Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners, 37001-37013 [2021-14837]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
37001
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 86, No. 132
Wednesday, July 14, 2021
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
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: Final determination.
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 final
determination, DOE has determined that
more stringent 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 would not result in
significant additional conservation of
energy, and thus has determined that
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
do not need to be amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final
determination is July 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this
rulemaking, 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,
not all documents listed in the index
may be publicly available, such as
information that is exempt from public
disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at
https://www.regulations.gov/
docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032.
The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by
email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
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.
Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–3440. Email:
Linda.Field@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
A. General Comments
B. Energy Efficiency Metric
C. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
IV. Final Determination
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866
and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part C 1 of EPCA 2 established
the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C.
6311–6317, as codified). This
equipment includes ECUACs and
WCUACs, the subject of this final
determination.
DOE is issuing this final
determination pursuant to the EPCA
requirement that not later than 6 years
after issuance of any final rule
establishing or amending an energy
conservation standard for covered
equipment, DOE must publish either a
notice of determination that standards
for the equipment do not need to be
amended, or a notice of proposed
rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new
proposed energy conservation standards
(proceeding to a final rule, as
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6)(C)(i))
For this final determination, DOE
analyzed the ECUACs and WCUACs
subject to the standards found at title 10
of the Code of Federal Regulations
(‘‘CFR’’) part 431. See 10 CFR 431.97.
DOE first analyzed the potential for
energy savings of more efficient
ECUACs and WCUACs. Based on this
analysis, as summarized in section IV of
this document, DOE has determined
that 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)) Therefore, DOE has
determined that the current standards
1 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
2 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116–260
(Dec. 27, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37002
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need
to be amended.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
II. Introduction
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as
well as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
A. Authority
EPCA 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
includes the ECUACs and WCUACs that
are the subject of this final
determination. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–
(D))
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 EPCA.
(See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D) applying
the preemption waiver provisions of 42
U.S.C. 6297).
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,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
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, 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))
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
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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 to not 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, (2) be
technologically feasible and (3)
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).) A determination
that amended energy conservation
standards are not needed must be based
on the same considerations as if it were
adopting a standard that is more
stringent than an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B))
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
DOE is publishing this final
determination pursuant to the six-year
review required by EPCA, having
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. Background
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are
37003
located in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97.
These standards and their compliance
dates are presented in Table II.1 of this
document. The current efficiency metric
used for ECUACs and WCUACs is the
energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’).
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
Small Water-Cooled ...................
Small Water-Cooled ...................
<65,000 ......................................
≥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 .............
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 ........
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 ........
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
2. 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 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
max-tech 3 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
3 The max-tech level represented the highest
efficiency level of equipment available on the
market at the time of the analysis.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Minimum EER
Compliance date
12.1
12.1
October 29, 2003.
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.
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 in 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
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37004
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
publications did ASHRAE amend
minimum EER levels for small, large,
and very large WCUACs or ECUACs;
therefore, DOE was not prompted 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.
On July 29, 2019, DOE published a
request for information (‘‘RFI’’) to solicit
information and data from interested
parties to consider amendments to the
DOE energy conservation standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480
(‘‘July 2019 ECS RFI’’).
On September 15, 2020 DOE
published a notice of proposed
determination (‘‘NOPD’’) with the
tentative determination that energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs do not need to be amended
(‘‘September 2020 NOPD’’). 85 FR
57149. The comment period for this
notice closed on November 30, 2020. On
October 1, 2020, DOE held a public
webinar 4 to discuss the analysis and
results from the September 2020 NOPD.
DOE received several comments from
interested parties in response to the
publication of the September 2020
NOPD. Table II.2 lists the commenters,
their abbreviated names used
throughout this final determination, 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 WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 2020
NOPD
Name
Abbreviation
United CoolAir .......................................................................................................................................
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law ..............................................................................
California Investor Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and California Edison).
Trane Technologies ..............................................................................................................................
Daikin ....................................................................................................................................................
UCA ....................
IPI .......................
CA IOUs .............
Manufacturer.
Academic Institution.
Utilities.
Trane ..................
Daikin .................
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
A parenthetical reference at the end of
a comment, quotation or paraphrase
provides the location of the item in the
public record.5
III. Discussion and Rationale
DOE developed the conclusions in
this notice after considering oral and
written comments, data, and
information from interested parties that
represent a variety of interests. This
section addresses the analyses DOE
performed for this final determination
regarding ECUACs and WCUACs.
Separate subsections address each
component of DOE’s analyses and
responses to relevant comments
received regarding the September 2020
NOPD.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
A. General Comments
In response to the September 2020
NOPD, DOE received several general
comments. CA IOUs supported DOE’s
initial determination to maintain the
current standards, stating that the
market for this equipment is extremely
small. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA
stated that if DOE is correct in its
assumed decline of shipments, then
there is no need for an increase in
efficiency at this time. (UCA, No. 11 at
p. 1)
As discussed below, DOE has
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
4 The public webinar presentation and transcript
can both be found at https://www.regulations.gov
under docket number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
Commenter type
would result in significant additional
energy savings and be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
DOE received comments from UCA
and CA IOUs regarding the test
procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs.
(UCA, No. 11 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13
at p. 2) UCA stated that several third
party test facilities are limited in the
physical size and capacity limits they
can test; therefore, they stated that
certain UCA models cannot be tested at
these facilities. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA
IOUs encouraged DOE to expedite work
on an updated test standard for all
CUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2)
Specifically, CA IOUs commented that
the Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’), Commercial
Package Air Conditioners and
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
Working Group unanimously agreed
that a new test procedure for CUACs,
which should include a more
representative evaluation of indoor fan
power consumption, should be
completed no later than January 1, 2019.
Id.
The September 2020 NOPD sought
comment on DOE’s determination of
whether the energy conservation
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
should be amended. Consideration of
amendments to the test procedures are
not within the scope of this
determination. DOE will consider
comments received regarding ECUAC
and WCUAC test procedures in the
ongoing evaluation of the CUAC test
procedure. See 82 FR 34427 (July 25,
2017).
5 The parenthetical reference provides a reference
for information located in the docket for this
determination. (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD–
0032, which is maintained at https://
www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BTSTD-0032). The references are arranged as follows:
(Commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
B. Energy Efficiency Metric
The current energy efficiency
descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR
431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 has specified both
EER and integrated energy efficiency
ratio (‘‘IEER’’) minimum efficiency
levels since 2010.
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 by weighting the full- and partload efficiencies based on the average
amount of time operating at each load
point. Additionally, IEER incorporates
reduced condenser temperatures (i.e.,
reduced entering water temperature for
WCUACs and reduced outdoor air drybulb and wet-bulb temperatures for
ECUACs) to reflect the representative
ambient conditions for part-load
operation in the field. Table III.1 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
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
37005
Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360–
2019’’).6
TABLE III.1 IEER TEST CONDITIONS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS FROM AHRI
340/360–2019
Water-cooled
Percent load
100 .....................................
75 .......................................
50 .......................................
25 .......................................
Entering water
temperature (°F)
85.0
73.5
62.0
55.0
Entering air wet-bulb
temperature (°F)
Entering air dry-bulb
temperature 7 (°F)
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
95.0
81.5
68.0
65.0
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
75.0
66.2
57.5
52.8
...................................
...................................
...................................
...................................
Makeup water temperature
(°F)
85.0
81.5
68.0
65.0
has evaluated the appropriate condenser
entering air dry-bulb and wet-bulb
temperatures for the climates in which
ECUACs are typically installed. (CA
IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2)
Regarding WCUACs, CA IOUs stated
that if DOE were to adopt IEER, DOE
should complete the test procedure
rulemaking first and consider aligning
the temperature test points and
weighting factors with those of watercooled variable refrigerant flow (‘‘VRF’’)
equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2;
Public Webinar Transcript,4 No. 10 at p.
21).
For the reasons provided previously
and presented in the September 2020
NOPD, DOE is maintaining federal
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in
terms of EER.
DOE’s analysis in support of the final
determination is based on an evaluation
of ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of
EER.
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 September 2020 NOPD, DOE
proposed to maintain standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER
because the current IEER metric may not
be representative for ECUACs and
WCUACs and compliance with IEER
would impose additional testing and
certification burden on a small market.
85 FR 57149, 57161. DOE initially
determined that for ECUACs, the
weighting factors for IEER may not be
representative of typical applications.
ECUACs may be disproportionately
marketed and sold in relatively hot and
dry climates where there is a larger
efficiency benefit to using evaporative
condenser cooling. 85 FR 57149, 57160.
The IEER equation assigns a weighting
factor of just 2 percent for the full-load
test point, so almost all of the IEER
rating for ECUACs would reflect
performance at outdoor air temperatures
which is cooler than what would
typically be experienced in the hot and
dry climates where this equipment is
installed. For ECUACs with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h DOE’s
preliminary analysis suggested that
these units are primarily marketed for
residential applications, whereas the
IEER metric was developed for
commercial applications by analyzing
air conditioner energy use in
commercial buildings. Id. For WCUACs,
it is not certain whether the IEER
weighting factors appropriately reflect
the average use of WCUACs given that
IEER was developed based on an
analysis of air-cooled CUACs
(‘‘ACUACs’’). Id.
Additionally, IEER requires at least
four tests whereas EER requires a single
test. Examining the models listed in the
CCMS database, DOE found that many
models did not have any online product
literature demonstrating that they are
rated with IEER, suggesting that many
WCUAC and ECUAC models would
need to be retested in order to comply
with Federal IEER standards. 85 FR
57149, 57161.
In response to the September 2020
NOPD, DOE received several comments
in support of its proposal to maintain
standards in terms of the EER metric.
UCA supported DOE’s proposal to
maintain the EER metric for WCUACs,
stating that they disagreed with using
IEER for certain WCUACs installed
indoors within mechanical rooms
because these units typically see
constant water temperatures year-round.
(UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs
supported maintaining EER and not
adopting IEER for ECUACs until the test
procedure has been updated and DOE
DOE develops information in the
market analysis that provides an overall
picture of the market for the equipment
concerned. For this final 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’’),8 and
the DOE Compliance Certification
Management System (‘‘CCMS’’)
database.9 DOE also considered market
data and stakeholder comments
received in response to the July 2019
ECS RFI and the September 2020 NOPD,
the analysis performed in the previous
standards rulemaking for ECUACs and
WCUACs, and the energy savings
6 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.
7 UCA pointed out a typographical error in Table
III.6 in the September 2020 NOPD (see 85 FR 57149,
57159), in which the entering air dry-bulb
temperature should be a test condition for ECUACs
and not WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) This has
been corrected in Table III.1 of this final
determination.
8 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.
9 Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the
September 2020 NOPD and this final determination
was accessed on December 16, 2019. This database
can be found at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/.
The following equation shows the
weighting factors for each testing
condition.
IIIIIIII = (0.020 • A) + (0.617 • B) +
(0.238 • C) + (0.125 • D)
Where (see Table III.1 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.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Evaporatively-cooled
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
C. Market Analysis
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37006
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
potential for amended standards
determined in the May 2012 final rule.
1. Shipments Estimates
DOE uses projections of annual
product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended
energy conservation standards on
energy use.10 The shipments model
takes an accounting approach in
tracking market shares of each product
class and the vintage of units in the
stock.
The analysis conducted for the
September 2020 NOPD was based on the
same model specification used for the
May 2012 final rule and incorporated
additional shipments data provided by
AHRI in response to the July 2019 ECS
RFI. 85 FR 57149, 57155–57156. Based
on the shipments data, the DOE
September 2020 NOPD analysis
indicated declining future shipments for
WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
Table III.2 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.2 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.2—HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS DATA FOR WCUACS
Small AC
water-cooled
(<64.9 kBtu/h)
Year *
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)
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
........................
91
119
84
95
59
54
52
44
45
39
1437
1503
1107
1068
985
922
1121
1217
989
795
874
1478
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
1621
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)
1622
1211
908
720
668
815
805
1020
1216
1886
898
1170
762
1227
740
711
861
1231
1231
1390
585
531
609
624
751
829
770
946
985
844
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
* 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.
DOE developed two shipment
projections for the September 2020
NOPD analysis; 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). 85 FR 57149,
57155–57156. 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.3 of
this document.
DOE was unable to identify shipments
data for the ECUAC equipment classes
and none were provided by the
stakeholders. For the September 2020
NOPD analysis, shipment projections
were developed by scaling the WCUAC
shipment projections using a ratio of
unique model counts for each
equipment class. 85 FR 57149, 57155.
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.11 Id.
WCUACs are typically sold as part of
a large project (i.e., a multi-tenant,
multi-story office building). 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
10 DOE uses data on manufacturing shipments as
a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales
are lacking. In general, one would expect a close
correspondence between shipments and sales.
11 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37007
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
and projections of large office existing
floor space and large office additions as
the variables (referred to as ‘‘2019
regression’’ in Table III.3). 85 FR 57149,
57156.
TABLE III.3—COMPARISON OF SHIPMENT PROJECTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUACS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
2018
2020
2025
2030
2035
2040
2045
............
............
39
39
............
............
33
39
............
............
18
39
............
............
10
39
............
............
6
39
............
............
3
39
............
............
2
39
Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h
2012
2012
2019
2019
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2009) .....................................................................................
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2018) .....................................................................................
Small WCUAC, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h
2012
2012
2019
2019
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2009) .....................................................................................
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2018) .....................................................................................
Large WCUAC, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h
2012
2012
2019
2019
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2009) .....................................................................................
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2018) .....................................................................................
Very Large WCUAC, ≥240,000 and ≤760,000 Btu/h
2012
2012
2019
2019
2019
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2009) .....................................................................................
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2018) .....................................................................................
regression ...............................................................................................
I
93
152
106
106
I
132
182
108
108
I
953
585
844
844
844
I
I
I
I
76
152
87
106
117
182
110
108
944
585
777
844
1000
I
I
I
I
I
46
152
52
106
87
182
78
108
923
585
721
844
929
I
I
I
I
I
28
152
32
106
17
152
19
106
10
152
11
106
6
152
7
106
64
182
55
108
47
182
39
108
35
182
28
108
26
182
20
108
903
585
664
844
927
I
I
I
I
882
585
608
844
865
I
I
861
585
551
844
844
I
I
840
585
495
844
828
Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h
2012
2012
2019
2019
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2009) .....................................................................................
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2018) .....................................................................................
Very Large ECUAC, ≥240,000 and ≤760,000 Btu/h
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
2012
2012
2019
2019
2019
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2009) .....................................................................................
trend ........................................................................................................
constant (=2018) .....................................................................................
regression ...............................................................................................
In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did
not analyze small ECUACs and
WCUACs with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28927, 28934–
28937. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
I
............
............
156
156
I
245
150
14
14
14
............
............
132
156
I
I
243
150
13
14
17
models do not comprise a significant
share of the market for air conditioners
in residential or commercial
applications. Id.
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
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
I
I
............
............
72
156
238
150
12
14
16
I
............
............
40
156
............
............
24
156
............
............
12
156
............
............
8
156
232
150
11
14
16
227
150
10
14
14
221
150
9
14
14
216
150
9
14
14
I
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.
Given that 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.
In response to the September 2020
NOPD, UCA stated that the historical
shipments data presented by DOE is not
complete and asserted that the
shipments data does not capture dozens
of manufacturers that do not belong to
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37008
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
AHRI and do not report their shipments
to AHRI. UCA further stated that it sold
40 units in the WCUAC <64.9 kBtu/h
category in 2018, while the table shows
only 39 total units shipped in that year.
UCA suggested the number could be 10
times higher and asserted similar
discrepancies could apply across all
categories. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE
requested data on shipments, and in
response to the RFI, DOE received
shipments data from AHRI. In the
September 2020 NOPD, DOE presented
the shipments information received to
that point. In addition, DOE requested
comments and data concerning the
tentative determination and the
underlying data and analyses. The
previously discussed number of
shipments provided by UCA (40 units)
only applies for a single manufacturer
for a single equipment class of WCUAC
(<65,000 Btu/h) equipment for a single
year. Because this was a single data
point, DOE lacked sufficient context to
incorporate it into the shipment analysis
(e.g., how this data point compares to
UCA’s shipments in previous years,
how this compares to UCA’s shipments
for other WCUAC capacity ranges).
Without such context DOE could not
incorporate this data point. For this
Final Determination, DOE did not
identify any other sources of shipments
data beyond the AHRI data incorporated
in the September 2020 NOPD analyses.
UCA also disagreed with shipment
trends showing a decline in WCUACs
over the next 20-plus years, as it stated
that there are thousands of WCUACs
that will be replaced over the next
decade in the very large WCUAC class.
(UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) UCA also
commented that its sales for its main
equipment line has gone down
substantially, and that the equipment
capacities it now offers are more
limited. (UCA, No. 11–112 at p. 1) For
this final determination, the three
shipment projections developed by DOE
were based on the historic shipments
data available and presented in the
September 2020 NOPD, and as historical
data they would include any
replacement shipments that have taken
place. As additional shipments data
were not provided to support UCA’s
assertion regarding replacement of
WCUACs over the next decade, DOE did
not modify the shipment projections.
Trane commented that there was a
major drop in unitary air conditioner
shipments that also affected WCUACs
and ECUACs during the great recession
of 2008(?), so looking forward 15–20
years, the market should also reflect that
drop because there will not be units to
replace. (Public Webinar Transcript, No.
10 at p. 15) Daikin commented that the
need for office space likely will be
declining for the foreseeable future
stating that it was informed by one
office building client that the client will
only need about 70 percent of its current
square footage going forward. (Public
Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 11)
As stated, DOE did not receive
additional shipments data in response
to the September 2020 NOPD. As such,
DOE relied on the shipments data
presented in the September 2020 NOPD
for this final determination. Based on
the existing shipments data, DOE
developed a series of shipment
projections to reflect uncertainty in the
future of ECUAC and WCUAC
shipments. As presented in the
September 2020 NOPD, DOE developed
three shipment projections (‘‘2019
trend,’’ ‘‘2019 constant,’’ and ‘‘2019
regression’’). DOE continued to rely on
the 2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019
regression projections presented in
September 2020 NOPD for this final
determination. Additionally, DOE
performed a sensitivity case to reflect a
potential underreporting of ECUAC and
WCUAC shipments. DOE developed a
sensitivity analysis by multiplying the
three shipment projections by 10 for all
equipment classes to examine an upper
bound estimate for potentially
unreported shipments. The results of
the sensitivity analysis are presented in
section III.C.3 of this document.
2. Model Counts
Prior to receipt of updated shipments
from AHRI in response to the July 2019
ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the
market for WCUACs and ECUACs based
on models included in the DOE CCMS
database.9 84 FR 36480, 36484. In the
September 2020 NOPD DOE provided
that the number of ECUAC and WCUAC
models on the market is substantially
less than the number of ACUAC models
on the market for all capacity ranges,
and that this is consistent with the
relationship between model counts
identified in the May 2012 final rule. 85
FR 57149, 57156. This initial
understanding of the ECUAC and
WCUAC market as compared to the
ACUAC market was further supported
by the shipments data provided by
AHRI. See discussion in section III.C.1
of this document. DOE did not receive
any comments on the model counts
presented in the September 2020 NOPD.
3. Current Market Efficiency
Distributions
For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE
examined the efficiency ratings of
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the
market and presented efficiency
distributions to reflect the current
market. 85 FR 57149, 57157–57159.
Table III.4 presents the summary of
statistics by equipment category and
capacity range of equipment for unique
models13 from DOE’s CCMS Database.9
TABLE III.4—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUAC
EER
Number of
unique models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
Average cooling capacity
(Btu/h)
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Current
Federal
EER
Standard
Level *
Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
<65,000 ........................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...............................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...............................................
12 A hyphenated comment number indicates that
the specific comment referenced is found in an
attachment accompanying the comment submitted
by the commenter. The number following the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
I
1
23
15
234
I
58,000
99,478
175,600
493,556
hyphen indicates which attachment is being
referenced.
13 The count of unique models excludes basic
models that appear to be duplicates—i.e., basic
models sharing the same manufacturer and certified
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
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.
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37009
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE III.4—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUAC—Continued
EER
Number of
unique models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
Average cooling capacity
(Btu/h)
Minimum
Average
Maximum
Current
Federal
EER
Standard
Level *
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
<65,000 ........................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...............................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...............................................
8
0
0
4
37,950
N/A
N/A
442,750
13.2
N/A
N/A
11.8
15.0
N/A
N/A
12.7
16.0
N/A
N/A
13.4
12.1
N/A
N/A
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.
** As mentioned later in this section, this maximum EER value was determined to be an outlier, and thus the next highest efficiency level (i.e.,
an EER of 15) was used as the ‘‘max-tech’’ value.
DOE used these efficiency
distributions and the previously
described shipment projections to
develop estimated energy savings and
percent of no-new-standards energy
consumption for 30 years of shipments
(2020–2049).
Energy 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.C.1 of this final
determination, a regression projection
was only developed for the very large
equipment class.
As mentioned in section II.B.2 of this
final determination, 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. As
explained in the September 2020 NOPD,
DOE considered the single model rated
at 16.1 to be an outlier and subsequently
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).
85 FR 57149, 57158. DOE did not
receive any comments on the use of the
max-tech efficiency levels in calculating
the estimated savings in the NOPD, and
the same max-tech levels were used for
the final determination.
For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE
did not incorporate changing trends in
shipments by efficiency over time in the
no-new-standards case. No comments
were received on efficiency trends and
DOE retained this assumption in the
energy savings estimates, which vary by
shipment scenario and equipment class,
presented in Table III.5 of this final
determination.
Selecting the minimum and
maximum estimated savings scenario
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 both equipment categories, the
resulting estimated savings ranged
between 0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of
estimated site energy consumption) and
0.0047 quads (8.6 percent of estimated
site energy consumption) during the
analysis period depending on the
combination of shipment projections
analyzed. Because DOE received no
comments resulting in changes to inputs
or the analysis, the estimate savings
presented in Table III.5 are the same as
those presented in the September 2020
NOPD.
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)
Trend
I
Constant
I
Regression
Reduction in
national site
energy consumption
(percent)
WCUACs
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
<65,000 ............................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .....................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...................................................................................
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...................................................................................
0.00000
0.00005
0.00011
0.00287
0.00000
0.00019
0.00025
0.00395
........................
........................
........................
0.00413
0.0
13.3
10.1
8.4
0.00001
N/A
N/A
0.00004
N/A
N/A
........................
N/A
N/A
5.3
N/A
N/A
ECUACs
<65,000 ............................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .....................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ...................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37010
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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
≥240,000 and <760,000 ...................................................................................
0.00005
Constant
0.00006
Regression
0.00007
Reduction in
national site
energy consumption
(percent)
6.5
* Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30- year analysis period
(2020–2049).
As noted in section III.C.1 of this
document, in response to a UCA
comment regarding the completeness of
shipment data, DOE conducted a
sensitivity analysis by multiplying
annual shipments in the three shipment
projections by 10 and calculating the
resulting estimated energy savings using
the higher shipment projections. This
sensitivity resulted in estimated total
site energy savings for the WCUAC
classes of between 0.0303 quads (8.5
percent of estimated site energy use of
the evaluated equipment) and 0.0456
quads (8.6 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment),
and for the ECUAC classes of 0.0006
quads (6.2 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment)
and 0.0011 quads (6.0 percent of
estimated site energy use of the
evaluated equipment) during the
analysis period. For both equipment
categories, the resulting estimated
savings ranged between 0.0308 quads
(8.5 percent of estimated site energy use
of the evaluated equipment) and 0.0467
quads (8.6 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment)
during the analysis period.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
IV. Final Determination
As required by EPCA, this final
determination analyzes whether
amended standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs would result in significant
conservation of energy, be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). DOE has
determined that the energy conservation
standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do
not need to be amended, having
determined that it lacks ‘‘clear and
convincing’’ evidence that amended
standards would result in significant
additional conservation of energy. As
previously discussed, 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
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))
IPI objected to DOE’s reliance on the
significance of energy threshold
established in the Process Rule. (IPI, No,
12 at p. 1) IPI reiterated its comments
regarding the significance of energy
threshold it previously submitted to the
rulemaking to update the Process Rule.
(See IPI, 14 No. 12–3) IPI stated that DOE
failed to analyze the benefit to
consumers and the environment and the
costs of achieving the 8.6 percent energy
savings calculated using max-tech
efficiency levels. (IPI, No. 12 at p. 1)
DOE disagrees with IPI’s
characterization of the statutory
requirements applicable in the present
case. EPCA specifically stipulates that
the Secretary may not adopt a uniform
national standard more stringent than
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1
unless such standard would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). A determination of
whether energy savings would be
significant is distinct from consideration
of potential consumer cost impacts or
environmental impacts, which are
separate considerations in determining
whether an amended standard is
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). In this final
determination DOE is unable to
determine, with clear and convincing
evidence, that amended standards
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy based on the low
projected energy savings combined with
low and potentially declining product
shipments (see sections III.C.3 and
III.C.1, respectively).
14 In the February 14, 2020 final rule amending
the Process Rule the Institute for Policy Integrity at
New York University’s School of Law (referred to
as ‘‘IPI’’ in this document) is abbreviated as ‘‘NYU
Law’’. See 85 FR 8626.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
An analysis of shipments data, a
review of the CCMS database and the
AHRI Directory, and comments received
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.
DOE estimates that amended
standards for ECUACs at the respective
‘‘max-tech’’ levels would result in
additional site energy savings of no
more than 0.0001 quads during the
analysis period. DOE has determined
the energy savings potential for ECUACs
is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis
allowing for a factor of 10 increase in
shipments also resulted in an energy
savings potential that is de minimis (see
Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has
determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended
standards for ECUACs would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy.
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 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 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
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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 and the
max-tech efficiency levels for the small
and large classes of WCUACs, DOE
calculated that amended standards
would result in additional site energy
savings of no more than 0.0046 quads
for all WCUAC classes during the
analysis period. DOE has determined
the energy savings potential for
WCUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity
analysis allowing for a factor of 10
increase in shipments also resulted an
energy savings potential that is de
minimis (see Section III.C.3). Therefore,
DOE has determined that it lacks clear
and convincing evidence that amended
standards for WCUACs would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy. Based on the consideration of
significant additional conservation of
energy and that these markets are small
and may be declining, DOE has
determined that the energy conservation
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do
not need to be amended.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders
12866 and 13563
This final determination has been
determined to be not significant for
purposes of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’)
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review,
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result,
the Office of Management and Budget
(‘‘OMB’’) did not review this final
determination.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (‘‘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).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
In response to the NOPD, UCA
provided a number of general comments
regarding the potential impacts of
efficiency regulations on equipment and
small businesses. UCA commented that
small businesses are often not members
of trade associations and do not have
staff reading the Federal Register, and
therefore do not get information on
regulations. UCA also stated that small
businesses generally do not have the
resources to evaluate and access newer
technologies at the same time as larger
companies and do not have the
resources to develop an alternative
efficiency determination method. UCA
further stated that small commercial
HVAC manufacturers have higher costs
to fabricate units for testing. (UCA No.
11–1, pp. 2–3)
DOE reviewed this final
determination pursuant to the
Regulatory Flexibility Act and the
policies and procedures published on
February 19, 2003. As stated, this final
determination is not amending
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs.
Further, this final determination does
not amend the certification and
reporting requirements. Therefore, DOE
certifies that this final determination
has no significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a
final regulatory flexibility analysis
(‘‘FRFA’’) for this final 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).
C. 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
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37011
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.
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this final
determination in accordance with NEPA
and DOE’s NEPA implementing
regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has
determined that this rule qualifies for
categorical exclusion A4 because it is an
interpretation or ruling in regards to an
existing regulation and otherwise meets
the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR
1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this
rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment within the meaning
of NEPA, and does not require an
environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. 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. As this
final determination does not amend the
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs,
there is no impact on the policymaking
discretion of the States. Therefore, no
action is required by Executive Order
13132.
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
37012
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
F. 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 final
determination meets the relevant
standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. 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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
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
available at https://energy.gov/sites/
prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_
97.pdf.
This final determination does not
contain a Federal intergovernmental
mandate, nor is it expected to require
expenditure of $100 million or more in
one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector. As a result, the analytical
requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires
Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule
that may affect family well-being. This
final 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.
I. 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 final
determination would not result in any
takings that might require compensation
under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and
General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides
for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the
public under 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). Pursuant to OMB
Memorandum M–19–15, Improving
Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE
published updated guidelines which are
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
available at https://www.energy.gov/
sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/
DOE%20Final%20
Updated%20IQA%20
Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE
has reviewed this final determination
under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with
applicable policies in those guidelines.
K. 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 the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a Statement of Energy
Effects for any 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 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 final determination does
not amend the current 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.
L. 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
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations
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.
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by
Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal
Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting
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 July 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
[FR Doc. 2021–14837 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
15 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking
Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at https://
energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Jul 13, 2021
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 25
[Docket No. FAA–2021–0582; Special
Conditions No. FAA–2021–0582–F]
Special Conditions: Archeion
Holdings, LLC, Boeing Model No. 777–
200/–200LR/–300/–300ER Series
Airplanes; Electronic-System Security
Protection From Unauthorized External
Access
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final special conditions; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
These special conditions are
issued for the Boeing Model 777–200/–
200LR/–300/–300ER Series Airplanes.
These airplanes, as modified by
Archeion Holdings, LLC (Archeion),
will have a novel or unusual design
feature when compared to the state of
technology envisioned in the
airworthiness standards for transport
category airplanes. This design feature
is a digital systems architecture for the
installation of a system with wireless
network and hosted application
functionality that allows access from
external sources to the airplane’s
internal electronic components. The
applicable airworthiness regulations do
not contain adequate or appropriate
safety standards for this design feature.
These special conditions contain the
additional safety standards that the
Administrator considers necessary to
establish a level of safety equivalent to
that established by the existing
airworthiness standards.
DATES: This action is effective on
Archeion on July 14, 2021. Send
comments on or before August 30, 2021.
ADDRESSES: Send comments identified
by Docket No. FAA–2021–0582 using
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/ and follow
the online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
• Mail: Send comments to Docket
Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of
Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West
Building Ground Floor, Washington DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take
comments to Docket Operations in
Room W12–140 of the West Building
Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey
Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
37013
• Fax: Fax comments to Docket
Operations at 202–493–2251.
Privacy: Except for Confidential
Business Information (CBI) as described
in the following paragraph, and other
information as described in 14 CFR
11.35, the FAA will post all comments
received without change to https://
www.regulations.gov/, including any
personal information you provide. The
FAA will also post a report
summarizing each substantive verbal
contact received about this proposal.
Confidential Business Information:
Confidential Business Information (CBI)
is commercial or financial information
that is both customarily and actually
treated as private by its owner. Under
the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)
(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from
public disclosure. If your comments
responsive to this Notice contain
commercial or financial information
that is customarily treated as private,
that you actually treat as private, and
that is relevant or responsive to this
Notice, it is important that you clearly
designate the submitted comments as
CBI. Please mark each page of your
submission containing CBI as
‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such
marked submissions as confidential
under the FOIA, and the indicated
comments will not be placed in the
public docket of this Notice.
Submissions containing CBI should be
sent to Varun Khanna, Airplane and
Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR–622,
Aircraft Information Systems, Technical
Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
telephone and fax 206–231–3159; email
Varun.Khanna@faa.gov. Comments the
FAA receives, which are not specifically
designated as CBI, will be placed in the
public docket for this rulemaking.
Docket: Background documents or
comments received may be read at
https://www.regulations.gov/ at any time.
Follow the online instructions for
accessing the docket or go to Docket
Operations in Room W12–140 of the
West Building Ground Floor at 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington,
DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Varun Khanna, Airplane and Flight
Crew Interface Section, AIR–622,
Aircraft Information Systems, Technical
Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and
Innovation Division, Aircraft
Certification Service, Federal Aviation
Administration, 2200 South 216th
Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198;
E:\FR\FM\14JYR1.SGM
14JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37001-37013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14837]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 37001]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final determination.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 final determination, DOE has determined that more stringent
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 would not
result in significant additional conservation of energy, and thus has
determined that the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be
amended.
DATES: The effective date of this final determination is July 14, 2021.
ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact the
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by
email: [email protected].
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].
Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-3440. Email: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
A. General Comments
B. Energy Efficiency Metric
C. Market Analysis
1. Shipments Estimates
2. Model Counts
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
IV. Final Determination
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Information Quality
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317, as codified). This equipment includes ECUACs and WCUACs, the
subject of this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public
Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA
requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final
rule establishing or amending an energy conservation standard for
covered equipment, DOE must publish either a notice of determination
that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate).
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6)(C)(i))
For this final determination, DOE analyzed the ECUACs and WCUACs
subject to the standards found at title 10 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431. See 10 CFR 431.97. DOE first analyzed
the potential for energy savings of more efficient ECUACs and WCUACs.
Based on this analysis, as summarized in section IV of this document,
DOE has determined that 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)) Therefore, DOE has determined
that the current standards
[[Page 37002]]
for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this final determination, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs.
A. Authority
EPCA 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 includes the
ECUACs and WCUACs that are the subject of this final determination. (42
U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
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 EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D) applying the preemption
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
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, 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))
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 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
to not 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, (2) be technologically
feasible and (3) 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).) A determination that amended energy conservation
standards are not needed must be based on the same considerations as if
it were adopting a standard that is more stringent than an amendment to
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B))
[[Page 37003]]
DOE is publishing this final determination pursuant to the six-year
review required by EPCA, having 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. Background
1. Current Standards
The current energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are
located in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and their
compliance dates are presented in Table II.1 of this document. The
current efficiency metric used for ECUACs and WCUACs is the energy
efficiency ratio (``EER'').
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.
Small Water-Cooled............ >=65,000 and No Heating or 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.9 June 1, 2013.
of Heating.
Large Water-Cooled............ >=135,000 and No Heating or 12.5 June 1, 2014.
<240,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 12.3 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Very Large Water-Cooled....... >=240,000 and No Heating or 12.4 June 1, 2014.
<760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 12.2 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.... <65,000.......... All............. 12.1 October 29, 2003.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.... >=65,000 and No Heating or 12.1 June 1, 2013.
<135,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.9 June 1, 2013.
of Heating.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled.... >=135,000 and No Heating or 12.0 June 1, 2014.
<240,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.8 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
Very Large Evaporatively- >=240,000 and No Heating or 11.9 June 1, 2014.
Cooled. <760,000. Electric
Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types 11.7 June 1, 2014.
of Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. 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 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 \3\ 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 in
the U.S. market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 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
[[Page 37004]]
publications did ASHRAE amend minimum EER levels for small, large, and
very large WCUACs or ECUACs; therefore, DOE was not prompted 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.
On July 29, 2019, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
to solicit information and data from interested parties to consider
amendments to the DOE energy conservation standards for ECUACs and
WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (``July 2019 ECS RFI'').
On September 15, 2020 DOE published a notice of proposed
determination (``NOPD'') with the tentative determination that energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended
(``September 2020 NOPD''). 85 FR 57149. The comment period for this
notice closed on November 30, 2020. On October 1, 2020, DOE held a
public webinar \4\ to discuss the analysis and results from the
September 2020 NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The public webinar presentation and transcript can both be
found at https://www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received several comments from interested parties in response
to the publication of the September 2020 NOPD. Table II.2 lists the
commenters, their abbreviated names used throughout this final
determination, 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 Written and Oral Comments Regarding the September 2020 NOPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name Abbreviation Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United CoolAir......................... UCA............................ Manufacturer.
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU IPI............................ Academic Institution.
School of Law.
California Investor Owned Utilities CA IOUs........................ Utilities.
(Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
Diego Gas and Electric, and California
Edison).
Trane Technologies..................... Trane.......................... Manufacturer.
Daikin................................. Daikin......................... Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment, quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket for this determination. (Docket
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032). The references
are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Discussion and Rationale
DOE developed the conclusions in this notice after considering oral
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties
that represent a variety of interests. This section addresses the
analyses DOE performed for this final determination regarding ECUACs
and WCUACs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's
analyses and responses to relevant comments received regarding the
September 2020 NOPD.
A. General Comments
In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several
general comments. CA IOUs supported DOE's initial determination to
maintain the current standards, stating that the market for this
equipment is extremely small. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA stated that
if DOE is correct in its assumed decline of shipments, then there is no
need for an increase in efficiency at this time. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
As discussed below, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would
result in significant additional energy savings and be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
DOE received comments from UCA and CA IOUs regarding the test
procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13
at p. 2) UCA stated that several third party test facilities are
limited in the physical size and capacity limits they can test;
therefore, they stated that certain UCA models cannot be tested at
these facilities. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs encouraged DOE to
expedite work on an updated test standard for all CUACs. (CA IOUs, No.
13 at p. 2) Specifically, CA IOUs commented that the Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC''),
Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
Working Group unanimously agreed that a new test procedure for CUACs,
which should include a more representative evaluation of indoor fan
power consumption, should be completed no later than January 1, 2019.
Id.
The September 2020 NOPD sought comment on DOE's determination of
whether the energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs should
be amended. Consideration of amendments to the test procedures are not
within the scope of this determination. DOE will consider comments
received regarding ECUAC and WCUAC test procedures in the ongoing
evaluation of the CUAC test procedure. See 82 FR 34427 (July 25, 2017).
B. Energy Efficiency Metric
The current energy efficiency descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 has specified both
EER and integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'') minimum
efficiency levels since 2010.
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 by weighting the full- and part-
load efficiencies based on the average amount of time operating at each
load 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. Table III.1 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
[[Page 37005]]
Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ 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.
\7\ UCA pointed out a typographical error in Table III.6 in the
September 2020 NOPD (see 85 FR 57149, 57159), in which the entering
air dry-bulb temperature should be a test condition for ECUACs and
not WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) This has been corrected in Table
III.1 of this final determination.
Table III.1 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) \7\ ([deg]F) ([deg]F) ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100............................. 85.0.............. 95.0.............. 75.0.............. 85.0
75.............................. 73.5.............. 81.5.............. 66.2.............. 81.5
50.............................. 62.0.............. 68.0.............. 57.5.............. 68.0
25.............................. 55.0.............. 65.0.............. 52.8.............. 65.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following equation shows the weighting factors for each testing
condition.
IIIIIIII = (0.020 A) + (0.617 B) + (0.238 C)
+ (0.125 D)
Where (see Table III.1 for condenser temperature for all four test
points):
A = EER, Btu/Wh, at 100 percent capacity at standard rating
conditions
B = EER, Btu/Wh, at 75 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature
C = EER, Btu/Wh, at 50 percent capacity and reduced
condenser temperature
D = EER, Btu/Wh, 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 September 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain standards for
ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER because the current IEER metric may
not be representative for ECUACs and WCUACs and compliance with IEER
would impose additional testing and certification burden on a small
market. 85 FR 57149, 57161. DOE initially determined that for ECUACs,
the weighting factors for IEER may not be representative of typical
applications.
ECUACs may be disproportionately marketed and sold in relatively
hot and dry climates where there is a larger efficiency benefit to
using evaporative condenser cooling. 85 FR 57149, 57160. The IEER
equation assigns a weighting factor of just 2 percent for the full-load
test point, so almost all of the IEER rating for ECUACs would reflect
performance at outdoor air temperatures which is cooler than what would
typically be experienced in the hot and dry climates where this
equipment is installed. For ECUACs with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h DOE's preliminary analysis suggested that these units are
primarily marketed for residential applications, whereas the IEER
metric was developed for commercial applications by analyzing air
conditioner energy use in commercial buildings. Id. For WCUACs, it is
not certain whether the IEER weighting factors appropriately reflect
the average use of WCUACs given that IEER was developed based on an
analysis of air-cooled CUACs (``ACUACs''). Id.
Additionally, IEER requires at least four tests whereas EER
requires a single test. Examining the models listed in the CCMS
database, DOE found that many models did not have any online product
literature demonstrating that they are rated with IEER, suggesting that
many WCUAC and ECUAC models would need to be retested in order to
comply with Federal IEER standards. 85 FR 57149, 57161.
In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several
comments in support of its proposal to maintain standards in terms of
the EER metric. UCA supported DOE's proposal to maintain the EER metric
for WCUACs, stating that they disagreed with using IEER for certain
WCUACs installed indoors within mechanical rooms because these units
typically see constant water temperatures year-round. (UCA, No. 11 at
p. 1) CA IOUs supported maintaining EER and not adopting IEER for
ECUACs until the test procedure has been updated and DOE has evaluated
the appropriate condenser entering air dry-bulb and wet-bulb
temperatures for the climates in which ECUACs are typically installed.
(CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2)
Regarding WCUACs, CA IOUs stated that if DOE were to adopt IEER,
DOE should complete the test procedure rulemaking first and consider
aligning the temperature test points and weighting factors with those
of water-cooled variable refrigerant flow (``VRF'') equipment. (CA
IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; Public Webinar Transcript,\4\ No. 10 at p. 21).
For the reasons provided previously and presented in the September
2020 NOPD, DOE is maintaining federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs
in terms of EER.
DOE's analysis in support of the final determination is based on an
evaluation of ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER.
C. Market Analysis
DOE develops information in the market analysis that provides an
overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned. For this
final 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''),\8\ and the DOE
Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database.\9\ DOE
also considered market data and stakeholder comments received in
response to the July 2019 ECS RFI and the September 2020 NOPD, the
analysis performed in the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and
WCUACs, and the energy savings
[[Page 37006]]
potential for amended standards determined in the May 2012 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ 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.
\9\ Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the September 2020
NOPD and this final determination was accessed on December 16, 2019.
This database can be found at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Shipments Estimates
DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on
energy use.\10\ The shipments model takes an accounting approach in
tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units
in the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ DOE uses data on manufacturing shipments as a proxy for
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general,
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The analysis conducted for the September 2020 NOPD was based on the
same model specification used for the May 2012 final rule and
incorporated additional shipments data provided by AHRI in response to
the July 2019 ECS RFI. 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. Based on the shipments
data, the DOE September 2020 NOPD analysis indicated declining future
shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h.
Table III.2 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.2 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.2--Historical Shipments Data for WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small AC water- Small AC water- Large AC water- Very large AC
Year * cooled (<64.9 cooled (65 to cooled (135 to water-cooled
kBtu/h) 134.9 kBtu/h) 249 kBtu/h) (>=250 kBtu/h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989............................................ .............. 1437 793 1622
1990............................................ .............. 1503 779 1211
1991............................................ .............. 1107 621 908
1992............................................ .............. 1068 537 720
1993............................................ .............. 985 520 668
1994............................................ .............. 922 504 815
1995............................................ .............. 1121 493 805
1996............................................ .............. 1217 652 1020
1997............................................ .............. 989 522 1216
1998............................................ .............. 795 623 1886
1999............................................ .............. 874 477 898
2000............................................ .............. 1478 1621 1170
2001............................................ .............. 606 409 762
2002............................................ .............. 502 355 1227
2003............................................ .............. 390 287 740
2004............................................ .............. 447 291 711
2005............................................ .............. 177 188 861
2006............................................ .............. 316 278 1231
2007............................................ .............. 359 317 1231
2008............................................ .............. 282 311 1390
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.
DOE developed two shipment projections for the September 2020 NOPD
analysis; 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). 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. 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.3 of this document.
DOE was unable to identify shipments data for the ECUAC equipment
classes and none were provided by the stakeholders. For the September
2020 NOPD analysis, shipment projections were developed by scaling the
WCUAC shipment projections using a ratio of unique model counts for
each equipment class. 85 FR 57149, 57155. 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.\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
WCUACs are typically sold as part of a large project (i.e., a
multi-tenant, multi-story office building). 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
[[Page 37007]]
and projections of large office existing floor space and large office
additions as the variables (referred to as ``2019 regression'' in Table
III.3). 85 FR 57149, 57156.
Table III.3--Comparison of Shipment Projections 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 1000 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. 77 FR 28927,
28934-28937. 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.
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.
Given that 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.
In response to the September 2020 NOPD, UCA stated that the
historical shipments data presented by DOE is not complete and asserted
that the shipments data does not capture dozens of manufacturers that
do not belong to
[[Page 37008]]
AHRI and do not report their shipments to AHRI. UCA further stated that
it sold 40 units in the WCUAC <64.9 kBtu/h category in 2018, while the
table shows only 39 total units shipped in that year. UCA suggested the
number could be 10 times higher and asserted similar discrepancies
could apply across all categories. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested data on shipments, and in
response to the RFI, DOE received shipments data from AHRI. In the
September 2020 NOPD, DOE presented the shipments information received
to that point. In addition, DOE requested comments and data concerning
the tentative determination and the underlying data and analyses. The
previously discussed number of shipments provided by UCA (40 units)
only applies for a single manufacturer for a single equipment class of
WCUAC (<65,000 Btu/h) equipment for a single year. Because this was a
single data point, DOE lacked sufficient context to incorporate it into
the shipment analysis (e.g., how this data point compares to UCA's
shipments in previous years, how this compares to UCA's shipments for
other WCUAC capacity ranges). Without such context DOE could not
incorporate this data point. For this Final Determination, DOE did not
identify any other sources of shipments data beyond the AHRI data
incorporated in the September 2020 NOPD analyses.
UCA also disagreed with shipment trends showing a decline in WCUACs
over the next 20-plus years, as it stated that there are thousands of
WCUACs that will be replaced over the next decade in the very large
WCUAC class. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) UCA also commented that its sales
for its main equipment line has gone down substantially, and that the
equipment capacities it now offers are more limited. (UCA, No. 11-1\12\
at p. 1) For this final determination, the three shipment projections
developed by DOE were based on the historic shipments data available
and presented in the September 2020 NOPD, and as historical data they
would include any replacement shipments that have taken place. As
additional shipments data were not provided to support UCA's assertion
regarding replacement of WCUACs over the next decade, DOE did not
modify the shipment projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ A hyphenated comment number indicates that the specific
comment referenced is found in an attachment accompanying the
comment submitted by the commenter. The number following the hyphen
indicates which attachment is being referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane commented that there was a major drop in unitary air
conditioner shipments that also affected WCUACs and ECUACs during the
great recession of 2008(?), so looking forward 15-20 years, the market
should also reflect that drop because there will not be units to
replace. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 15) Daikin commented
that the need for office space likely will be declining for the
foreseeable future stating that it was informed by one office building
client that the client will only need about 70 percent of its current
square footage going forward. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p.
11)
As stated, DOE did not receive additional shipments data in
response to the September 2020 NOPD. As such, DOE relied on the
shipments data presented in the September 2020 NOPD for this final
determination. Based on the existing shipments data, DOE developed a
series of shipment projections to reflect uncertainty in the future of
ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. As presented in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE
developed three shipment projections (``2019 trend,'' ``2019
constant,'' and ``2019 regression''). DOE continued to rely on the 2019
trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression projections presented in
September 2020 NOPD for this final determination. Additionally, DOE
performed a sensitivity case to reflect a potential underreporting of
ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. DOE developed a sensitivity analysis by
multiplying the three shipment projections by 10 for all equipment
classes to examine an upper bound estimate for potentially unreported
shipments. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in
section III.C.3 of this document.
2. Model Counts
Prior to receipt of updated shipments from AHRI in response to the
July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the market for WCUACs and
ECUACs based on models included in the DOE CCMS database.\9\ 84 FR
36480, 36484. In the September 2020 NOPD DOE provided that the number
of ECUAC and WCUAC models on the market is substantially less than the
number of ACUAC models on the market for all capacity ranges, and that
this is consistent with the relationship between model counts
identified in the May 2012 final rule. 85 FR 57149, 57156. This initial
understanding of the ECUAC and WCUAC market as compared to the ACUAC
market was further supported by the shipments data provided by AHRI.
See discussion in section III.C.1 of this document. DOE did not receive
any comments on the model counts presented in the September 2020 NOPD.
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market and presented efficiency
distributions to reflect the current market. 85 FR 57149, 57157-57159.
Table III.4 presents the summary of statistics by equipment category
and capacity range of equipment for unique models\13\ from DOE's CCMS
Database.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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 ECUAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average EER Current
Number of cooling --------------------------------------- Federal EER
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) unique capacity (Btu/ Standard
models h) Minimum Average Maximum Level *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37009]]
Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................ 8 37,950 13.2 15.0 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
>=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.
** As mentioned later in this section, this maximum EER value was determined to be an outlier, and thus the next
highest efficiency level (i.e., an EER of 15) was used as the ``max-tech'' value.
DOE used these efficiency distributions and the previously
described shipment projections to develop estimated energy savings and
percent of no-new-standards energy consumption for 30 years of
shipments (2020-2049).
Energy 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.C.1 of this
final determination, a regression projection was only developed for the
very large equipment class.
As mentioned in section II.B.2 of this final determination, 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. As explained
in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE considered the single model rated at
16.1 to be an outlier and subsequently 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). 85 FR 57149, 57158. DOE did not receive any comments on
the use of the max-tech efficiency levels in calculating the estimated
savings in the NOPD, and the same max-tech levels were used for the
final determination.
For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE did not incorporate changing
trends in shipments by efficiency over time in the no-new-standards
case. No comments were received on efficiency trends and DOE retained
this assumption in the energy savings estimates, which vary by shipment
scenario and equipment class, presented in Table III.5 of this final
determination.
Selecting the minimum and maximum estimated savings scenario 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 both
equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged between
0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy consumption) and
0.0047 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy consumption) during
the analysis period depending on the combination of shipment
projections analyzed. Because DOE received no comments resulting in
changes to inputs or the analysis, the estimate savings presented in
Table III.5 are the same as those presented in the September 2020 NOPD.
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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 37010]]
>=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).
As noted in section III.C.1 of this document, in response to a UCA
comment regarding the completeness of shipment data, DOE conducted a
sensitivity analysis by multiplying annual shipments in the three
shipment projections by 10 and calculating the resulting estimated
energy savings using the higher shipment projections. This sensitivity
resulted in estimated total site energy savings for the WCUAC classes
of between 0.0303 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of
the evaluated equipment) and 0.0456 quads (8.6 percent of estimated
site energy use of the evaluated equipment), and for the ECUAC classes
of 0.0006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use of the
evaluated equipment) and 0.0011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period. For
both equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged
between 0.0308 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of the
evaluated equipment) and 0.0467 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site
energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period.
IV. Final Determination
As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether
amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result in significant
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible and economically
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). DOE has determined that the
energy conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do not need to be
amended, having determined that it lacks ``clear and convincing''
evidence that amended standards would result in significant additional
conservation of energy. As previously discussed, 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))
IPI objected to DOE's reliance on the significance of energy
threshold established in the Process Rule. (IPI, No, 12 at p. 1) IPI
reiterated its comments regarding the significance of energy threshold
it previously submitted to the rulemaking to update the Process Rule.
(See IPI, \14\ No. 12-3) IPI stated that DOE failed to analyze the
benefit to consumers and the environment and the costs of achieving the
8.6 percent energy savings calculated using max-tech efficiency levels.
(IPI, No. 12 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ In the February 14, 2020 final rule amending the Process
Rule the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's
School of Law (referred to as ``IPI'' in this document) is
abbreviated as ``NYU Law''. See 85 FR 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE disagrees with IPI's characterization of the statutory
requirements applicable in the present case. EPCA specifically
stipulates that the Secretary may not adopt a uniform national standard
more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless such
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). A determination of whether energy savings would
be significant is distinct from consideration of potential consumer
cost impacts or environmental impacts, which are separate
considerations in determining whether an amended standard is
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). In this
final determination DOE is unable to determine, with clear and
convincing evidence, that amended standards would result in significant
additional conservation of energy based on the low projected energy
savings combined with low and potentially declining product shipments
(see sections III.C.3 and III.C.1, respectively).
An analysis of shipments data, a review of the CCMS database and
the AHRI Directory, and comments received 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.
DOE estimates that amended standards for ECUACs at the respective
``max-tech'' levels would result in additional site energy savings of
no more than 0.0001 quads during the analysis period. DOE has
determined the energy savings potential for ECUACs is de minimis. A
sensitivity analysis allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments
also resulted in an energy savings potential that is de minimis (see
Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and
convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs would result in
significant additional conservation of energy.
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 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 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
[[Page 37011]]
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 and
the max-tech efficiency levels for the small and large classes of
WCUACs, DOE calculated that amended standards would result in
additional site energy savings of no more than 0.0046 quads for all
WCUAC classes during the analysis period. DOE has determined the energy
savings potential for WCUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis
allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments also resulted an
energy savings potential that is de minimis (see Section III.C.3).
Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing
evidence that amended standards for WCUACs would result in significant
additional conservation of energy. Based on the consideration of
significant additional conservation of energy and that these markets
are small and may be declining, DOE has determined that the energy
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This final determination has been determined to be not significant
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, Regulatory Planning
and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, the Office of
Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review this final
determination.
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``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).
In response to the NOPD, UCA provided a number of general comments
regarding the potential impacts of efficiency regulations on equipment
and small businesses. UCA commented that small businesses are often not
members of trade associations and do not have staff reading the Federal
Register, and therefore do not get information on regulations. UCA also
stated that small businesses generally do not have the resources to
evaluate and access newer technologies at the same time as larger
companies and do not have the resources to develop an alternative
efficiency determination method. UCA further stated that small
commercial HVAC manufacturers have higher costs to fabricate units for
testing. (UCA No. 11-1, pp. 2-3)
DOE reviewed this final determination pursuant to the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February
19, 2003. As stated, this final determination is not amending standards
for ECUACs and WCUACs. Further, this final determination does not amend
the certification and reporting requirements. Therefore, DOE certifies
that this final determination has no significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for this final
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).
C. 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.
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance
with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021).
DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion
A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing
regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an
environmental impact statement.
E. 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. As this final
determination does not amend the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, there
is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore,
no action is required by Executive Order 13132.
[[Page 37012]]
F. 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 final determination meets
the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.
G. 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 available at
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
This final determination does not contain a Federal
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditure of
$100 million or more in one year by State, local, and Tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result,
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999
Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This final 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.
I. 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 final determination
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001
Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under 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). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has
reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.
K. 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 the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') at OMB, a
Statement of Energy Effects for any 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 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 final determination does not amend the current
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.
L. 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
[[Page 37013]]
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
determination.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7,
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary
and Acting 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 July 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14837 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
