field.
ASHRAE 90.1 has included minimum efficiency levels for ECUACs and
WCUACs in terms of both EER and IEER since 2010. In the July 2019 ECS
RFI, DOE requested comment on the representativeness of IEER for WCUACs
and ECUACs, and more specifically that of ECUACs with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h, and the burden that IEER testing may impose on
manufacturers. 84 FR 36480, 36486-36487.
In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, Trane and AHRI generally
supported adopting the IEER metric for the Federal standards for
WCUACs. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2; AHRI No. 5 at p. 3) Trane also supported
adopting the IEER metric for Federal standards for ECUACs. Trane
further stated that WCUACs and ECUACs are space constrained, which
significantly limits the ability to develop products with any further
increase in full load efficiency, and that a part load metric therefore
provides many more opportunities to increase efficiency performance
without requiring physically larger units. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) ASAP
and NRDC stated that it would make sense to move to a part-load metric
for ECUACs and WCUACs to better represent field performance and reflect
the efficiency benefits of technologies that improve part-load
performance, and encouraged DOE to investigate appropriate test points
and weighting factors that could be used for a part-load metric for
ECUACs and WCUACs. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs recommended
that DOE maintain the current performance metric of EER. (CA IOUs, No.
6 at p. 1) CA IOUs expressed general support for including part-load
conditions in an integrated metric, but strongly recommended that DOE
not adopt IEER as it is currently specified in the industry standards.
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
As discussed in the following subsections, DOE is not proposing to
change the metric for the ECUAC and WCUAC energy conservation
standards.
1. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs and WCUACs
As previously mentioned, IEER includes lower condenser temperatures
for part-load tests. Table III.6 shows the IEER test conditions for
ECUACs and WCUACs specified in AHRI Standard 340/360-2019,
``Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ AHRI 340/360-2019 is the industry test procedure referenced
in ASHRAE 90.1-2019 for testing CUACs with cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h.
Table III.6--IEER Test Conditions for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners From AHRI 340/360-
2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-cooled Evaporatively-cooled
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Percent load Entering water Entering air dry- Entering air wet- Makeup water
temperature bulb temperature bulb 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
[[Page 57160]]
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 III.6 for condenser temperature for all four test
points):
A = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 100 percent capacity at standard rating
conditions
B = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 75 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature
C = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 50 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature
D = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 25 percent 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.
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the
weighting factors and IEER metric are an appropriate representation of
average use cycles for ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36486. DOE also
sought comment on the extent to which ECUACs and/or WCUACs are
installed in hot and dry climates as compared to other climates as well
as the types of building that represent the primary markets for all
equipment classes of ECUACs and WCUACs. Id.
Trane stated that IEER is more representative of the applied energy
efficiency performance of WCUACs and ECUACs than EER, which is only
representative of full load operation, and that the current IEER test
conditions and weightings in the industry standards are representative
of typical applications and average use cycles for WCUACs and ECUACs.
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) AHRI supported adopting IEER for WCUACs as
defined by AHRI Standard 340/360 and AHRI Standard 210/240,
``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment''.\11\ (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ AHRI 210/240 is an industry test procedure for testing
CUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane stated that WCUACs are installed primarily in 6- to 10-story
office buildings in large metropolitan areas with varying climates in
the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and South. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
AHRI stated that WCUACs are mostly installed in office buildings, and
that IEER was developed, in part, based on operation in such building
types, and as such IEER is a representative metric for WCUACs. (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI commented that the small market size prohibits a
full study of WCUAC-specific IEER weighting factors. (AHRI, No. 5 at p.
3)
ASAP and NRDC encouraged DOE to investigate appropriate test
conditions and weighting factors for IEER for both ECUACs and WCUACs
based on the wide range of EER performance for WCUACs (see section
III.B.3). (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs suggested aligning the
temperature test points of WCUACs with that of water-cooled variable
refrigerant flow equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
CA IOUs recommended that DOE determine the geographic concentration
of ECUAC sales to ensure the temperature test conditions and weightings
are reflective of their installation locations; CA IOUs provided data
on the reference climates for California's 16 climate zones with some
of the hottest, driest regions in the country where ECUACs may be
installed, emphasizing that the average U.S. climate is not where
ECUACs are installed and so the IEER metric based on the average U.S.
climate has limited utility. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 2) Trane stated that
the IEER weighting factors and test conditions were representative for
ECUACs and also stated that ECUACs are installed more frequently in low
humidity regions like the West. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
For ECUACs, the weighting factors for IEER may not be
representative of typical applications. As suggested by commenters,
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 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 for ECUACs reflects performance at
outdoor air temperatures cooler than what would be typically
experienced in hot and dry climates.
Regarding WCUACs, the IEER weighting factors were developed based
on an analysis of ACUACs. AHRI's comment indicates that an analysis of
IEER weighting factors specific to WCUACs has not been conducted. As
such, it is uncertain whether the IEER weighting factors appropriately
reflect the average use of WCUACs, and therefore, whether the IEER
metric is representative of typical applications for WCUACs.
2. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs 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 would be representative of average use cycles
for ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
Several issues relating to the representativeness of average use
cycles for ECUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h and the IEER metric are
apparent. One issue is the condenser conditions and weighting factors
used for determining IEER. Over one-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
[[Page 57161]]
have substantial cooling loads at these temperatures, residential
cooling loads at these temperatures are likely significantly lower.
This is due in part to the lower density of people and electronics
(both of which generate heat) typically seen in residential buildings
as compared to commercial buildings. Also, commercial buildings tend to
be larger and thus have lower surface area to volume ratios than low-
rise residential buildings, which results in less heat loss through the
building envelope per volume of conditioned air in commercial buildings
(all other things being equal). Therefore, for residential
applications, IEER may overweight cooling at lower outdoor ambient
temperatures and underweight cooling at higher ambient temperatures.
Another issue relating to the representativeness of average use
cycles for ECUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h and the IEER metric is that
the IEER equation for adjusting for cyclic degradation \12\ (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
because most residential air conditioning systems are not installed to
provide ventilation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested 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 sought
feedback on whether the outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures
and IEER weighting factors from AHRI 340/360-2019 are representative
for this equipment class. DOE also sought comment on whether this
equipment class of ECUACs is typically installed residentially or
commercially and whether the indoor fan runs continuously in the field.
84 FR 36480, 36487. DOE received no comments regarding this issue.
3. Burden of IEER Testing
IEER requires at least four tests whereas EER requires a single
test. In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on the share of
ECUAC and WCUAC models that rate with both EER and IEER. For those
models that are not already rated for IEER, DOE requested comment on
the extent to which IEER would impose testing and certification burden
on manufacturers. 84 FR 36480, 36487.
AHRI indicated that all its members that manufacture WCUACs already
rate most products with both EER and IEER because IEER is required for
ASHRAE 90.1 compliance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) Trane stated that
although it rates all its WCUAC and ECUAC equipment with EER and IEER,
it would need to do some design work and testing in order to comply
with a newly-instated Federal IEER standard. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
Trane stated that this burden might be reduced by adopting the test
conditions and definition for IEER in ASHRAE 90.1. Id.
AHRI urged DOE to delay implementation of a new WCUAC metric until
after 2023 to reduce the cumulative regulatory burden for manufacturers
that make several types of air-conditioning equipment covered by DOE.
(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI requested clarification on the estimated
implementation timeline if IEER were to be adopted for WCUACs, and on
whether the timeline would be similar to the timeline and compliance
date for the May 2012 final rule. (Id., at p. 4)
Of the models listed in the CCMS database,\7\ 62 out of 115 WCUAC
basic models did not have any online product literature demonstrating
that they are rated with IEER. For ECUACs, 8 out of 12 basic models
listed in the CCMS database \7\ also did not have any online product
literature with IEER ratings. This suggests that many WCUAC and ECUAC
models would need to be retested in order to comply with Federal IEER
standards.
4. Maintaining the EER Metric
DOE is not proposing to adopt standards in terms of IEER for WCUACs
and ECUACs. As discussed, it is unclear whether the IEER weighting
factors are representative of typical installations of WCUACs. It is
even less clear whether the weighting factors and test conditions of
IEER as currently calculated under the industry standard are
appropriately representative of the average use of ECUACs, including
ECUACs with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. In addition, a
survey of the market indicates that a number of basic models of WCUACs
and ECUACs do not currently rate to IEER. Complying with Federal
standards in terms of IEER for WCUACs and ECUACs would require
additional testing and certification, and given the small market, may
be unduly burdensome.
D. Proposed Determination
DOE proposes that the energy conservation standards for WCUACs and
ECUACs do not need to be amended, having initially determined that it
lacks ``clear and convincing'' evidence that amended standards would
result in significant additional conservation of energy. EPCA specifies
that for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE may prescribe
an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ``clear and convincing
evidence'' shows that a more stringent standard would result in
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) As discussed, the ``clear and
convincing'' threshold is a very high bar. ASHRAE not acting to amend
the minimum efficiency levels in Standard 90.1, as in the present case
for the classes of WCUACs and ECUACs evaluated in this document, is
tantamount to a decision that the existing Federal standards, which
align with the minimum levels in Standard 90.1, remain in place and
requires clear and convincing evidence for DOE to determine otherwise.
85 FR 8626, 8704-8708; Section 9(c) of appendix A to subpart C of 10
CFR part 430.
In considering more stringent efficiency levels for WCUACs and
ECUACs than those specified by the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE
evaluated the significance of their potential energy savings as well as
the specific facts and data made available to DOE.
As stated in section II.A of this NOPD, the Process Rule
establishes a two-step process for determining the significance of
energy savings using an absolute and percentage threshold. Id.; Section
6 of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE first evaluates
whether standards at the max-tech level would result in a minimum site-
energy savings of 0.3 quads over a 30-year period. Id.; Section 6(b)(2)
of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the 0.3 quads
threshold is not met, DOE then evaluates whether energy savings at the
max-tech level represent at least 10 percent of the total energy usage
of the covered equipment over a 30-year period. Id.; Section 6(b)(3) of
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the percentage threshold
is not met by a showing of clear and convincing evidence, DOE proposes
to determine that no significant energy savings would
[[Page 57162]]
likely result from setting amended standards. Id.; Section 6(b)(4) of
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430.
An analysis of updated shipments data and a review of the CCMS
database and the AHRI Directory indicate that WCUACs and ECUACs
continue to be a minor portion of total commercial air-cooled shipments
with total combined shipments of less than 1,300 units in 2018. The
shipments of very large WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to investment in
commercial buildings, but the shipment projections also suggest that
shipments may be continuing to decline.
Using updated shipments and efficiency ratings from the CCMS
database, DOE estimated that amended standards at current max-tech
levels would result in additional site energy savings of between
0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use) and 0.00011
quads (6.0 percent of estimated site energy use) for the ECUAC classes
during the analysis period.\13\ Neither the estimated absolute savings
nor the estimated percentage savings meet the applicable significance
thresholds. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that no
significant energy savings would likely result from setting amended
standards for ECUACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ The range of site energy savings for ECUACs was determined
using the resulting minimum and maximum estimated energy savings by
shipment projection scenario at the equipment class level (presented
in Table III.5 of this NOPD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For WCUACs, DOE estimated the additional energy savings based on
the max-tech levels for small and large WCUACs, which were determined
by identifying the highest efficiency ratings in the DOE CCMS Database.
For very large WCUACs DOE initially determined that there is
substantial doubt as to the appropriateness of using the highest
efficiency reported in the DOE CCMS Database as the max-tech level. As
discussed, there is a substantial question of whether the combination
of technologies used to achieve the highest reported level for very
large WCUACs is practicable for basic models across the capacity range
of that equipment class. As such, DOE has initially determined that an
energy savings calculation that would rely on the highest reported
efficiency for very large WCUACs would not meet the ``clear and
convincing evidence'' threshold required by EPCA. Instead DOE analyzed
the next most efficient level reported in the DOE CCMS Database for
very large WCUACs, which did not raise similar concerns, as the max-
tech level for very large WCUACs.
Using this next highest efficiency level for very large WCUACs, DOE
calculated that amended standards would result in additional site
energy savings of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site
energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy use)
for all WCUAC classes during the analysis period.\14\ Neither the
estimated absolute savings nor the estimated percentage savings meet
the applicable significance thresholds. Therefore, DOE has tentatively
determined that no significant energy savings would likely result from
setting amended standards for WCUACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The range of site energy savings for WCUACs was determined
using the resulting minimum and maximum estimated energy savings by
shipment projection scenario at the equipment class level (presented
in Table III.5 of this NOPD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE requests comment and data on its tentative determinations
regarding the energy savings from amended standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This proposed determination is not a ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget.
B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.)
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O.
13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and
financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public
and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the
costs associated with the governmental imposition of private
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O.
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required
the head of each agency to designate an agency official as its
Regulatory Reform Officer (``RRO''). Each RRO oversees the
implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure
that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with
applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a
regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is
required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the
repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations,
consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform
task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
(1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
(2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
(3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
(4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
(5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
(6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially
modified.
DOE initially concludes that this determination is consistent with
the directives set forth in these executive orders.
As discussed in this document, DOE is proposing not to amend energy
conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs. Therefore, if finalized
as proposed, this determination is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other
action.
C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of
[[Page 57163]]
the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, if adopted, the determination would
not amend any energy conservation standards. On the basis of the
foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted,
would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this
proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Manufacturers of ECUACs and WCUACs must certify to DOE that their
equipment complies with any applicable energy conservation standards.
In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment
according to the DOE test procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs, including
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including
ECUACs and WCUACs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30,
2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response,
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and
reviewing the collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.
E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for actions that are interpretations or rulings
with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D,
Appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for categorical
exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regard to an
existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for
application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will
complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.
F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999),
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as
to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42
U.S.C. 5316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is
required by Executive Order 13132.
G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
With respect to the review of existing regulations and the
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988,
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3)
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a
general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction.
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2)
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3)
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined
that, to the extent permitted by law, this NOPD meets the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also
[[Page 57164]]
available at https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. This proposed determination contains neither an
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditure of
$100 million or more in one year by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.
J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed
determination would not result in any takings that might require
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review
most disseminations of information to the public under information
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446
(Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable
policies in those guidelines.
L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of
a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
Because this proposed determination does not propose amended energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, it is not a significant
energy action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.
M. Information Quality
On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan.
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer
review.\15\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects.
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review
Report.'' 2007. Available at https://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website:
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=3. Participants are responsible for ensuring
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.
B. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rulemaking no later than the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may
submit comments, data, and other information on using any of the
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this
document.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any
[[Page 57165]]
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/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, 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 not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies:
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
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) 586-6636 or via email at
[email protected].
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed determination.
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 21,
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-18800 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
