Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 43770-43792 [2024-08545]
Download as PDF
43770
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 89, No. 98
Monday, May 20, 2024
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015]
RIN 1904–AF34
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Air-Cooled
Commercial Package Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Energy Policy and
Conservation Act, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy
conservation standards for various
consumer products and certain
commercial and industrial equipment,
including air-cooled commercial
package air conditioners and heat
pumps with a rated cooling capacity
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. In
this notice of proposed rulemaking
(‘‘NOPR’’), the U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes amended
energy conservation standards, based on
clear and convincing evidence, identical
to those set forth in a direct final rule
(‘‘DFR’’) published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register. If DOE
receives adverse comment and
determines that such comment may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule, DOE
will publish a notification of
withdrawal and will proceed with this
proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this NOPR no
later than September 9, 2024. Comments
regarding the likely competitive impact
of the proposed standard should be sent
to the Department of Justice contact
listed in the ADDRESSES section on or
before June 20, 2024.
ADDRESSES: See section IV of this
document, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for
details. If DOE withdraws the direct
final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register, DOE will
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
hold a public meeting to allow for
additional comment on this proposed
rule. DOE will publish notice of any
meeting in the Federal Register.
Interested persons are encouraged to
submit comments using the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015.
Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE–
2022–BT–STD–0015, by any of the
following methods:
Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015 in the
subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
compact disc (‘‘CD’’), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
IV of this document (Public
Participation).
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the
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
www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2022-BT-STD-0015. The docket web
page contains instructions on how to
access all documents, including public
comments, in the docket. See section IV
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of this document for information on
how to submit comments through
www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General
to provide DOE a written determination
of whether the proposed standard is
likely to lessen competition. The U.S.
Department of Justice Antitrust Division
invites input from market participants
and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the
proposed standard. Interested persons
may contact the Antitrust Division at
energy.standards@usdoj.gov on or
before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ‘‘Subject’’
line of your email the title and Docket
Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Lucas Adin, 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) 287–
5904. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–4798. Email:
Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate
in the public meeting (if one is held),
contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or by email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
ACUACs and ACUHPs
3. 2022–2023 ASRAC ACUAC/HP Working
Group Recommended Standard Levels
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for ACUAC and ACUHP
Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, Public Law 94–163, as amended
(‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes the DOE to
regulate the energy efficiency of a
number of consumer products and
certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6291–6317, as codified) Title III, Part C 2
of EPCA established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311–
6317) This covered equipment includes
small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D))
Such equipment includes as equipment
categories air-cooled commercial
unitary air conditioners with a rated
cooling capacity greater than or equal to
65,000 Btu/h (‘‘ACUACs’’) and aircooled commercial unitary heat pumps
with a rated cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
(‘‘ACUHPs’’), which are the subject of
this proposed rulemaking.3 The current
energy conservation standards for the
subject equipment are found in the Code
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through the Energy Act
of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which
reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A–1 of EPCA.
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1.
3 While ACUACs and ACUHPs with rated cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are included in the
broader category of commercial unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘CUACs and
CUHPs’’), they are not addressed in this NOPR. The
standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs with rated
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h have been
addressed in a separate rulemaking (see Docket No.
EERE–2022–BT–STD–0008). Accordingly, all
references within this NOPR to ACUACs and
ACUHPs exclude equipment with rated cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) at 10
CFR 431.97(b).
In accordance with the authority
provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and 42
U.S.C. 6316(b)(1), DOE is proposing this
rule establishing and amending the
energy conservation standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs and is
concurrently issuing a direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.4 DOE will proceed
with this notice of proposed rulemaking
only if it determines it must withdraw
the direct final rule pursuant to the
criteria provided in 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4). The amended standards
levels in both this NOPR and that DFR
reflect the culmination of a negotiated
rulemaking that included the following
document and stakeholder comments
thereon: May 2020 energy conservation
standards request for information (‘‘May
2020 ECS RFI’’) (85 FR 27941 (May 12,
2020)); May 2022 test procedure (‘‘TP’’)/
ECS RFI (87 FR 31743 (May 25, 2022));
and the 2022 Appliance Standards and
Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) commercial
unitary air conditioners and heat pumps
working group negotiations, hereinafter
referred to as ‘‘the 2023 ECS
Negotiations’’ (87 FR 45703 (July 29,
2022)). Participants in the 2023 ECS
Negotiations included stakeholders
representing manufacturers, energyefficiency and environmental advocates,
States, and electric utility companies.
See section II.B.2 of this document for
a detailed history of the current
rulemaking.
The consensus reached by the
ACUAC/HP ASRAC Working Group
(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘the ACUAC/
HP Working Group’’) on amended
4 See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b) (applying 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4) to energy conservation standard
rulemakings involving a variety of industrial
equipment, including ACUACs and ACUHPs).
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43771
energy conservation standards (‘‘ECS’’)
is outlined in the ASRAC Working
Group Term Sheet (hereinafter referred
to as ‘‘the ACUAC/HP Working Group
ECS Term Sheet’’). (ASRAC Working
Group ECS Term Sheet, Docket No.
EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015, No. 87) As
discussed in more detail in the
accompanying direct final rule and in
accordance with the provisions at 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has tentatively
determined that the recommendations
contained in the ACUAC/HP Working
Group ECS Term Sheet are compliant
with the requirements of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B).
In accordance with these and other
statutory provisions discussed in this
document, DOE proposes amended
energy conservation standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs. The standards
for ACUACs and ACUHPs are expressed
in terms of the new integrated
ventilation, economizing and cooling
(‘‘IVEC’’) and integrated ventilation and
heating efficiency (‘‘IVHE’’), as
determined in accordance with the
ACUAC/ACUHP test procedure set forth
a final rule amending the test procedure
for ACUACs and ACUHPs.5 The newly
adopted DOE test procedure for
ACUACs and ACUHPs appears at 10
CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A1
(appendix A1).
Table I.1 presents the proposed
amended standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs. The proposed standards are
the same as those recommended by the
ACUAC/HP Working Group. These
proposed standards would apply to all
equipment listed in Table I.1 and
manufactured in, or imported into the
United States starting on January 1,
2029, as recommended by the ACUAC/
HP Working Group.
5 The final rule amending the test procedure can
be found at www.regulations.gov under docket
number EERE–2023–BT–TP–0014.
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43772
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table 1.1 Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
1Compliance Startin~ January 1, 2029)
Subcategory
Supplementary Heating Type
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating
All Other Types of Heating
~65,000 Btu/hand
<135,000 Btu/h
All Types of Heating or No Heating
HP
~ 135,000
~240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000
Btu/h
The following section briefly
discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well
as some of the relevant historical
background related to the establishment
of energy conservation standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Authority
EPCA, Public Law 94–163, as
amended, authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of certain
consumer products and industrial
equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA,
added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV,
section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes ACUACs and
ACUHPs, which are a category of small,
large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment and the subject of this
rulemaking. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D))
EPCA prescribed initial standards for
this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)–
(2))
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE must amend
the energy conservation standards for
certain types of commercial and
industrial equipment, including the
equipment at issue in this document,
whenever ASHRAE amends the
standard levels or design requirements
prescribed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’
(‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1’’). DOE must
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
IVEC = 13.8
IVEC = 13.4
IVHE = 6.2
IVEC = 13.8
All Other Types of Heating
IVEC = 13.3
HP
All Types of Heating or No Heating
IVEC = 13.1
IVHE = 6.0
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating
All Other Types of Heating
HP
II. Introduction
IVEC = 14.3
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating
AC
Btu/h
and <240,000
Btu/h
Minimum
Efficiency
All Types of Heating or No Heating
adopt the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1 levels for these equipment
(hereafter ‘‘ASHRAE equipment’’),
unless the Secretary of Energy (‘‘the
Secretary’’) determines by rule
published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing
evidence that adoption of a morestringent uniform national standard
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)–(B))
In addition, EPCA contains a review
requirement for this same equipment
(the six-year-lookback review), which
requires DOE to consider the need for
amended standards every six years. To
adopt more-stringent standards under
that provision, DOE must once again
have clear and convincing evidence to
show that such standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified and would save a
significant additional amount of energy.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)); see id.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) & (a)(6)(B)(i))
In deciding whether a more-stringent
standard is economically justified,
under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C),
DOE must determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens. DOE must make this
determination after receiving comments
on the proposed standard, and by
considering, to the maximum extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IVEC = 12.9
IVEC = 12.2
IVEC = 12.1
IVHE = 5.8
consumers of equipment subject to the
standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered equipment in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered equipment that
are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of
energy savings likely to result directly
from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
(6) The need for national energy
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of
Energy considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII))
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 the
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; 42 U.S.C. 6296(a), (b) and (d)).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.297
Cooling Capacity
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
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 for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the
procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth
the criteria and procedures DOE is
required to follow when prescribing or
amending test procedures for covered
equipment. EPCA requires that any test
procedure prescribed or amended under
this section must be reasonably
designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated annual operating cost of
covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and
requires that the test procedure not be
unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of
covered equipment must use the Federal
test procedures as the basis for
certifying to DOE that their equipment
complies with the applicable energy
conservation standards adopted
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42
U.S.C. 6296) and when making
representations about the efficiency of
that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)).
Similarly, DOE uses these test
procedures to determine whether the
equipment complies with relevant
standards promulgated under EPCA.
The current DOE test procedure for
ACUACs and ACUHPs appear at 10 CFR
part 431, subpart F, appendix A.
EPCA also contains what is known as
an ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ provision, which
prevents the Secretary from prescribing
any amended standard that either
increases the maximum allowable
energy use or decreases the minimum
required energy efficiency of a covered
product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I))
Also, the Secretary may not prescribe an
amended or new standard if interested
persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the
standard is likely to result in the
unavailability in the United States in
any covered equipment type (or class) of
performance characteristics (including
reliability), features, sizes, capacities,
and volumes that are substantially the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
same as those generally available in the
United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
Finally, the Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’),
Public Law 110–140, amended EPCA, in
relevant part, to grant DOE authority to
directly issue a final rule (hereinafter
referred to as a ‘‘direct final rule’’ or
‘‘DFR’’) establishing an energy
conservation standard on receipt of a
statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relevant points of view
(including representatives of
manufacturers of covered products/
equipment, States, and efficiency
advocates), as determined by the
Secretary, that contains
recommendations with respect to an
energy or water conservation standard
that are in accordance with the
provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42
U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the
Secretary must also determine whether
a jointly-submitted recommendation for
an energy or water conservation
standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
A NOPR that proposes an identical
energy efficiency standard must be
published simultaneously with the
direct final rule, and DOE must provide
a public comment period of at least 110
days on this proposal. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)–(B))
While DOE typically provides a
comment period of 60 days on proposed
energy conservation standards, for a
NOPR accompanying a direct final rule,
DOE provides a comment period of the
same length as the comment period on
the direct final rule—i.e., 110 days.
Based on the comments received during
this period, the direct final rule will
either become effective, or DOE will
withdraw it not later than 120 days after
its issuance if: (1) one or more adverse
comments is received, and (2) DOE
determines that those comments, when
viewed in light of the rulemaking record
related to the direct final rule, may
provide a reasonable basis for
withdrawal of the direct final rule under
42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), or any other applicable
law. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43773
joint recommendation may also trigger a
DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule
in the same manner. (Id.) After
withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE
must proceed with the notice of
proposed rulemaking published
simultaneously with the direct final rule
and publish in the Federal Register the
reasons why the direct final rule was
withdrawn. Id.
DOE has previously explained its
interpretation of its direct final rule
authority. In a final rule amending the
Department’s ‘‘Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for
Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer
Products’’ at 10 CFR part 430, subpart
C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may
issue standards recommended by
interested persons that are fairly
representative of relative points of view
as a direct final rule when the
recommended standards are in
accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86
FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But the
direct final rule provision in EPCA does
not impose additional requirements
applicable to other standards
rulemakings, which is consistent with
the unique circumstances of rules
issued as consensus agreements under
DOE’s direct final rule authority. Id.
DOE’s discretion remains bounded by
its statutory mandate to adopt a
standard that results in the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified—a requirement
found in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). As
such, DOE’s review and analysis of the
Joint Agreement is limited to whether
the recommended standards satisfy the
criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published in the
Federal Register on January 15, 2016
(‘‘January 2016 Direct Final Rule’’), DOE
prescribed the current energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs manufactured on and after
January 1, 2023. 81 FR 2420. These
standards are set forth in DOE’s
regulations at 10 CFR 431.97(b) and are
repeated in Table II.1.
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43774
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table 11.1 Federal Energy Efficiency Standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs
Small
Commercial
Packaged Air
Conditioning and
Heating
Equipment (AirCooled)
Large
Commercial
Packaged Air
Conditioning and
Heating
Equipment (AirCooled)
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Very Large
Commercial
Packaged Air
Conditioning and
Heating
Equipment (AirCooled)
Subcategory
AC
2:65,000 Btu/h
and <135,000
Btu/h
HP
AC
2:135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000
Btu/h
HP
AC
2:240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000
Btu/h
HP
Supplementary Heating
Type
Electric Resistance
Heating or No Heating
All Other Types of
Heating
Electric Resistance
Heating or No Heating
IEER = 14.1
COP=3.4
All Other Types of
Heating
IEER= 13.9
COP= 3.4
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
IEER= 14.0
IEER= 13.5
COP= 3.3
IEER= 13.3
COP= 3.3
IEER= 13.2
IEER = 13.0
IEER = 12.5
COP= 3.2
IEER= 12.3
COP= 3.2
All Other Types of
Heating
handled in a different rulemaking proceeding (see
Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042 in
www.regulations.gov).
PO 00000
IEER= 14.2
Electric Resistance
Heating or No Heating
All Other Types of
Heating
Electric Resistance
Heating or No Heating
6 The May 2020 ECS RFI also addressed
commercial warm-air furnaces, a separate type of
covered equipment which was subsequently
Jkt 262001
IEER = 14.6
All Other Types of
Heating
RFI sought information to help DOE
inform its decisions, consistent with its
obligations under EPCA. DOE received
multiple comments from interested
stakeholders in response to the May
2020 ECS RFI, which prompted DOE to
publish the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI in the
Federal Register on May 25, 2022, to
investigate additional aspects of the
ACUAC and ACUHP TP and standards.
87 FR 31743. In the latter document,
DOE identified several issues that it
determined would benefit from further
comment. DOE discussed these topics
(including any comments received in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that
are related to these topics) in the May
2022 TP/ECS RFI. Once again, DOE
received a number of written comments
from interested parties related to
standards for CUACs and CUHPs in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI and
the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI. DOE
considered these comments in
preparation of this NOPR and the direct
16:40 May 17, 2024
IEER = 14.8
Electric Resistance
Heating or No Heating
All Other Types of
Heating
Electric Resistance
Heating or No Heating
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for
ACUACs and ACUHPs
Since publication of the January 2016
Direct Final Rule, ASHRAE published
an updated version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (‘‘ASHRAE 90.1–2019’’),
which updated the minimum efficiency
levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs to align
with those adopted by DOE in the
January 2016 Direct Final Rule (i.e.,
specifying two tiers of minimum levels
for ACUACs and ACUHPs, with a
January 1, 2023 compliance date for the
second tier). ASHRAE published
another version of ASHRAE Standard
90.1 in January 2023 (‘‘ASHRAE 90.1–
2022’’), which includes the same
minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs
and ACUHPs as those included in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019.
On May 12, 2020, DOE began its sixyear-lookback review with for ACUACs
and ACUHPs by publishing in the
Federal Register the May 2020 ECS
RFI.6 85 FR 27941. The May 2020 ECS
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Minimum
Efficiency
Sfmt 4702
final rule, and they are discussed in
further detail in the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register.
On July 29, 2022, DOE published in
the Federal Register a notice of intent
to establish a working group for
commercial unitary air conditioners and
heat pumps to negotiate proposed test
procedures and amended energy
conservation standards for this
equipment (‘‘July 2022 Notice of
Intent’’). 87 FR 45703. The ACUAC/HP
Working Group was established under
ASRAC in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (‘‘FACA’’) (5
U.S.C. App 2) and the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act (‘‘NRA’’) (5 U.S.C. 561–
570, Pub. L. 104–320). The purpose of
the ACUAC/HP Working Group was to
discuss, and if possible, reach
consensus on recommended
amendments to the test procedures and
energy conservation standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs. The ACUAC/HP
Working Group consisted of 14 voting
members, including DOE. (See appendix
A, Working Group Members, Document
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.298
Cooling
Capacity
Equipment Type
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
No. 65 in Docket No. EERE–2022–BT–
STD–0015) On December 15, 2022, the
ACUAC/HP Working Group signed a
Term Sheet (‘‘ACUAC/HP Working
Group TP Term Sheet’’) of
recommendations regarding ACUAC
and ACUHP test procedures, including
two new efficiency metrics: IVEC and
IVHE. (See Id.)
The ACUAC/HP Working Group met
five times to discuss energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs. These meetings took place on
February 22–23, March 21–22, April 12–
13, April 26–27, and May 1, 2023. As a
result of these efforts, the ACUAC/HP
Working Group successfully reached
consensus on recommended energy
conservation standards in terms of the
new IVEC and IVHE metrics for CUACs
and CUHPs. On May 1, 2023, the
ACUAC/HP Working Group signed the
ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term
Sheet outlining its recommendations
which ASRAC approved on October 17,
2023. These recommendations are
discussed further in section II.B.3 of this
NOPR.
3. 2022–2023 ASRAC ACUAC/HP
Working Group Recommended Standard
Levels
This section summarizes the standard
levels recommended in the Term Sheet
submitted by the ACUAC/HP Working
Group for ACUAC/HP energy
conservation standards and the
subsequent procedural steps taken by
DOE. Recommendation #1 of the
ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term
43775
Sheet recommends standard levels for
ACUACs and ACUHPs with a
recommended compliance date of
January 1, 2029. (ASRAC Term Sheet,
No. 87 at p. 2) These recommended
standard levels are presented in Table
II.2. Recommendation #2 of the
ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term
Sheet recommends revising existing
certification requirements to support the
new metrics and standards presented in
Table II.2, specifically requesting that
manufacturers be required to certify the
following information publicly to DOE
for each basic model: (1) crankcase heat
wattage for each compressor stage, and
(2) 5 °F heating capacity and COP, if
applicable. DOE will address
recommendation #2 regarding
certification in a separate rulemaking.
Table 11.2 Recommended Amended Energy Conservation Standards for ACUACs
andACUHPs
Subcategory
Supplementary Heating Type
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating
All Other Types of Heating
HP
All Types of Heating or No Heating
~135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000
Btu/h
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating
All Other Types of Heating
HP
All Types of Heating or No Heating
~240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000
Btu/h
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating
All Other Types of Heating
HP
All Types of Heating or No Heating
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
~65,000 Btu/hand
<135,000 Btu/h
After carefully considering the
consensus recommendations for
amending the energy conservation
standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
submitted by the ACUAC/HP Working
Group and adopted by ASRAC, DOE has
tentatively determined that these
recommendations are in accordance
with the statutory requirements of 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1) for the issuance of a direct
final rule. The following paragraphs
explain DOE’s rationale in making this
tentative determination.
First, with respect to the requirement
that recommended energy conservation
standards be submitted by interested
persons that are fairly representative of
relevant points of view, DOE notes that
the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS
Term Sheet was signed and submitted
by a broad cross-section of interests,
including the manufacturers who
produce the subject equipment. To
satisfy this requirement, DOE has
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
generally found that the group
submitting a joint statement must,
where appropriate, include larger
concerns and small businesses in the
regulated industry/manufacturer
community, energy advocates, energy
utilities, consumers, and States.
However, the Department has explained
that it will be necessary to evaluate the
meaning of ‘‘fairly representative’’ on a
case-by-case basis, subject to the
circumstances of a particular
rulemaking, to determine whether
additional parties must be part of a joint
statement beyond the required
‘‘manufacturers of covered products,
States, and efficiency advocates’’
specifically called out by EPCA at 42
U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). In this case, in
addition to manufacturers, the ACUAC/
HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet also
included environmental and energyefficiency advocacy organizations, and
electric utility companies. Although
States were not direct signatories to the
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Minimum
Efficiency
IVEC = 14.3
IVEC = 13.8
IVEC = 13.4
IVHE = 6.2
IVEC = 13.8
IVEC = 13.3
IVEC = 13.1
IVHE= 6.0
IVEC = 12.9
IVEC = 12.2
IVEC = 12.1
IVHE= 5.8
ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term
Sheet, the ASRAC Committee approving
the ACUAC/HP Working Group’s
recommendations included at least two
members representing States—one
representing the State of New York and
one representing the State of California.
As a result, DOE has tentatively
determined that these recommendations
were submitted by interested persons
who are fairly representative of relevant
points of view on this matter, including
those specifically identified by
Congress: manufacturers of covered
equipment, States, and efficiency
advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A); 42
U.S.C. 6316(b)(1))
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the
Secretary must also determine whether
a jointly-submitted recommendation for
an energy or water conservation
standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. In
making this determination, DOE
conducted an analysis to evaluate
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.299
Cooling Capacity
43776
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
whether the potential energy
conservation standards under
consideration achieve significant energy
savings and are technologically feasible
and economically justified. The
evaluation is similar to the
comprehensive approach that DOE
typically conducts whenever it
considers potential new or amended
energy conservation standards for a
given type of product or equipment.
DOE applies the same principles to any
consensus recommendations it may
receive to satisfy its statutory
obligations. Upon review, the Secretary
tentatively determined that the ACUAC/
HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet
comports with the standard-setting
criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B).
Accordingly, DOE published a direct
final rule establishing amended energy
conservation standards for the subject
ACUACs and ACUHPs published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register, which includes the consensusrecommended efficiency levels as the
‘‘recommended trial standard level
(‘‘TSL’’) for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
For further background information
on these proposed standards and the
supporting analyses, please see the
direct final rule published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register,
including section V.A of the DFR which
provides a description of all the
considered TSLs. That document and
the accompanying technical support
document (‘‘TSD’’) contain an in-depth
discussion of the analyses conducted in
evaluating the ACUAC/HP Working
Group ECS Term Sheet, the
methodologies DOE used in conducting
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
those analyses, and the analytical
results.
In sum, the Secretary has tentatively
determined that the relevant criteria
under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and 42
U.S.C. 6316(b)(1) have been satisfied,
such that it is appropriate to propose the
consensus-recommended amended
energy conservation standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs through this
NOPR, based on the clear and
convincing evidence, as discussed in
section III.A of this document.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses
the benefits and/or burdens of each TSL,
tables in this section present a summary
of the results of DOE’s quantitative
analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the
tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect
economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of
consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national
standard and impacts on employment.
III. Proposed Standards
As noted previously, EPCA specifies
that, for any commercial and industrial
equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE may prescribe an
energy conservation standard more
stringent than the level for such
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
as amended, 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)(A)(ii)(II)) For this proposed
rule, DOE considered the impacts of
amended standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs at each TSL, beginning with
the maximum technologically feasible
(‘‘max-tech’’) level, to determine
whether that level was economically
justified. Where the max-tech level was
not justified, DOE then considered the
next most efficient level and undertook
the same evaluation until it reached the
highest efficiency level that is both
technologically feasible and
economically justified and saves a
significant amount of energy.
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs
Considered for ACUAC and ACUHP
Standards
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize
the quantitative impacts estimated for
each TSL for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
The national impacts are measured over
the lifetime of ACUACs and ACUHPs
purchased in the 30-year period that
begins in the anticipated year of
compliance with amended standards
(2029–2058). The energy savings,
emissions reductions, and value of
emissions reductions refer to full-fuelcycle (‘‘FFC’’) results. DOE is presenting
monetized benefits of greenhouse gas
(‘‘GHG’’) emissions reductions in
accordance with the applicable
Executive Orders, and DOE would reach
the same conclusion presented in this
document in the absence of the social
cost of greenhouse gases, including the
Interim Estimates presented by the
Interagency Working Group (‘‘IWG’’).
The efficiency levels contained in each
TSL are described in section V.A of the
direct final rule published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register.
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
43777
Table 111.1 Summary of Analytical Results for ACUACs and ACUHPs TSLs: National
Impacts
Category
TSLl
TSL2
TSL3
(Recommended)
Cumulative FFC National Energy Savings
4.20
Quads
3.13
Cumulative FFC Emissions Reduction
82.79
CO2 (million metric tons)
61.55
478.93
643.91
CH4 (thousand tons)
0.47
0.63
N2O (thousand tons)
SO2 (thousand tons)
14.31
19.25
104.78
140.93
NOx (thousand tons)
0.09
0.13
Hg (tons)
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (3% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
13.52
18.23
Climate Benefits*
2.70
3.68
Health Benefits**
4.94
6.71
Total Benefitst
21.17
28.62
Consumer Incremental Equipment
5.27
3.40
Costs!
Consumer Net Benefits
10.12
12.96
Total Net Benefits
17.77
23.35
Present Value of Benefits and Costs (7% discount rate, billion 2022$)
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
5.02
6.81
Climate Benefits*
2.70
3.68
Health Benefits**
1.66
2.27
Total Benefitst
9.39
12.76
Consumer Incremental Equipment
1.81
2.80
Costs!
Consumer Net Benefits
3.22
4.01
Total Net Benefits
7.58
9.96
TSL4
5.52
14.81
108.73
845.55
0.83
25.29
185.10
0.17
291.39
2,268.24
2.21
67.71
495.97
0.45
23.89
4.86
8.84
37.59
8.59
61.32
12.60
23.18
97.11
39.65
15.30
29.00
21.67
57.46
8.94
4.86
3.00
16.81
4.56
22.61
12.60
7.75
42.96
21.06
4.39
12.25
1.54
21.90
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.300
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ACUACs and ACUHPs shipped in 2029-2058.
These results include benefits to consumers which accrue after 2058 from the equipment shipped in 2029-2058. Abbreviations
used in this table include CO2 (carbon dioxide); CH4 (methane); N2O (nitrous oxide); NOx (nitrogen oxide); SO2 (sulfur dioxide),
Hg (mercury), and PM (particulate matter).
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the social cost ("SC") of certain pollutants - SC-CO2, SC-CH4
and SC-N2O. Together, these represent the global social cost of greenhouse gases ("SC-GHG"). For presentational purposes of
this table, the climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but the Department
does not have a single, central SC-GHG point estimate. DOE emphasizes the value of considering the benefits calculated using
all four sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits of reducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim estimates
presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim Estimates Under
Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the TWO. Seewww.whitehouse.gov/wpcontent/uploads/2021/02/TechnicalSupportDocument_SocialCostofCarbonMethaneNitrousOxide.pdf
** Health benefits are calculated using benefit-per-ton values for NOx and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for NOx and
SO2) PM2.s precursor health benefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health benefits, but will continue to assess the ability to
monetize other effects such as health benefits from reductions in direct PM2.s emissions. The health benefits are presented at real
discount rates of3 and 7 percent. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register for more details.
t Total and net benefits include consumer, climate, and health benefits that can be monetized. For presentation purposes, total
and net benefits for both the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-OHO with 3-percent discount rate.
DOE emphasizes the importance and value of considering the benefits calculated using all four sets of SC-OHO estimates.
t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
43778
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table 111.2 Summary of Analytical Results for ACUACs and ACUHPs TSLs:
Manufacturer and Consumer Impacts
Category
TSLl
TSL2
Industry NPV (million 2022$) (No2,560.1 new-standards case INPV = 2,653.0)
2,608.8
for ACUACs and ACUHPs
Industry NPV (% change) for
(3.5)-(1.7)
ACUACs and ACUHPs
Consumer Averae:e LCC Savine:s (2022$)
Small ACUACs
1,047
Large ACUACs
1,363
Very Large ACUACs
6,431
Shioment-Weie:hted Average•
1,662
Consumer Simple PBP (years)
Small ACUACs
4.72
Large ACUACs
3.45
Verv Large ACUACs
1.13
Shipment-W eie:hted Average•
4.05
Percent of Consumers that Experience a Net Cost
Small ACUACs
22
Large ACUACs
3
Very Large ACUACs
1
Shioment-Weie:hted Average•
15
2,511.22,577.0
TSL3
(Recommended)
2,459.12,573.5
TSL4
1,102.4 1,822.9
(5.3) (2.9)
(7.3)-(3.0)
(58.4)(31.3)
1,523
1,363
6,431
1,974
1,380
2,488
6,431
2,154
242
3,880
12,766
2,379
4.82
3.45
1.13
4.12
5.91
3.45
1.13
4.83
10.44
7.05
7.46
9.32
9
3
1
7
26
4
1
18
60
31
24
49
DOE first considered TSL 4, which
represents the max-tech efficiency
levels. The max-tech efficiency levels
for all equipment classes would require
complete redesigns of almost all models
currently available on the market to be
optimized around the new test
procedure and energy efficiency metrics
to provide better field performance. TSL
4 could necessitate using a combination
of numerous design options, including
the most efficient compressors, fans,
and motor designs, more-efficient heat
exchangers, and/or advanced controls.
TSL 4 would save an estimated 14.8
quads of energy, an amount DOE
considers significant. Under TSL 4, the
NPV of consumer net benefit would be
$1.5 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and $21.7 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at TSL 4 are 291.4 Mt of CO2, 67.7
thousand tons of SO2, 496.0 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.45 tons of Hg, 2,268.2
thousand tons of CH4, and 2.2 thousand
tons of N2O. The estimated monetary
value of the climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions (associated
with the average SC–GHG at a 3-percent
discount rate) at TSL 4 is $12.6 billion.
The estimated monetary value of the
health benefits from reduced SO2 and
NOX emissions at TSL 4 is $7.8 billion
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
using a 7-percent discount rate and
$23.2 billion using a 3-percent discount
rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 4 is $21.9 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 4 is $57.5 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information; however, DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a potential standard level is
economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $242 for small ACUACs,
$3,880 for large ACUACs, and $12,766
for very large ACUACs. The simple
payback period is 10 years for small
ACUACs and seven years for large and
very large ACUACs. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost
is 60 percent for small ACUACs, 31
percent for large ACUACs, and 24
percent for very large ACUACs. On a
shipment-weighted average basis, the
average LCC impact is a savings of
$2,379, the simple payback period is 9
years, and the fraction of consumers
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
experiencing a net LCC cost is 49
percent.
At TSL 4, the projected change in
INPV ranges from a decrease of $1,550.6
million to a decrease of $830.1 million,
which corresponds to decreases of 58.4
percent to 31.3 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry would need
to invest $1,891 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 4. DOE estimates
that approximately 2 percent of small
ACUAC and ACUHP models, 10 percent
of large ACUAC and ACUHP models,
and 1 percent of very large ACUAC and
ACUHP models currently available for
purchase meet the efficiency levels that
would be required at TSL 4 after testing
using the amended test procedure and
when represented in the new metric.
Very few manufacturers produce
equipment at TSL 4 efficiency levels at
this time. DOE estimates that only three
of the nine manufacturers of small
ACUACs and ACUHPs currently offer
models that meet the efficiency levels
that would be required for small
ACUACs and ACUHPs at TSL 4. DOE
estimates that only two of the eight
manufacturers of large ACUACs and
ACUHPs offer models that meet the
efficiency levels that would be required
for large ACUACs and ACUHPs at TSL
4. DOE estimates that only one of the
eight manufacturers of very large
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.301
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Note: This table uses the following abbreviations: LCC (life-cycle cost), NPV (net present value), and
INPV (industry net present value). Parentheses indicate negative(-) values.
* Weighted by shares of each equipment class in total projected shipments in 2022.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
ACUACs and ACUHPs offer models that
meet the efficiency level that would be
required for very large ACUACs and
ACUHPs at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE understands that all of
the manufacturers would need to utilize
significant engineering resources to
redesign their current offerings to bring
them into compliance with TSL 4
efficiencies. All manufacturers would
have to invest heavily in their
production facilities and source moreefficient components for incorporation
into their designs. One of the challenges
that certain members of the ACUAC/HP
Working Group expressed was ensuring
the footprint of the large and very large
ACUACs and ACUHPs did not grow to
a level that was not suitable for existing
retrofits. While there was some
uncertainty surrounding what those
footprints might look like, most
manufacturers were generally concerned
that TSL 4 could require such increases,
especially for very large models. DOE
understands that to meet max-tech IVEC
levels, a high fraction of models would
need larger cabinet footprints to
accommodate the increased size of
efficiency-improving design options,
which would require substantial
investment in retooling as well as
redesign engineering efforts.
DOE estimates that at TSL 4, most
manufacturers would be required to
redesign every ACUAC and ACUHP
model offering covered by this
rulemaking. Some manufacturers may
not have the engineering capacity to
complete the necessary redesigns within
the compliance period. If manufacturers
were unable to redesign all their
covered ACUAC and ACUHP models
within the compliance period, they
would likely prioritize redesigns based
on model sales volume. In such case,
model offerings of large and very large
ACUACs and ACUHPs might decrease,
given that there are many capacities
offered for large and very large ACUACs
and ACUHPs and comparatively fewer
shipments across which to distribute
conversion costs. Furthermore, DOE
recognizes that a standard set at maxtech could greatly limit equipment
differentiation in the ACUAC and
ACUHP market.
Based upon the previous
considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 4 for ACUACs
and ACUHPs, the benefits of energy
savings, positive NPV of consumer
benefits, emission reductions, and the
estimated monetary value of the
emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the impacts on
manufacturers, including the large
conversion costs, profit margin impacts
that could result in a large reduction in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
INPV, and the scale and magnitude of
the redesign efforts needed for
manufacturers to bring their current
equipment offerings into compliance at
this TSL. DOE is concerned that
manufacturers may narrow their
equipment offerings and focus on highvolume models to meet the standard
within the compliance window. DOE is
also concerned with the potential
footprint implications, especially for
very large ACUAC and ACUHP models,
as manufacturer optimize around the
new test procedure and metric for the
largest of ACUAC and ACUHP models.
Consequently, DOE has tentatively
concluded that it is unable to make a
determination, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that TSL 4 is
economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL), which represents
efficiency levels 4, 2, and 1 for small,
large, and very large ACUACs and
ACUHPs, respectively. At TSL 3
efficiency levels, DOE understand that
manufacturers would likely need to
implement fewer design options than
needed for TSL 4. These design options
could include increasing outdoor and/or
indoor coil size, modifying compressor
staging, and improving fan and/or fan
motor efficiency in order to meet these
levels. These technologies and design
paths are familiar to manufacturers as
they produce equipment today that can
meet TSL 3 efficiency levels, but they
are not optimized around the new test
procedure and metrics, which are more
representative of field performance. The
Recommended TSL would save an
estimated 5.5 quads of energy, an
amount DOE considers significant.
Under TSL 3, the NPV of consumer net
benefit would be $4.4 billion using a
discount rate of 7 percent, and $15.3
billion using a discount rate of 3
percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions
at the Recommended TSL are 108.7 Mt
of CO2, 25.3 thousand tons of SO2, 185.1
thousand tons of NOX, 0.2 tons of Hg,
845.6 thousand tons of CH4, and 0.8
thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC–GHG at
a 3-percent discount rate) at the
Recommended TSL is $4.86 billion. The
estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at the Recommended TSL is
$3.0 billion using a 7-percent discount
rate and $8.8 billion using a 3-percent
discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs, health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
43779
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
total NPV at TSL 3 is $12.3 billion.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated total
NPV at TSL 3 is $29.0 billion. The
estimated total NPV is provided for
additional information; however, DOE
primarily relies upon the NPV of
consumer benefits when determining
whether a potential standard level is
economically justified.
At the Recommended TSL, the
average LCC impact is a savings of
$1,380 for small ACUACs, $2,488 for
large ACUACs, and $6,431 for very large
ACUACs. The simple payback period is
six years for small ACUACs, 3.5 years
for large ACUACs, and 1 year for very
large ACUACs. The fraction of
consumers experiencing a net LCC cost
is 26 percent for small ACUACs, 4
percent for large ACUACs, and 1
percent for very large ACUACs. On a
shipment-weighted average basis, the
average LCC impact is a savings of
$2,154, the simple payback period is 4.8
years, and the fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 18
percent.
At the Recommended TSL, TSL 3, the
projected change in INPV ranges from a
decrease of $193.9 million to a decrease
$79.5 million, which correspond to
decreases of 7.3 percent and 3.0 percent,
respectively. DOE estimates that
industry must invest $288 million to
comply with standards set at the
Recommended TSL. The ACUAC/HP
Working Group manufacturers were
more comfortable with TSL 3 efficiency
levels, because the technologies
anticipated to be used are the same as
technologies employed in the
commercially-available products today.
In some cases, manufacturers believed
existing cabinets could be maintained,
while in other cases, investments would
be needed to modify production
equipment for new cabinet designs to
optimize fan design and accommodate
other changes. DOE estimates that at
TSL 3 efficiency levels, manufacturers
might likely utilize staging of the
compressor instead of moving the entire
market to variable-speed compressors.
However, DOE understands that both of
these are options that manufacturers
may choose to improve efficiency for
those models needing redesign. While
DOE estimates that there are currently
few shipments at the Recommended
TSL, particularly for small ACUACs/
HPs (as discussed in section IV.F.8 of
the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register),
DOE estimates that approximately 37
percent of small ACUAC and ACUHP
models, 50 percent of large ACUAC and
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43780
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
ACUHP models, and 64 percent of very
large ACUAC and ACUHP models
currently available would have the
capability of meeting the efficiency
levels required at TSL 3 without being
redesigned. This indicates that there is
already a significant number of models
available on the market that would meet
the Recommended TSL when
represented in the new metrics, and that
the technology to meet these standards
is readily available. Manufacturers
understand the design pathways and
have significant experience with the
existing technologies needed to bring
the remaining models into compliance
within the timeframe given. DOE
estimates that five of the nine
manufacturers of small ACUACs and
ACUHPs offer models that would meet
the efficiency level required at TSL 3.
DOE estimates that six of the eight
manufacturers of large ACUACs and
ACUHPs offer models that meet the
efficiency level required at TSL 3. DOE
estimates that six of the eight
manufacturers of very large ACUACs
and ACUHPs offer models that meet the
efficiency level required at TSL 3. Given
the support expressed by the ACUAC/
HP Working Group for TSL 3 (the
Recommended TSL), DOE has
tentatively concluded that all
manufacturers of ACUACs/HPs will be
able to redesign their model offerings in
the compliance timeframe.
After considering the analysis and
weighing the benefits and burdens, the
Secretary has tentatively concluded that
the Recommended TSL (TSL 3) for
ACUACs and ACUHPs is in accordance
with 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), which
contains provisions for adopting a
uniform national standard more
stringent than the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 7 for the equipment
considered in this document.
Specifically, the Secretary has
tentatively determined, supported by
clear and convincing evidence as
described in a direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register and accompanying
TSD, that such adoption would result in
significant additional conservation of
energy and is technologically feasible
and economically justified. In
determining whether the recommended
standards are economically justified, the
7 As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 updated the
minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs to align with those adopted by DOE in the
January 2016 Direct Final Rule (i.e., ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019 includes minimum efficiency
levels that are aligned with the current Federal
energy conservation standards). ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2022 includes the same minimum efficiency
levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs as ASHRAE
Standard 90.1–2019.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Secretary has tentatively determined
that the benefits of the recommended
standards exceed the burdens. At this
TSL, the average LCC savings for
consumers of ACUACs is positive. An
estimated 18 percent of ACUAC
consumers experience a net cost. The
FFC national energy savings are
significant, and the NPV of consumer
benefits is positive using both a 3percent and 7-percent discount rate.
Notably, the benefits to consumers
vastly outweigh the cost to
manufacturers. At the Recommended
TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits,
even measured at the more conservative
discount rate of 7 percent, is over 47
times higher than the maximum
estimated manufacturers’ loss in INPV.
The economic justification for standard
levels at the Recommended TSL is clear
and convincing even without weighing
the estimated monetary value of
emissions reductions. When those
emissions reductions are included—
representing $4.9 billion in climate
benefits (associated with the average
SC–GHG at a 3-percent discount rate),
and $9.0 billion (using a 3-percent
discount rate) or $3.0 billion (using a 7percent discount rate) in health
benefits—the rationale becomes stronger
still.
Accordingly, the Secretary has
tentatively concluded, supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that the
Recommended TSL (TSL 3) would offer
the maximum improvement in
efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified and
would result in the significant
additional conservation of energy. As
stated, DOE conducts the walk-down
analysis to determine the TSL that
represents the maximum improvement
in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and
economically justified as required under
EPCA. The walk-down is not a
comparative analysis, as a comparative
analysis would result in the
maximization of net benefits instead of
energy savings that are technologically
feasible and economically justified,
which would be contrary to the statute.
See 86 FR 70892, 70908 (Dec. 13, 2021).
Although DOE has not conducted a
comparative analysis to select the
amended energy conservation
standards, DOE notes that compared to
TSL 4, the Recommended TSL results in
shorter payback periods and fewer
consumers with net cost and results in
a lower maximum decrease in INPV and
lower manufacturer conversion costs.
Although DOE considered amended
standard levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs by grouping the efficiency
levels for each equipment class into
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed
efficiency levels in its analysis.
Although there are ELs for each
equipment class above those of TSL 3,
the previously discussed uncertainty
around the economic justification to
support amended standards at TSL 4
applies for all efficiency levels higher
than those of the Recommended TSL.
As discussed, there is substantial
uncertainty as to which combinations of
design options manufacturers may
employ to achieve high IVEC levels (i.e.,
those above the Recommended TSL),
which may result in very high product
conversion costs. In addition,
manufacturers’ capacity to redesign all
models that do not meet the amended
standard levels is constrained by
resources devoted to the low-GWP
refrigerant transition and becomes
increasingly difficult as minimum
efficiency levels increases above the
Recommended TSL. Also, similar to
TSL 4, many more cabinets would need
to be redesigned at efficiency levels
above those at TSL 3, which would
require substantial investment in design
and retooling. For small ACUACs and
ACUHPs, adopting an efficiency level
above that at TSL 3 would result in
nearly 50 percent of purchasers
experiencing a net cost. For large and
very large ACUACs and ACUHPs,
higher ELs could potentially result in
reduced configuration and model
availability due to large jumps in failing
model counts, high cost of redesign,
high conversion costs, and lower
shipment volumes (as compared to
small ACUACs and ACUHPs) across
which to distribute conversion costs.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively
concluded that it is unable to make a
determination, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that efficiency
levels above TSL 3 are economically
justified.
However, at the Recommended TSL,
there are substantially more model
offerings currently available on the
market, and significantly less redesign
would be required than for higher
efficiency levels. Additionally, the
efficiency levels at TSL 3 result in
positive LCC savings for all equipment
classes and with far fewer consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost, and
mitigate the impacts on INPV and
conversion costs to the point where
DOE has tentatively concluded they are
economically justified, as discussed for
the Recommended TSL in the preceding
paragraphs.
The proposed amended energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs, which are expressed as
minimum efficiency values in terms of
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
43781
IVEC and IVHE, are shown in Table
III.3.
Table 111.3 Proposed Amended Energy Conservation Standards for ACUACs and
I'
St arfm1 2029)
ACUHP s (C omp1ance
Supplementary Heating Type
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating
All Other Types of Heating
~65,000 Btu/hand
<135,000 Btu/h
HP
~240,000 Btu/h
and <760,000
Btu/h
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
IVEC = 13.8
IVEC = 13.4
IVHE= 6.2
IVEC = 13.8
All Other Types of Heating
IVEC = 13.3
HP
All Types of Heating or No Heating
IVEC = 13.1
IVHE= 6.0
AC
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating
All Other Types of Heating
HP
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the
Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed
standards can also be expressed in terms
of annualized values. The annualized
net benefit is: (1) the annualized
national economic value (expressed in
2022$) of the benefits from operating
equipment that meet the proposed
standards (consisting primarily of
operating cost savings from using less
energy, minus increases in equipment
purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and
health benefits from emission
reductions.
All Types of Heating or No Heating
IVEC = 14.3
Electric Resistance Heating or No
Heating
AC
~135,000 Btu/h
and <240,000
Btu/h
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Minimum
Efficiency
Subcategory
All Types of Heating or No Heating
Table III.4 shows the annualized
values for ACUACs and ACUHPs under
the Recommended TSL (TSL 3),
expressed in 2022$. The results under
the primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for
consumer benefits and costs and health
benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount
rate case for climate benefits from
reduced GHG emissions, the estimated
cost of the proposed standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs is $481.3 million
per year in increased equipment costs,
while the estimated annual benefits are
$944.7 million in reduced equipment
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
IVEC = 12.9
IVEC = 12.2
IVEC = 12.1
IVHE = 5.8
operating costs, $279.2 million in
climate benefits, and $317.1 million in
health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $1.1 billion per
year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all
benefits and costs, the estimated cost of
the proposed standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs is $493.2 million per year in
increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1371.6
billion in reduced operating costs,
$279.2 million in climate benefits, and
$507.9 million in health benefits. In this
case, the net benefit would amount to
$1.7 billion per year.
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.302
Cooling Capacity
43782
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
Table 111.4 Annualized Benefits and Costs of Proposed Standards (Recommended
TSL 3) for ACUACs and ACUHPs Recommended TSL 3)
Primary
Estimate
Million 2022$/year
Low-NetBenefits
Estimate
High-NetBenefits
Estimate
3% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
1,371.6
1,326.3
1,432.6
Climate Benefits*
279.2
278.0
285,1
Health Benefits**
507.9
505.7
518.6
2,158.7
2,110.0
2,236.3
Consumer Incremental Equipment
Costsi
493.2
526.8
423.9
Total Net Benefits
1,665.5
1,583.2
1,812.4
Total Monetized Benefitsi"
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPvtt)
(13)-(5)
7% discount rate
Consumer Operating Cost Savings
944.7
915.9
984.9
Climate Benefits* (3% discount rate)
279.2
278.0
285.l
Health Benefits**
317.1
316.1
323.0
Total Monetized Benefitsi"
1,541.0
1,509.9
1,593.0
Consumer Incremental Equipment
Costst
481.3
509.9
422,0
Total Net Benefits
1,059.7
1,000.1
I, 171.0
(13)-(5)
Note: This table presents the costs and benefits associated with ACUACs and ACUHPs shipped in 20292058. These results include consumer, climate, and health benefits that accrue after 2058 from the equipment shipped
in 2029-2058. The Primary, Low-Nel-Benefils, and High-Net-Benefils Estimates utilize projections of energy prices
and floor space from the AEO 2023 Reference case, Low-Economic-Growth case, and High-Economic-Growth case,
respectively. In addition, incremental equipment costs reflect a constant rate in the Primary Estimate, an increasing rate
in the Low-Net-Benefits Estimate, and a decreasing rate in the High-Net-Benefits Estimate. The methods used to
derive projected price trends are explained in sections IV.F.1 and IV.H.3 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register. Note that the flenetits and Costs may not sum to the Net flenetits due to rounding.
* Climate benefits are calculated using four different estimates of the global SC-GHG (see section lV.L of the direct
final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register). for presentational purposes of this table, the
climate benefits associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate are shown, but DOE does not have a
single, central SC-GHG point estimate, and it emphasizes the value of considering the benefits calculated using all four
sets of SC-GHG estimates. To monetize the benefits ofreducing GHG emissions, this analysis uses the interim
estimates presented in the Technical Support Document: Social Cost of Carbon, Methane, and Nitrous Oxide Interim
Estimates Under Executive Order 13990 published in February 2021 by the IWG.
** Heal!h benefils are calculated using benefil-per-lon values forNOx and SO2. DOE is currently only monetizing (for
SO2 and '-/Ox) PM2 i precursor health benefits and disbenefits and (for NOx) ozone precursor health benefits, but will
\:Unlinue tu assess the ability lo monetize other effeds sui.:h as health benefits from redui.:liuns in direi.:l P\1h.s
emissions. See section IV.L of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register for more
details.
t l'otal henefits for hoth the 3-percent and 7-percent cases are presented using the average SC-Cr! IG with 3-percent
discount rate, but DOE does not have a single, central SC-GHG point estimate.
t Costs include incremental equipment costs as well as installation costs.
U Operating Cost Savings are calculated based on the life-cycle costs analysis and national impact analysis as
discussed in detail below. See sections IV.F and IV.Hof the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. DOE's national impacts analysis includes all impacts (both costs and benefits) along the distribution
chain beginning with the increased costs to the manufacturer to manufacture the equipment and ending with the
increase in price experienced by the consumer. DOE also separately conducts a detailed analysis on the impacts on
manufacturers (i.e., the manufacturer impact analysis, or "MIA"). See section IV.J of the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. In the detailed ML'\, DOE models manufacturers' pricing decisions
based on assumptions regarding investments, conversion costs, cashilow, and margins. The MIA produces a range of
impacts, which is the rule's expected impact on the INPV. The change in INPV is the present value of all changes in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.303
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Change in Producer Cashflow (INPvii)
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
43783
IV. Public Participation
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and
information regarding this proposed
rule unit the date provided in the DATES
section at the beginning of this proposed
rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information
using any of the methods described in
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
of this document. Comments relating to
the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register
should be submitted as instructed
therein.
Submitting comments via
www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will
require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact
information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment itself or in any
documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want
to be publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence
containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the
comments.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
website will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be
accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, that are written in English, and
that are free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email two well-marked
copies: one copy of the document
marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. DOE
will make its own determination about
the confidential status of the
information and treat it according to its
determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
EP20MY24.304
industry cash flow, including changes in production costs, capital expenditures, and manufacturer profit margins. The
annualized change in INPV is calculated using the industry weighted-average cost of capital value of 5. 9 percent that is
estimated in the manufacturer impact analysis (see chapter 12 of the direct final rule TSD for a complete description of
the industry weighted-average cost of capital). For ACU ACs and ACUHPs, the annualized change in INPV ranges
from -$13 million to -$5 million. DOE accounts for that range of likely impacts in analyzing whether a trial standard
level is economically justified. See section V.C of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. DOE is presenting the range of impacts to the INPV under two manufacturer markup scenarios: the
Preservation of Gross Margin scenario, which is the manufacturer markup scenario used in the calculation of Consumer
Operating Cost Savings in this table; and the Preservation of Operating Profit Markup scenario, where DOE assumed
manufacturers would not be able to increase per-unit operating profit in proportion to increases in manufacturer
production costs. DOE includes the range of estimated annualized change in INPV in the above table, drawing on the
MIA explained further in section IV.J of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register
to provide additional context for assessing the estimated impacts of this proposed rule to society, including potential
changes in production and consumption, which is consistent with OMB's Circular A-4 and E.O. 12866. IfDOE were
to include the INPV into the annualized net benefit calculation for this NOPR, the annualized net benefits would range
from $1,652 million to $1,660 million at 3-percent discount rate and would range from $1,046 million to $1,054
million at 7-percent discount rate. Parentheses () indicate negative values.
43784
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE
withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C),
DOE will hold a public meeting to allow
for additional comment on this
proposed rule. DOE will publish notice
of any meeting in the Federal Register.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for
this proposed rule are identical to those
conducted for the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the
Federal Register. Please see the direct
final rule for further details.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. 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’’) and a final regulatory
flexibility analysis (‘‘FRFA’’) 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 E.O. 13272,
‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities
in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461
(August 16, 2002), DOE published
procedures and policies on February 19,
2003, to ensure that the potential
impacts of its rules on small entities are
properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE
has made its procedures and policies
available on the Office of the General
Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/
office-general-counsel).
For manufacturers of ACUACs and
ACUHPs, the Small Business
Administration (‘‘SBA’’) has set a size
threshold, which defines those entities
classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the
purposes of the statute. DOE used the
SBA’s small business size standards to
determine whether any small entities
would be subject to the requirements of
the rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size
standards are listed by North American
Industry Classification System
(‘‘NAICS’’) code and industry
description and are available at
www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards. Manufacturing of
ACUACs and ACUHPs is classified
under NAICS 333415, ‘‘Air
Conditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
for an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category.
To estimate the number of companies
that could be small business
manufacturers of ACUACs and
ACUHPs, DOE conducted a market
survey using public information and
subscription-based company reports to
identify potential small business
manufacturers. DOE reviewed its
Compliance Certification Database,8 the
California Energy Commission’s
Modernized Appliance Efficiency
Database System,9 the ENERGY STAR
Product Finder dataset,10 individual
company websites, import/export logs
(e.g., ImportYeti 11), and equipment
specifications to create a list of
companies that manufacture, produce,
import, or private label the equipment
covered by this proposed rulemaking.
DOE further relied on public
information and market research tools
(e.g., reports from Dun and Bradstreet 12)
to determine company structure,
location, headcount, and annual
revenue. DOE screened out companies
that do not offer the equipment covered
by this proposed rulemaking, do not
meet the SBA’s definition of a ‘‘small
business,’’ or are foreign-owned and
operated.
DOE identified nine original
equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEMs’’)
that sell ACUACs and ACUHPs in the
United States. Of these nine OEMs, DOE
determined none of them qualify as a
domestic small business manufacturer
of ACUACs or ACUHPs. Given the lack
of small domestic OEMs with a direct
compliance burden, DOE tentatively
concludes and certifies that this
proposed rule would not have ‘‘a
significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities,’’ and that the
preparation of an IRFA is not warranted.
DOE will transmit the 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).
8 U.S. Department of Energy’s Compliance
Certification Database is available at
regulations.doe.gov/certification-data (last accessed
March 30, 2023).
9 California Energy Commission’s Modernized
Appliance Efficiency Database System is available
at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/
AdvancedSearch.aspx (last accessed Nov. 28, 2023).
10 ENERGY STAR Product Finder is available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed
Nov. 28, 2023).
11 ImportYeti login is available at
www.importyeti.com/ (last accessed Jan. 11, 2024).
12 The Dun & Bradstreet subscription login is
available at app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed Jan.
11, 2024).
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
VI. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of proposed
rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on April 12, 2024, by
Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy
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 April 17,
2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, DOE proposes to amend part
431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
as set forth below:
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C.
2461 note.
■
2. Revise § 431.97 to read as follows:
§ 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and
their compliance dates.
(a) All basic models of commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment must be tested for
performance using the applicable DOE
test procedure in § 431.96, be compliant
with the applicable standards set forth
in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this
section, and be certified to the
Department under 10 CFR part 429.
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
(b) Each air-cooled commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment (excluding air-cooled
equipment with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h and double-duct air
conditioners or heat pumps)
manufactured on or after January 1,
2023, and before January 1, 2029, must
meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
table 1 to this paragraph (b). Each aircooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment
(excluding air-cooled equipment with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
and double-duct air conditioners or heat
pumps) manufactured on or after
January 1, 2029, must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
standard level(s) set forth in table 2 to
this paragraph (b). Each water-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment manufactured
on or after the compliance date listed in
table 3 to this paragraph (b) must meet
the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
table 3. Each evaporatively-cooled
43785
commercial air conditioning and
heating equipment manufactured on or
after the compliance date listed in table
4 to this paragraph (b) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
standard level(s) set forth in table 4.
Each double-duct air conditioner or heat
pump manufactured on or after January
1, 2010, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in table 5 to this
paragraph (b).
TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR
CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 65,000 Btu/h
[Excluding double-duct air-conditioners and heat pumps]
Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment with a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-Duct Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
Cooling capacity
Subcategory
Supplementary heating type
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
HP ........................
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
HP ........................
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
HP ........................
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
1 See
Minimum
efficiency 1
IEER = 14.8
IEER = 14.6
IEER = 14.1
COP = 3.4.
IEER = 13.9
COP = 3.4.
IEER = 14.2
IEER = 14.0
IEER = 13.5
COP = 3.3.
IEER = 13.3
COP = 3.3.
IEER = 13.2
IEER = 13.0
IEER = 12.5
COP = 3.2.
IEER = 12.3
COP = 3.2.
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured
starting on . . .
.........
.........
.........
January 1, 2023.
January 1, 2023.
January 1, 2023.
.........
January 1, 2023.
.........
.........
.........
January 1, 2023.
January 1, 2023.
January 1, 2023.
.........
January 1, 2023.
.........
.........
.........
January 1, 2023.
January 1, 2023.
January 1, 2023.
.........
January 1, 2023.
section 3 of appendix A to this subpart for the test conditions upon which the COP standards are based.
TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR
CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 65,000 Btu/h
[Excluding double-duct air-conditioners and heat pumps]
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment with a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-Duct Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
Cooling capacity
Subcategory
Supplementary heating type
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
All Types of Heating ........................................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
All Types of Heating ........................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ...............
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
All Types of Heating ........................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Minimum
efficiency
IVEC
IVEC
IVEC
IVHE
IVEC
IVEC
IVEC
IVHE
IVEC
IVEC
IVEC
IVHE
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
14.3
13.8
13.4
6.2.
13.8
13.3
13.1
6.0.
12.9
12.2
12.1
5.8.
20MYP1
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured
starting on . . .
.........
.........
.........
January 1, 2029.
January 1, 2029.
January 1, 2029.
.........
.........
.........
January 1, 2029.
January 1, 2029.
January 1, 2029.
.........
.........
.........
January 1, 2029.
January 1, 2029.
January 1, 2029.
43786
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 3 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED COMMERCIAL PACKAGE
AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment
Minimum
efficiency
Cooling capacity
Supplementary heating type
<65,000 Btu/h ........................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .......................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .......................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .....................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .....................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .....................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .....................
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 ...................................
EER
EER
EER
EER
EER
EER
EER
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
12.1
12.1
11.9
12.5
12.3
12.4
12.2
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured starting on . . .
October 29, 2003.
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
TABLE 4 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED COMMERCIAL
PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONING EQUIPMENT
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment
Minimum
efficiency
Cooling capacity
Supplementary heating type
<65,000 Btu/h ........................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .......................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .......................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .....................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .....................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .....................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h .....................
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 ...................................
EER
EER
EER
EER
EER
EER
EER
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
12.1
12.1
11.9
12.0
11.8
11.9
11.7
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured starting on . . .
October 29, 2003.
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2013.
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
June 1, 2014.
TABLE 5 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DOUBLE-DUCT AIR CONDITIONERS OR HEAT PUMPS
Double-Duct Air Conditioners or Heat Pumps
Cooling capacity
Subcategory
Supplementary heating type
Minimum
efficiency 1
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h .................
HP ........................
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ...............
HP ........................
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ...............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ...............
≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ...............
AC ........................
AC ........................
HP ........................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .....
≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ...............
HP ........................
All Other Types of Heating ..............................
EER = 11.2 ..........
EER = 11.0 ..........
EER = 11.0 ..........
COP = 3.3.
EER = 10.8 ..........
COP = 3.3.
EER = 11.0 ..........
EER = 10.8 ..........
EER = 10.6 ..........
COP = 3.2.
EER = 10.4 ..........
COP = 3.2.
EER = 10.0 ..........
EER = 9.8 ............
EER = 9.5 ............
COP = 3.2.
EER = 9.3 ............
COP = 3.2.
1 See
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
section 3 of appendix A to this subpart for the test conditions upon which the COP standards are based.
(c) Each water-source heat pump
manufactured starting on the
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured
starting on . . .
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
compliance date listed in table 6 to this
paragraph (c) must meet the applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (c).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43787
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 6 TO PARAGRAPH (c)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS
[Water-to-air, water-loop]
Water-Source Heat Pumps (Water-to-Air, Water-Loop)
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured
starting on . . .
Cooling capacity
Minimum efficiency
<17,000 Btu/h ...................................................................
EER = 12.2 ......................................................................
COP = 4.3.
EER = 13.0 ......................................................................
COP = 4.3.
EER = 13.0 ......................................................................
COP = 4.3.
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ..................................
(d) Each non-standard size packaged
terminal air conditioner (PTAC) and
packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP)
manufactured on or after October 7,
2010, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in table 7 to this
paragraph (d). Each standard size PTAC
manufactured on or after October 8,
2012, and before January 1, 2017, must
meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
table 7. Each standard size PTHP
manufactured on or after October 8,
2012, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2015.
level(s) set forth in table 7. Each
standard size PTAC manufactured on or
after January 1, 2017, must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
standard level(s) set forth in table 8 to
this paragraph (d).
TABLE 7 TO PARAGRAPH (d)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC AND PTHP
Equipment type
Category
Cooling capacity
Minimum efficiency
PTAC ....................
Standard Size ............
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
EER = 11.7 ....................................................
EER = 13.8¥(0.3 × Cap 1) ...........................
EER = 9.3 ......................................................
EER = 9.4 ......................................................
EER = 10.9¥(0.213 × Cap 1) .......................
EER = 7.7 ......................................................
EER = 11.9 ....................................................
COP = 3.3.
EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1) ...........................
COP = 3.7¥(0.052 × Cap 1).
EER = 9.5 ......................................................
COP = 2.9.
EER = 9.3 ......................................................
COP = 2.7.
EER = 10.8¥(0.213 × Cap 1) .......................
COP = 2.9¥(0.026 × Cap 1).
EER = 7.6 ......................................................
COP = 2.5.
Non-Standard Size ....
PTHP ....................
Standard Size ............
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
Non-Standard Size ....
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
Compliance date:
products manufactured
on and after . . .
October
October
October
October
October
October
October
8,
8,
8,
7,
7,
7,
8,
2012.2
2012.2
2012.2
2010.
2010.
2010.
2012.
October 8, 2012.
October 8, 2012.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
October 7, 2010.
means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
2 And manufactured before January 1, 2017. See table 8 to this paragraph (d) for updated efficiency standards that apply to this category of equipment manufactured on and after January 1, 2017.
1 ‘‘Cap’’
TABLE 8 TO PARAGRAPH (d)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR PTAC
Equipment type
Category
Cooling capacity
Minimum efficiency
PTAC ....................
Standard Size ............
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
EER = 11.9 ....................................................
EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1) ...........................
EER = 9.5 ......................................................
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 ‘‘Cap’’
Compliance date:
products manufactured
on and after . . .
January 1, 2017.
January 1, 2017.
January 1, 2017.
means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 °F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
(e)(1) Each single package vertical air
conditioner and single package vertical
heat pump manufactured on or after
January 1, 2010, but before October 9,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
2015 (for models ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h), or October 9, 2016 (for
models ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h), must meet the applicable
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimum energy conservation standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (e)(1).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43788
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 9 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(1)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS
AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS
Compliance date:
products manufactured on and after
. . .
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Subcategory
Efficiency
level
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps, single-phase and three-phase.
<65,000 Btu/h .......................
AC ...................
HP ...................
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
EER = 9.0 .......
EER = 9.0 .......
COP = 3.0.
EER = 8.9 .......
EER = 8.9 .......
COP = 3.0.
EER = 8.6 .......
EER = 8.6 .......
COP = 2.9.
(2) Each single package vertical air
conditioner and single package vertical
heat pump manufactured on and after
October 9, 2015 (for models ≥65,000
Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h), or October
9, 2016 (for models ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h), but before September
23, 2019, must meet the applicable
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
minimum energy conservation standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (e)(2).
TABLE 10 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(2)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR CONDITIONERS
AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS
Compliance date:
products manufactured on and after
. . .
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Subcategory
Efficiency
level
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps, single-phase and three-phase.
<65,000 Btu/h .......................
AC ...................
HP ...................
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
EER = 9.0 .......
EER = 9.0 .......
COP = 3.0.
EER = 10.0 .....
EER = 10.0 .....
COP = 3.0.
EER = 10.0 .....
EER = 10.0 .....
COP = 3.0.
(3) Each single package vertical air
conditioner and single package vertical
heat pump manufactured on and after
September 23, 2019, must meet the
applicable minimum energy
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2016.
October 9, 2016.
conservation standard level(s) set forth
in this paragraph (e)(3).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
TABLE 11 TO PARAGRAPH (e)(3)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL AIR
CONDITIONERS AND SINGLE PACKAGE VERTICAL HEAT PUMPS
Cooling capacity
Subcategory
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps, single-phase and three-phase.
<65,000 Btu/h .......................
AC ...................
HP ...................
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
Single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat
pumps.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
AC ...................
HP ...................
(f)(1) Each computer room air
conditioner with a net sensible cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h
manufactured on or after October 29,
2012, and before May 28, 2024 and each
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
computer room air conditioner with a
net sensible cooling capacity greater
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less
than 760,000 Btu/h manufactured on or
after October 29, 2013, and before May
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Compliance date:
products manufactured on and after
. . .
Efficiency
level
Equipment type
EER = 11.0
EER = 11.0
COP = 3.3.
EER = 10.0
EER = 10.0
COP = 3.0.
EER = 10.0
EER = 10.0
COP = 3.0.
.....
.....
September 23, 2019.
September 23, 2019.
.....
.....
October 9, 2015.
October 9, 2015.
.....
.....
October 9, 2016.
October 9, 2016.
28, 2024 must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (f)(1).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43789
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 12 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(1)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Downflow
Air-Cooled .......................................................................
Water-Cooled ..................................................................
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer .............................
Glycol-Cooled .................................................................
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer .............................
(2) Each computer room air
conditioner manufactured on or after
May 28, 2024, must meet the applicable
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..............................
<65,000 Btu/h .................................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ................................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..............................
Upflow
2.20
2.10
1.90
2.60
2.50
2.40
2.55
2.45
2.35
2.50
2.15
2.10
2.45
2.10
2.05
2.09
1.99
1.79
2.49
2.39
2.29
2.44
2.34
2.24
2.39
2.04
1.99
2.34
1.99
1.94
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (f)(2).
TABLE 13 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(2)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FLOOR-MOUNTED COMPUTER ROOM
AIR CONDITIONERS
Downflow and upflow ducted
Upflow non-ducted and horizontal flow
Minimum NSenCOP
efficiency
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Upflow
ducted
Downflow
Air-Cooled .......................................
Air-Cooled with Fluid Economizer ...
Water-Cooled ..................................
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer.
Glycol-Cooled ..................................
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer.
Minimum NSenCOP
efficiency
Net sensible cooling capacity
<80,000 Btu/h .................................
≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h
≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 Btu/
h.
<80,000 Btu/h .................................
≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h
≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 Btu/
h.
<80,000 Btu/h .................................
≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h
≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 Btu/
h.
<80,000 Btu/h .................................
2.70
2.58
2.36
2.67
2.55
2.33
2.70
2.58
2.36
2.67
2.55
2.33
2.82
2.73
2.67
2.79
2.70
2.64
2.77
2.74
≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h
≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 Btu/
h.
<80,000 Btu/h .................................
≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h
≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 Btu/
h.
<80,000 Btu/h .................................
2.68
2.61
2.65
2.58
2.56
2.24
2.21
2.53
2.21
2.18
2.51
2.48
2.19
2.15
2.16
2.12
≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h
≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 Btu/
h.
Upflow
non-ducted
Horizontal
flow
<65,000 Btu/h .................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/
h.
<65,000 Btu/h .................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/
h.
<65,000 Btu/h .................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/
h.
<65,000 Btu/h .................................
2.16
2.04
1.89
2.65
2.55
2.47
2.09
1.99
1.81
2.65
2.55
2.47
2.43
2.32
2.20
2.79
2.68
2.60
2.35
2.71
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/
h.
<65,000 Btu/h .................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/
h.
<65,000 Btu/h .................................
2.24
2.12
2.60
2.54
2.08
1.90
1.81
2.48
2.18
2.18
2.00
2.44
≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/
h.
1.82
1.73
2.10
2.10
TABLE 14 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(2)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CEILING-MOUNTED COMPUTER ROOM AIR
CONDITIONERS
Minimum SCOP efficiency
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Ducted
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge Condenser ...........................................
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge Condenser and Fluid Economizer ......
Air-Cooled with Ducted Condenser ..............................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
2.05
2.02
1.92
2.01
1.97
1.87
1.86
Non-ducted
2.08
2.05
1.94
2.04
2
1.89
1.89
43790
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 14 TO PARAGRAPH (f)(2)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CEILING-MOUNTED COMPUTER ROOM AIR
CONDITIONERS—Continued
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type
Net sensible cooling capacity
Ducted
Air-Cooled with Fluid Economizer and Ducted Condenser .........................
Water-Cooled ...............................................................................................
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer ...........................................................
Glycol-Cooled ...............................................................................................
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer ..........................................................
(g)(1) Each variable refrigerant flow
air conditioner or heat pump
manufactured on or after the
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
<29,000 Btu/h ...................................
≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ....
≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ..
compliance date listed in table 15 to this
paragraph (g)(1) and prior to January 1,
2024, must meet the applicable
Non-ducted
1.83
1.73
1.82
1.78
1.68
2.38
2.28
2.18
2.33
2.23
2.13
1.97
1.93
1.78
1.92
1.88
1.73
1.86
1.75
1.85
1.81
1.7
2.41
2.31
2.2
2.36
2.26
2.16
2
1.98
1.81
1.95
1.93
1.76
minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (g)(1).
TABLE 15 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(1)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR
CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Equipment type
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners
(Air-Cooled).
Heating type 1
Efficiency level
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h.
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 ..........
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 ..........
Without Heat Recovery ................
11.2 EER .............................
January 1, 2010.
11.0 EER .............................
11.0 EER .............................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER .............................
10.0 EER .............................
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
9.8 EER ...............................
11.0 EER, 3.3 COP .............
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
10.8 EER, 3.3 COP .............
10.6 EER, 3.2 COP .............
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
10.4 EER, 3.2 COP .............
9.5 EER, 3.2 COP ...............
January 1, 2010.
January 1, 2010.
All .................................................
All .................................................
9.3 EER, 3.2 COP ...............
12.0 EER .............................
4.2 COP ...............................
11.8 EER .............................
4.2 COP ...............................
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP .............
12.0 EER, 4.2 COP .............
January
October
October
October
October
October
October
Without Heat Recovery ................
10.0 EER, 3.9 COP .............
October 29, 2013.
With Heat Recovery .....................
9.8 EER, 3.9 COP ...............
October 29, 2013.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (AirCooled).
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h.
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps
(Water-Source).
Compliance date: equipment manufactured on
and after . . .
Cooling capacity
<17,000 Btu/h ..............................
With Heat Recovery .....................
≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h.
≥135,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h.
1, 2010.
29, 2012.
29, 2003.
29, 2012.
29, 2003.
29, 2003.
29, 2003.
1 VRF
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
multi-split heat pumps (air-cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ‘‘All Other Types of Heating’’ unless they also have electric resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ‘‘No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.’’
(2) Each variable refrigerant flow air
conditioner or heat pump (except aircooled systems with cooling capacity
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
less than 65,000 Btu/h) manufactured
on or after January 1, 2024, must meet
the applicable minimum energy
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
this paragraph (g)(2).
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43791
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 16 TO PARAGRAPH (g)(2)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTISPLIT AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Equipment type
Size category
Heating type
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners (Air-Cooled) .......
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ....................
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ................................
All ....................................................
All ....................................................
All ....................................................
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
Heat Pump without Heat Recovery
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery .....
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air-Cooled) .............
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ....................
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water-Source) .......
<65,000 Btu/h .......................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h ................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h ..............................
≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ....................
(h) Each direct expansion-dedicated
outdoor air system manufactured on or
after the compliance date listed in table
17 to this paragraph (h) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency
Minimum efficiency
15.5
14.9
13.9
14.6
14.4
13.9
13.7
12.7
12.5
16.0
15.8
16.0
15.8
14.0
13.8
12.0
11.8
IEER.
IEER.
IEER.
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
IEER,
3.3
3.3
3.2
3.2
3.2
3.2
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.3
4.0
4.0
3.9
3.9
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
COP.
standard level(s) set forth in this
paragraph (h).
TABLE 17 TO PARAGRAPH (h)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DIRECT EXPANSION-DEDICATED OUTDOOR AIR
SYSTEMS
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured starting on . . .
Equipment category
Subcategory
Efficiency level
Direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air systems ...
(AC)—Air-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems .....
(AC w/VERS)—Air-cooled with ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP)—Air-source heat pumps without ventilation energy recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)—Air-source heat pumps with ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WC)—Water-cooled without ventilation energy recovery systems
(WC w/VERS)—Water-cooled with ventilation energy recovery
systems.
(WSHP)—Water-source heat pumps without ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)—Water-source heat pumps with ventilation energy recovery systems.
ISMRE2 = 3.8 ..........
ISMRE2 = 5.0 ..........
May 1, 2024.
May 1, 2024.
ISMRE2 = 3.8 ..........
ISCOP2 = 2.05. .......
ISMRE2 = 5.0 ..........
ISCOP2 = 3.20. .......
ISMRE2 = 4.7 ..........
ISMRE2 = 5.1 ..........
May 1, 2024.
(i) Air-cooled, three-phase,
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment with a cooling
capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h and
air-cooled, three-phase variable
refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioning and heating equipment
with a cooling capacity of less than
65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after
the compliance date listed in tables 18
ISMRE2 = 3.8 ..........
ISCOP2 = 2.13. .......
ISMRE2 = 4.6 ..........
ISCOP2 = 4.04. .......
May 1, 2024.
May 1, 2024.
May 1, 2024.
May 1, 2024.
May 1, 2024.
and 19 to this paragraph (i) must meet
the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
this paragraph (i).
TABLE 18 TO PARAGRAPH (i)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 Btu/h AND AIRCOOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 Btu/h
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment ....................
Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment ....................
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
VRF Air Conditioners ..................................................................
VRF Heat Pumps ........................................................................
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
<65,000
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Btu/h
Subcategory
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Split-System ............
Single-Package .......
Split-System ............
Single-Package .......
.................................
.................................
13.0
14.0
14.0
14.0
13.0
13.0
Minimum efficiency
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured starting on . . .
SEER ............................
SEER ............................
SEER; 8.2 HSPF ..........
SEER; 8.0 HSPF ..........
SEER ............................
SEER; 7.7 HSPF ..........
June 16, 2008.1
January 1, 2017.1
January 1, 2017.1
January 1, 2017.1
June 16, 2008.1
June 16, 2008.1
1 And manufactured before January 1, 2025. For equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, see table 19 to this paragraph (i) for updated efficiency
standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
43792
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 19 TO PARAGRAPH (i)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 Btu/
h AND AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONING AND
HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 Btu/h
Equipment type
Cooling capacity
Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment ....................
Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment ....................
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment
Space-Constrained Commercial Package Air Conditioning
Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial Package Air Conditioning
Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial Package Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial Package Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity Commercial Package Air Conditioning.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment.
VRF Air Conditioners ..................................................................
VRF Heat Pumps ........................................................................
[FR Doc. 2024–08545 Filed 5–17–24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2024–1467; Project
Identifier AD–2023–01241–T]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; The Boeing
Company Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for all
The Boeing Company Model 737–100,
–200, –200C, –300, –400, and –500
series airplanes. This proposed AD was
prompted by a report indicating cracks
in the frame inner chord and web at
station (STA) 727. This proposed AD
would require an inspection for any
repair, repetitive inspections of the
frame inner chord and web at STA 727
for any crack, and applicable oncondition actions. The FAA is
proposing this AD to address the unsafe
condition on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by July 5, 2024.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
using the procedures found in 14 CFR
11.43 and 11.45, by any of the following
methods:
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:40 May 17, 2024
Jkt 262001
<65,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h
<65,000 Btu/h
≤30,000 Btu/h
Subcategory
Compliance date:
equipment manufactured starting on . . .
SEER2 ..........................
SEER2 ..........................
SEER2; 7.5 HSPF2 ......
SEER2; 6.7 HSPF2 ......
SEER2 ..........................
January
January
January
January
January
..........
..........
..........
..........
..........
Split-System ............
Single-Package .......
Split-System ............
Single-Package .......
Split-System ............
13.4
13.4
14.3
13.4
12.7
≤30,000 Btu/h ..........
Single-Package .......
13.9 SEER2 ..........................
January 1, 2025.
≤30,000 Btu/h ..........
Split-System ............
13.9 SEER2; 7.0 HSPF2 ......
January 1, 2025.
≤30,000 Btu/h ..........
Single-Package .......
13.9 SEER2; 6.7 HSPF2 ......
January 1, 2025.
<65,000 Btu/h ..........
Split-System ............
13.0 SEER2 ..........................
January 1, 2025.
<65,000 Btu/h ..........
Split-System ............
14.0 SEER2; 6.9 HSPF2 ......
January 1, 2025.
<65,000 Btu/h ..........
<65,000 Btu/h ..........
.................................
.................................
13.4 SEER2 ..........................
13.4 SEER2; 7.5 HSPF2 ......
January 1, 2025.
January 1, 2025.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
regulations.gov. Follow the instructions
for submitting comments.
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: U.S. Department of
Transportation, Docket Operations, M–
30, West Building Ground Floor, Room
W12–140, 1200 New Jersey Avenue SE,
Washington, DC 20590.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to Mail
address above between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
AD Docket: You may examine the AD
docket at regulations.gov under Docket
No. FAA–2024–1467; or in person at
Docket Operations between 9 a.m. and
5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays. The AD docket
contains this NPRM, any comments
received, and other information. The
street address for Docket Operations is
listed above.
Material Incorporated by Reference:
• For service information identified
in this NPRM, contact Boeing
Commercial Airplanes, Attention:
Contractual & Data Services (C&DS),
2600 Westminster Blvd., MC 110–SK57,
Seal Beach, CA 90740–5600; telephone
562–797–1717; website
myboeingfleet.com.
• You may view this service
information at the FAA, Airworthiness
Products Section, Operational Safety
Branch, 2200 South 216th St., Des
Moines, WA. For information on the
availability of this material at the FAA,
call 206–231–3195. It is also available at
regulations.gov by searching for and
locating Docket No. FAA–2024–1467.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Muoi Vuong, Aviation Safety Engineer,
FAA, 2200 South 216th Street, Des
PO 00000
Minimum efficiency
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1,
1,
1,
1,
1,
2025.
2025.
2025.
2025.
2025.
Moines, WA 98198; phone: 562–627–
5205; email: muoi.vuong@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to send any
written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposal. Send
your comments to an address listed
under ADDRESSES. Include ‘‘Docket No.
FAA–2024–1467; Project Identifier AD–
2023–01241–T’’ at the beginning of your
comments. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. The FAA will consider
all comments received by the closing
date and may amend this proposal
because of those comments.
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
regulations.gov, including any personal
information you provide. The agency
will also post a report summarizing each
substantive verbal contact received
about this NPRM.
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 NPRM
contain commercial or financial
information that is customarily treated
as private, that you actually treat as
private, and that is relevant or
E:\FR\FM\20MYP1.SGM
20MYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 98 (Monday, May 20, 2024)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 43770-43792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-08545]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 98 / Monday, May 20, 2024 / Proposed
Rules
[[Page 43770]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015]
RIN 1904-AF34
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including air-cooled
commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. In this notice of
proposed rulemaking (``NOPR''), the U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'')
proposes amended energy conservation standards, based on clear and
convincing evidence, identical to those set forth in a direct final
rule (``DFR'') published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal
Register. If DOE receives adverse comment and determines that such
comment may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the direct
final rule, DOE will publish a notification of withdrawal and will
proceed with this proposed rule.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NOPR no later than September 9, 2024. Comments regarding the likely
competitive impact of the proposed standard should be sent to the
Department of Justice contact listed in the ADDRESSES section on or
before June 20, 2024.
ADDRESSES: See section IV of this document, ``Public Participation,''
for details. If DOE withdraws the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register, DOE will hold a public meeting
to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule. DOE will publish
notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by
docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015, by any of the following methods:
Email: [email protected]. Include the docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact disc (``CD''), in which case it is
not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section IV of this document (Public Participation).
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the 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 www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section IV of this document for information on how to submit comments
through www.regulations.gov.
EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites
input from market participants and other interested persons with views
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard. Interested
persons may contact the Antitrust Division at
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Lucas Adin, 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) 287-5904. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.
Telephone: (202) 586-4798. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting
(if one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Current Standards
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for ACUACs and ACUHPs
3. 2022-2023 ASRAC ACUAC/HP Working Group Recommended Standard
Levels
III. Proposed Standards
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for ACUAC and ACUHP
Standards
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
B. Public Meeting
[[Page 43771]]
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163, as
amended (``EPCA''),\1\ authorizes the DOE to regulate the energy
efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified) Title III, Part C \2\ of
EPCA established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This covered equipment includes small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) Such equipment includes as
equipment categories air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners
with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
(``ACUACs'') and air-cooled commercial unitary heat pumps with a rated
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (``ACUHPs''),
which are the subject of this proposed rulemaking.\3\ The current
energy conservation standards for the subject equipment are found in
the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') at 10 CFR 431.97(b).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
\3\ While ACUACs and ACUHPs with rated cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h are included in the broader category of commercial
unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (``CUACs and CUHPs''), they
are not addressed in this NOPR. The standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h have been
addressed in a separate rulemaking (see Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0008). Accordingly, all references within this NOPR to ACUACs and
ACUHPs exclude equipment with rated cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In accordance with the authority provided by 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)
and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1), DOE is proposing this rule establishing and
amending the energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs and is
concurrently issuing a direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register.\4\ DOE will proceed with this notice of
proposed rulemaking only if it determines it must withdraw the direct
final rule pursuant to the criteria provided in 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4).
The amended standards levels in both this NOPR and that DFR reflect the
culmination of a negotiated rulemaking that included the following
document and stakeholder comments thereon: May 2020 energy conservation
standards request for information (``May 2020 ECS RFI'') (85 FR 27941
(May 12, 2020)); May 2022 test procedure (``TP'')/ECS RFI (87 FR 31743
(May 25, 2022)); and the 2022 Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC'') commercial unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps working group negotiations, hereinafter
referred to as ``the 2023 ECS Negotiations'' (87 FR 45703 (July 29,
2022)). Participants in the 2023 ECS Negotiations included stakeholders
representing manufacturers, energy-efficiency and environmental
advocates, States, and electric utility companies. See section II.B.2
of this document for a detailed history of the current rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b) (applying 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) to
energy conservation standard rulemakings involving a variety of
industrial equipment, including ACUACs and ACUHPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The consensus reached by the ACUAC/HP ASRAC Working Group
(hereinafter referred to as ``the ACUAC/HP Working Group'') on amended
energy conservation standards (``ECS'') is outlined in the ASRAC
Working Group Term Sheet (hereinafter referred to as ``the ACUAC/HP
Working Group ECS Term Sheet''). (ASRAC Working Group ECS Term Sheet,
Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015, No. 87) As discussed in more detail
in the accompanying direct final rule and in accordance with the
provisions at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), DOE has tentatively determined that
the recommendations contained in the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term
Sheet are compliant with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B).
In accordance with these and other statutory provisions discussed
in this document, DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards
for ACUACs and ACUHPs. The standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs are
expressed in terms of the new integrated ventilation, economizing and
cooling (``IVEC'') and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency
(``IVHE''), as determined in accordance with the ACUAC/ACUHP test
procedure set forth a final rule amending the test procedure for ACUACs
and ACUHPs.\5\ The newly adopted DOE test procedure for ACUACs and
ACUHPs appears at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A1 (appendix
A1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The final rule amending the test procedure can be found at
www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table I.1 presents the proposed amended standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs. The proposed standards are the same as those recommended by the
ACUAC/HP Working Group. These proposed standards would apply to all
equipment listed in Table I.1 and manufactured in, or imported into the
United States starting on January 1, 2029, as recommended by the ACUAC/
HP Working Group.
[[Page 43772]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.297
II. Introduction
The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant
historical background related to the establishment of energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
A. Authority
EPCA, Public Law 94-163, as amended, authorizes DOE to regulate the
energy efficiency of certain consumer products and industrial
equipment. Title III, Part C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the
Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which
sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy
efficiency. This equipment includes ACUACs and ACUHPs, which are a
category of small, large, and very large commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment and the subject of this rulemaking.
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(2))
Pursuant to EPCA, DOE must amend the energy conservation standards
for certain types of commercial and industrial equipment, including the
equipment at issue in this document, whenever ASHRAE amends the
standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE Standard
90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings'' (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1''). DOE must adopt the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels for these equipment (hereafter ``ASHRAE
equipment''), unless the Secretary of Energy (``the Secretary'')
determines by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence that adoption of a more-stringent uniform
national standard would result in significant additional conservation
of energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(B))
In addition, EPCA contains a review requirement for this same
equipment (the six-year-lookback review), which requires DOE to
consider the need for amended standards every six years. To adopt more-
stringent standards under that provision, DOE must once again have
clear and convincing evidence to show that such standards would be
technologically feasible and economically justified and would save a
significant additional amount of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)); see
id. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) & (a)(6)(B)(i))
In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered equipment that are likely to result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result
directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered
equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
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 the 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; 42 U.S.C. 6296(a), (b) and (d)).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
[[Page 43773]]
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 for
particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures
and other provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedure prescribed
or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce
test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of covered equipment during a representative
average use cycle and requires that the test procedure not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) Manufacturers of covered
equipment must use the Federal test procedures as the basis for
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296) and when making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. The current DOE test
procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs appear at 10 CFR part 431, subpart F,
appendix A.
EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding''
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in
the unavailability in the United States in any covered equipment type
(or class) of performance characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))
Finally, the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (``EISA
2007''), Public Law 110-140, amended EPCA, in relevant part, to grant
DOE authority to directly issue a final rule (hereinafter referred to
as a ``direct final rule'' or ``DFR'') establishing an energy
conservation standard on receipt of a statement submitted jointly by
interested persons that are fairly representative of relevant points of
view (including representatives of manufacturers of covered products/
equipment, States, and efficiency advocates), as determined by the
Secretary, that contains recommendations with respect to an energy or
water conservation standard that are in accordance with the provisions
of 42 U.S.C. 6295(o). (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4))
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine
whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water
conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable.
A NOPR that proposes an identical energy efficiency standard must
be published simultaneously with the direct final rule, and DOE must
provide a public comment period of at least 110 days on this proposal.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A)-(B)) While DOE typically
provides a comment period of 60 days on proposed energy conservation
standards, for a NOPR accompanying a direct final rule, DOE provides a
comment period of the same length as the comment period on the direct
final rule--i.e., 110 days. Based on the comments received during this
period, the direct final rule will either become effective, or DOE will
withdraw it not later than 120 days after its issuance if: (1) one or
more adverse comments is received, and (2) DOE determines that those
comments, when viewed in light of the rulemaking record related to the
direct final rule, may provide a reasonable basis for withdrawal of the
direct final rule under 42 U.S.C. 6295(o), 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B), or
any other applicable law. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1); 42 U.S.C.
6295(p)(4)(C)) Receipt of an alternative joint recommendation may also
trigger a DOE withdrawal of the direct final rule in the same manner.
(Id.) After withdrawing a direct final rule, DOE must proceed with the
notice of proposed rulemaking published simultaneously with the direct
final rule and publish in the Federal Register the reasons why the
direct final rule was withdrawn. Id.
DOE has previously explained its interpretation of its direct final
rule authority. In a final rule amending the Department's ``Procedures,
Interpretations and Policies for Consideration of New or Revised Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer Products'' at 10 CFR part 430,
subpart C, appendix A, DOE noted that it may issue standards
recommended by interested persons that are fairly representative of
relative points of view as a direct final rule when the recommended
standards are in accordance with 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. 86 FR 70892, 70912 (Dec. 13, 2021). But
the direct final rule provision in EPCA does not impose additional
requirements applicable to other standards rulemakings, which is
consistent with the unique circumstances of rules issued as consensus
agreements under DOE's direct final rule authority. Id. DOE's
discretion remains bounded by its statutory mandate to adopt a standard
that results in the maximum improvement in energy efficiency that is
technologically feasible and economically justified--a requirement
found in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B). As such, DOE's review and analysis of
the Joint Agreement is limited to whether the recommended standards
satisfy the criteria in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B).
B. Background
1. Current Standards
In a direct final rule published in the Federal Register on January
15, 2016 (``January 2016 Direct Final Rule''), DOE prescribed the
current energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
manufactured on and after January 1, 2023. 81 FR 2420. These standards
are set forth in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97(b) and are repeated
in Table II.1.
[[Page 43774]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.298
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for ACUACs and ACUHPs
Since publication of the January 2016 Direct Final Rule, ASHRAE
published an updated version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (``ASHRAE 90.1-
2019''), which updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs to align with those adopted by DOE in the January 2016 Direct
Final Rule (i.e., specifying two tiers of minimum levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs, with a January 1, 2023 compliance date for the second tier).
ASHRAE published another version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 in January
2023 (``ASHRAE 90.1-2022''), which includes the same minimum efficiency
levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs as those included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019.
On May 12, 2020, DOE began its six-year-lookback review with for
ACUACs and ACUHPs by publishing in the Federal Register the May 2020
ECS RFI.\6\ 85 FR 27941. The May 2020 ECS RFI sought information to
help DOE inform its decisions, consistent with its obligations under
EPCA. DOE received multiple comments from interested stakeholders in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, which prompted DOE to publish the May
2022 TP/ECS RFI in the Federal Register on May 25, 2022, to investigate
additional aspects of the ACUAC and ACUHP TP and standards. 87 FR
31743. In the latter document, DOE identified several issues that it
determined would benefit from further comment. DOE discussed these
topics (including any comments received in response to the May 2020 ECS
RFI that are related to these topics) in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI. Once
again, DOE received a number of written comments from interested
parties related to standards for CUACs and CUHPs in response to the May
2020 ECS RFI and the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI. DOE considered these comments
in preparation of this NOPR and the direct final rule, and they are
discussed in further detail in the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The May 2020 ECS RFI also addressed commercial warm-air
furnaces, a separate type of covered equipment which was
subsequently handled in a different rulemaking proceeding (see
Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042 in www.regulations.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On July 29, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of
intent to establish a working group for commercial unitary air
conditioners and heat pumps to negotiate proposed test procedures and
amended energy conservation standards for this equipment (``July 2022
Notice of Intent''). 87 FR 45703. The ACUAC/HP Working Group was
established under ASRAC in accordance with the Federal Advisory
Committee Act (``FACA'') (5 U.S.C. App 2) and the Negotiated Rulemaking
Act (``NRA'') (5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320). The purpose of the
ACUAC/HP Working Group was to discuss, and if possible, reach consensus
on recommended amendments to the test procedures and energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs. The ACUAC/HP Working
Group consisted of 14 voting members, including DOE. (See appendix A,
Working Group Members, Document
[[Page 43775]]
No. 65 in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015) On December 15, 2022, the
ACUAC/HP Working Group signed a Term Sheet (``ACUAC/HP Working Group TP
Term Sheet'') of recommendations regarding ACUAC and ACUHP test
procedures, including two new efficiency metrics: IVEC and IVHE. (See
Id.)
The ACUAC/HP Working Group met five times to discuss energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs. These meetings took place
on February 22-23, March 21-22, April 12-13, April 26-27, and May 1,
2023. As a result of these efforts, the ACUAC/HP Working Group
successfully reached consensus on recommended energy conservation
standards in terms of the new IVEC and IVHE metrics for CUACs and
CUHPs. On May 1, 2023, the ACUAC/HP Working Group signed the ACUAC/HP
Working Group ECS Term Sheet outlining its recommendations which ASRAC
approved on October 17, 2023. These recommendations are discussed
further in section II.B.3 of this NOPR.
3. 2022-2023 ASRAC ACUAC/HP Working Group Recommended Standard Levels
This section summarizes the standard levels recommended in the Term
Sheet submitted by the ACUAC/HP Working Group for ACUAC/HP energy
conservation standards and the subsequent procedural steps taken by
DOE. Recommendation #1 of the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet
recommends standard levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs with a recommended
compliance date of January 1, 2029. (ASRAC Term Sheet, No. 87 at p. 2)
These recommended standard levels are presented in Table II.2.
Recommendation #2 of the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet
recommends revising existing certification requirements to support the
new metrics and standards presented in Table II.2, specifically
requesting that manufacturers be required to certify the following
information publicly to DOE for each basic model: (1) crankcase heat
wattage for each compressor stage, and (2) 5 [deg]F heating capacity
and COP, if applicable. DOE will address recommendation #2 regarding
certification in a separate rulemaking.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.299
After carefully considering the consensus recommendations for
amending the energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
submitted by the ACUAC/HP Working Group and adopted by ASRAC, DOE has
tentatively determined that these recommendations are in accordance
with the statutory requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and 42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(1) for the issuance of a direct final rule. The following
paragraphs explain DOE's rationale in making this tentative
determination.
First, with respect to the requirement that recommended energy
conservation standards be submitted by interested persons that are
fairly representative of relevant points of view, DOE notes that the
ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet was signed and submitted by a
broad cross-section of interests, including the manufacturers who
produce the subject equipment. To satisfy this requirement, DOE has
generally found that the group submitting a joint statement must, where
appropriate, include larger concerns and small businesses in the
regulated industry/manufacturer community, energy advocates, energy
utilities, consumers, and States. However, the Department has explained
that it will be necessary to evaluate the meaning of ``fairly
representative'' on a case-by-case basis, subject to the circumstances
of a particular rulemaking, to determine whether additional parties
must be part of a joint statement beyond the required ``manufacturers
of covered products, States, and efficiency advocates'' specifically
called out by EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A). In this case, in
addition to manufacturers, the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet
also included environmental and energy-efficiency advocacy
organizations, and electric utility companies. Although States were not
direct signatories to the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet, the
ASRAC Committee approving the ACUAC/HP Working Group's recommendations
included at least two members representing States--one representing the
State of New York and one representing the State of California. As a
result, DOE has tentatively determined that these recommendations were
submitted by interested persons who are fairly representative of
relevant points of view on this matter, including those specifically
identified by Congress: manufacturers of covered equipment, States, and
efficiency advocates. (42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(A); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1))
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4), the Secretary must also determine
whether a jointly-submitted recommendation for an energy or water
conservation standard satisfies 42 U.S.C. 6295(o) or 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), as applicable. In making this determination, DOE
conducted an analysis to evaluate
[[Page 43776]]
whether the potential energy conservation standards under consideration
achieve significant energy savings and are technologically feasible and
economically justified. The evaluation is similar to the comprehensive
approach that DOE typically conducts whenever it considers potential
new or amended energy conservation standards for a given type of
product or equipment. DOE applies the same principles to any consensus
recommendations it may receive to satisfy its statutory obligations.
Upon review, the Secretary tentatively determined that the ACUAC/HP
Working Group ECS Term Sheet comports with the standard-setting
criteria set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B).
Accordingly, DOE published a direct final rule establishing amended
energy conservation standards for the subject ACUACs and ACUHPs
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, which
includes the consensus-recommended efficiency levels as the
``recommended trial standard level (``TSL'') for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
For further background information on these proposed standards and
the supporting analyses, please see the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register, including section V.A
of the DFR which provides a description of all the considered TSLs.
That document and the accompanying technical support document (``TSD'')
contain an in-depth discussion of the analyses conducted in evaluating
the ACUAC/HP Working Group ECS Term Sheet, the methodologies DOE used
in conducting those analyses, and the analytical results.
In sum, the Secretary has tentatively determined that the relevant
criteria under 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4) and 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1) have been
satisfied, such that it is appropriate to propose the consensus-
recommended amended energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
through this NOPR, based on the clear and convincing evidence, as
discussed in section III.A of this document.
III. Proposed Standards
As noted previously, EPCA specifies that, for any commercial and
industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), DOE
may prescribe an energy conservation standard more stringent than the
level for such equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as amended, 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)(A)(ii)(II)) For this proposed rule, DOE considered the
impacts of amended standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs at each TSL,
beginning with the maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'')
level, to determine whether that level was economically justified.
Where the max-tech level was not justified, DOE then considered the
next most efficient level and undertook the same evaluation until it
reached the highest efficiency level that is both technologically
feasible and economically justified and saves a significant amount of
energy.
To aid the reader as DOE discusses the benefits and/or burdens of
each TSL, tables in this section present a summary of the results of
DOE's quantitative analysis for each TSL. In addition to the
quantitative results presented in the tables, DOE also considers other
burdens and benefits that affect economic justification. These include
the impacts on identifiable subgroups of consumers who may be
disproportionately affected by a national standard and impacts on
employment.
A. Benefits and Burdens of TSLs Considered for ACUAC and ACUHP
Standards
Table III.1 and Table III.2 summarize the quantitative impacts
estimated for each TSL for ACUACs and ACUHPs. The national impacts are
measured over the lifetime of ACUACs and ACUHPs purchased in the 30-
year period that begins in the anticipated year of compliance with
amended standards (2029-2058). The energy savings, emissions
reductions, and value of emissions reductions refer to full-fuel-cycle
(``FFC'') results. DOE is presenting monetized benefits of greenhouse
gas (``GHG'') emissions reductions in accordance with the applicable
Executive Orders, and DOE would reach the same conclusion presented in
this document in the absence of the social cost of greenhouse gases,
including the Interim Estimates presented by the Interagency Working
Group (``IWG''). The efficiency levels contained in each TSL are
described in section V.A of the direct final rule published elsewhere
in this issue of the Federal Register.
[[Page 43777]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.300
[[Page 43778]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.301
DOE first considered TSL 4, which represents the max-tech
efficiency levels. The max-tech efficiency levels for all equipment
classes would require complete redesigns of almost all models currently
available on the market to be optimized around the new test procedure
and energy efficiency metrics to provide better field performance. TSL
4 could necessitate using a combination of numerous design options,
including the most efficient compressors, fans, and motor designs,
more-efficient heat exchangers, and/or advanced controls. TSL 4 would
save an estimated 14.8 quads of energy, an amount DOE considers
significant. Under TSL 4, the NPV of consumer net benefit would be $1.5
billion using a discount rate of 7 percent, and $21.7 billion using a
discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at TSL 4 are 291.4 Mt of
CO2, 67.7 thousand tons of SO2, 496.0 thousand
tons of NOX, 0.45 tons of Hg, 2,268.2 thousand tons of
CH4, and 2.2 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
TSL 4 is $12.6 billion. The estimated monetary value of the health
benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX emissions at
TSL 4 is $7.8 billion using a 7-percent discount rate and $23.2 billion
using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $21.9
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 4 is $57.5 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
potential standard level is economically justified.
At TSL 4, the average LCC impact is a savings of $242 for small
ACUACs, $3,880 for large ACUACs, and $12,766 for very large ACUACs. The
simple payback period is 10 years for small ACUACs and seven years for
large and very large ACUACs. The fraction of consumers experiencing a
net LCC cost is 60 percent for small ACUACs, 31 percent for large
ACUACs, and 24 percent for very large ACUACs. On a shipment-weighted
average basis, the average LCC impact is a savings of $2,379, the
simple payback period is 9 years, and the fraction of consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost is 49 percent.
At TSL 4, the projected change in INPV ranges from a decrease of
$1,550.6 million to a decrease of $830.1 million, which corresponds to
decreases of 58.4 percent to 31.3 percent, respectively. DOE estimates
that industry would need to invest $1,891 million to comply with
standards set at TSL 4. DOE estimates that approximately 2 percent of
small ACUAC and ACUHP models, 10 percent of large ACUAC and ACUHP
models, and 1 percent of very large ACUAC and ACUHP models currently
available for purchase meet the efficiency levels that would be
required at TSL 4 after testing using the amended test procedure and
when represented in the new metric. Very few manufacturers produce
equipment at TSL 4 efficiency levels at this time. DOE estimates that
only three of the nine manufacturers of small ACUACs and ACUHPs
currently offer models that meet the efficiency levels that would be
required for small ACUACs and ACUHPs at TSL 4. DOE estimates that only
two of the eight manufacturers of large ACUACs and ACUHPs offer models
that meet the efficiency levels that would be required for large ACUACs
and ACUHPs at TSL 4. DOE estimates that only one of the eight
manufacturers of very large
[[Page 43779]]
ACUACs and ACUHPs offer models that meet the efficiency level that
would be required for very large ACUACs and ACUHPs at TSL 4.
At TSL 4, DOE understands that all of the manufacturers would need
to utilize significant engineering resources to redesign their current
offerings to bring them into compliance with TSL 4 efficiencies. All
manufacturers would have to invest heavily in their production
facilities and source more-efficient components for incorporation into
their designs. One of the challenges that certain members of the ACUAC/
HP Working Group expressed was ensuring the footprint of the large and
very large ACUACs and ACUHPs did not grow to a level that was not
suitable for existing retrofits. While there was some uncertainty
surrounding what those footprints might look like, most manufacturers
were generally concerned that TSL 4 could require such increases,
especially for very large models. DOE understands that to meet max-tech
IVEC levels, a high fraction of models would need larger cabinet
footprints to accommodate the increased size of efficiency-improving
design options, which would require substantial investment in retooling
as well as redesign engineering efforts.
DOE estimates that at TSL 4, most manufacturers would be required
to redesign every ACUAC and ACUHP model offering covered by this
rulemaking. Some manufacturers may not have the engineering capacity to
complete the necessary redesigns within the compliance period. If
manufacturers were unable to redesign all their covered ACUAC and ACUHP
models within the compliance period, they would likely prioritize
redesigns based on model sales volume. In such case, model offerings of
large and very large ACUACs and ACUHPs might decrease, given that there
are many capacities offered for large and very large ACUACs and ACUHPs
and comparatively fewer shipments across which to distribute conversion
costs. Furthermore, DOE recognizes that a standard set at max-tech
could greatly limit equipment differentiation in the ACUAC and ACUHP
market.
Based upon the previous considerations, the Secretary tentatively
concludes that at TSL 4 for ACUACs and ACUHPs, the benefits of energy
savings, positive NPV of consumer benefits, emission reductions, and
the estimated monetary value of the emissions reductions would be
outweighed by the impacts on manufacturers, including the large
conversion costs, profit margin impacts that could result in a large
reduction in INPV, and the scale and magnitude of the redesign efforts
needed for manufacturers to bring their current equipment offerings
into compliance at this TSL. DOE is concerned that manufacturers may
narrow their equipment offerings and focus on high-volume models to
meet the standard within the compliance window. DOE is also concerned
with the potential footprint implications, especially for very large
ACUAC and ACUHP models, as manufacturer optimize around the new test
procedure and metric for the largest of ACUAC and ACUHP models.
Consequently, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is unable to make a
determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that TSL 4
is economically justified.
DOE then considered TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL), which represents
efficiency levels 4, 2, and 1 for small, large, and very large ACUACs
and ACUHPs, respectively. At TSL 3 efficiency levels, DOE understand
that manufacturers would likely need to implement fewer design options
than needed for TSL 4. These design options could include increasing
outdoor and/or indoor coil size, modifying compressor staging, and
improving fan and/or fan motor efficiency in order to meet these
levels. These technologies and design paths are familiar to
manufacturers as they produce equipment today that can meet TSL 3
efficiency levels, but they are not optimized around the new test
procedure and metrics, which are more representative of field
performance. The Recommended TSL would save an estimated 5.5 quads of
energy, an amount DOE considers significant. Under TSL 3, the NPV of
consumer net benefit would be $4.4 billion using a discount rate of 7
percent, and $15.3 billion using a discount rate of 3 percent.
The cumulative emissions reductions at the Recommended TSL are
108.7 Mt of CO2, 25.3 thousand tons of SO2, 185.1
thousand tons of NOX, 0.2 tons of Hg, 845.6 thousand tons of
CH4, and 0.8 thousand tons of N2O. The estimated
monetary value of the climate benefits from reduced GHG emissions
(associated with the average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate) at
the Recommended TSL is $4.86 billion. The estimated monetary value of
the health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions at the Recommended TSL is $3.0 billion using a 7-percent
discount rate and $8.8 billion using a 3-percent discount rate.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs,
health benefits from reduced SO2 and NOX
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $12.3
billion. Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs,
the estimated total NPV at TSL 3 is $29.0 billion. The estimated total
NPV is provided for additional information; however, DOE primarily
relies upon the NPV of consumer benefits when determining whether a
potential standard level is economically justified.
At the Recommended TSL, the average LCC impact is a savings of
$1,380 for small ACUACs, $2,488 for large ACUACs, and $6,431 for very
large ACUACs. The simple payback period is six years for small ACUACs,
3.5 years for large ACUACs, and 1 year for very large ACUACs. The
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 26 percent for
small ACUACs, 4 percent for large ACUACs, and 1 percent for very large
ACUACs. On a shipment-weighted average basis, the average LCC impact is
a savings of $2,154, the simple payback period is 4.8 years, and the
fraction of consumers experiencing a net LCC cost is 18 percent.
At the Recommended TSL, TSL 3, the projected change in INPV ranges
from a decrease of $193.9 million to a decrease $79.5 million, which
correspond to decreases of 7.3 percent and 3.0 percent, respectively.
DOE estimates that industry must invest $288 million to comply with
standards set at the Recommended TSL. The ACUAC/HP Working Group
manufacturers were more comfortable with TSL 3 efficiency levels,
because the technologies anticipated to be used are the same as
technologies employed in the commercially-available products today. In
some cases, manufacturers believed existing cabinets could be
maintained, while in other cases, investments would be needed to modify
production equipment for new cabinet designs to optimize fan design and
accommodate other changes. DOE estimates that at TSL 3 efficiency
levels, manufacturers might likely utilize staging of the compressor
instead of moving the entire market to variable-speed compressors.
However, DOE understands that both of these are options that
manufacturers may choose to improve efficiency for those models needing
redesign. While DOE estimates that there are currently few shipments at
the Recommended TSL, particularly for small ACUACs/HPs (as discussed in
section IV.F.8 of the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register), DOE estimates that approximately 37
percent of small ACUAC and ACUHP models, 50 percent of large ACUAC and
[[Page 43780]]
ACUHP models, and 64 percent of very large ACUAC and ACUHP models
currently available would have the capability of meeting the efficiency
levels required at TSL 3 without being redesigned. This indicates that
there is already a significant number of models available on the market
that would meet the Recommended TSL when represented in the new
metrics, and that the technology to meet these standards is readily
available. Manufacturers understand the design pathways and have
significant experience with the existing technologies needed to bring
the remaining models into compliance within the timeframe given. DOE
estimates that five of the nine manufacturers of small ACUACs and
ACUHPs offer models that would meet the efficiency level required at
TSL 3. DOE estimates that six of the eight manufacturers of large
ACUACs and ACUHPs offer models that meet the efficiency level required
at TSL 3. DOE estimates that six of the eight manufacturers of very
large ACUACs and ACUHPs offer models that meet the efficiency level
required at TSL 3. Given the support expressed by the ACUAC/HP Working
Group for TSL 3 (the Recommended TSL), DOE has tentatively concluded
that all manufacturers of ACUACs/HPs will be able to redesign their
model offerings in the compliance timeframe.
After considering the analysis and weighing the benefits and
burdens, the Secretary has tentatively concluded that the Recommended
TSL (TSL 3) for ACUACs and ACUHPs is in accordance with 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B), which contains provisions for adopting a uniform
national standard more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1
\7\ for the equipment considered in this document. Specifically, the
Secretary has tentatively determined, supported by clear and convincing
evidence as described in a direct final rule published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register and accompanying TSD, that such
adoption would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. In
determining whether the recommended standards are economically
justified, the Secretary has tentatively determined that the benefits
of the recommended standards exceed the burdens. At this TSL, the
average LCC savings for consumers of ACUACs is positive. An estimated
18 percent of ACUAC consumers experience a net cost. The FFC national
energy savings are significant, and the NPV of consumer benefits is
positive using both a 3-percent and 7-percent discount rate. Notably,
the benefits to consumers vastly outweigh the cost to manufacturers. At
the Recommended TSL, the NPV of consumer benefits, even measured at the
more conservative discount rate of 7 percent, is over 47 times higher
than the maximum estimated manufacturers' loss in INPV. The economic
justification for standard levels at the Recommended TSL is clear and
convincing even without weighing the estimated monetary value of
emissions reductions. When those emissions reductions are included--
representing $4.9 billion in climate benefits (associated with the
average SC-GHG at a 3-percent discount rate), and $9.0 billion (using a
3-percent discount rate) or $3.0 billion (using a 7-percent discount
rate) in health benefits--the rationale becomes stronger still.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ As discussed in section II.B.2 of this document, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019 updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs
and ACUHPs to align with those adopted by DOE in the January 2016
Direct Final Rule (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes minimum
efficiency levels that are aligned with the current Federal energy
conservation standards). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 includes the same
minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs as ASHRAE Standard
90.1-2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accordingly, the Secretary has tentatively concluded, supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that the Recommended TSL (TSL 3) would
offer the maximum improvement in efficiency that is technologically
feasible and economically justified and would result in the significant
additional conservation of energy. As stated, DOE conducts the walk-
down analysis to determine the TSL that represents the maximum
improvement in energy efficiency that is technologically feasible and
economically justified as required under EPCA. The walk-down is not a
comparative analysis, as a comparative analysis would result in the
maximization of net benefits instead of energy savings that are
technologically feasible and economically justified, which would be
contrary to the statute. See 86 FR 70892, 70908 (Dec. 13, 2021).
Although DOE has not conducted a comparative analysis to select the
amended energy conservation standards, DOE notes that compared to TSL
4, the Recommended TSL results in shorter payback periods and fewer
consumers with net cost and results in a lower maximum decrease in INPV
and lower manufacturer conversion costs.
Although DOE considered amended standard levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs by grouping the efficiency levels for each equipment class into
TSLs, DOE evaluates all analyzed efficiency levels in its analysis.
Although there are ELs for each equipment class above those of TSL 3,
the previously discussed uncertainty around the economic justification
to support amended standards at TSL 4 applies for all efficiency levels
higher than those of the Recommended TSL. As discussed, there is
substantial uncertainty as to which combinations of design options
manufacturers may employ to achieve high IVEC levels (i.e., those above
the Recommended TSL), which may result in very high product conversion
costs. In addition, manufacturers' capacity to redesign all models that
do not meet the amended standard levels is constrained by resources
devoted to the low-GWP refrigerant transition and becomes increasingly
difficult as minimum efficiency levels increases above the Recommended
TSL. Also, similar to TSL 4, many more cabinets would need to be
redesigned at efficiency levels above those at TSL 3, which would
require substantial investment in design and retooling. For small
ACUACs and ACUHPs, adopting an efficiency level above that at TSL 3
would result in nearly 50 percent of purchasers experiencing a net
cost. For large and very large ACUACs and ACUHPs, higher ELs could
potentially result in reduced configuration and model availability due
to large jumps in failing model counts, high cost of redesign, high
conversion costs, and lower shipment volumes (as compared to small
ACUACs and ACUHPs) across which to distribute conversion costs.
Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is unable to make a
determination, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that
efficiency levels above TSL 3 are economically justified.
However, at the Recommended TSL, there are substantially more model
offerings currently available on the market, and significantly less
redesign would be required than for higher efficiency levels.
Additionally, the efficiency levels at TSL 3 result in positive LCC
savings for all equipment classes and with far fewer consumers
experiencing a net LCC cost, and mitigate the impacts on INPV and
conversion costs to the point where DOE has tentatively concluded they
are economically justified, as discussed for the Recommended TSL in the
preceding paragraphs.
The proposed amended energy conservation standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs, which are expressed as minimum efficiency values in terms of
[[Page 43781]]
IVEC and IVHE, are shown in Table III.3.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.302
B. Annualized Benefits and Costs of the Proposed Standards
The benefits and costs of the proposed standards can also be
expressed in terms of annualized values. The annualized net benefit is:
(1) the annualized national economic value (expressed in 2022$) of the
benefits from operating equipment that meet the proposed standards
(consisting primarily of operating cost savings from using less energy,
minus increases in equipment purchase costs, and (2) the annualized
monetary value of the climate and health benefits from emission
reductions.
Table III.4 shows the annualized values for ACUACs and ACUHPs under
the Recommended TSL (TSL 3), expressed in 2022$. The results under the
primary estimate are as follows.
Using a 7-percent discount rate for consumer benefits and costs and
health benefits from reduced NOX and SO2
emissions, and the 3-percent discount rate case for climate benefits
from reduced GHG emissions, the estimated cost of the proposed
standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs is $481.3 million per year in increased
equipment costs, while the estimated annual benefits are $944.7 million
in reduced equipment operating costs, $279.2 million in climate
benefits, and $317.1 million in health benefits. In this case, the net
benefit would amount to $1.1 billion per year.
Using a 3-percent discount rate for all benefits and costs, the
estimated cost of the proposed standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs is
$493.2 million per year in increased equipment costs, while the
estimated annual benefits are $1371.6 billion in reduced operating
costs, $279.2 million in climate benefits, and $507.9 million in health
benefits. In this case, the net benefit would amount to $1.7 billion
per year.
[[Page 43782]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.303
[[Page 43783]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP20MY24.304
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule unit the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments, data, and other information using any of the methods
described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document.
Comments relating to the direct final rule published elsewhere in this
issue of the Federal Register should be submitted as instructed
therein.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential
Business Information section.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email two well-marked copies: one copy of the document marked
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential''
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make
its own determination about the confidential status of the information
and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
[[Page 43784]]
B. Public Meeting
As stated previously, if DOE withdraws the direct final rule
published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register pursuant to
42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(1) and 42 U.S.C. 6295(p)(4)(C), DOE will hold a
public meeting to allow for additional comment on this proposed rule.
DOE will publish notice of any meeting in the Federal Register.
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
The regulatory reviews conducted for this proposed rule are
identical to those conducted for the direct final rule published
elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Please see the direct
final rule for further details.
A. 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'')
and a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') 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 E.O. 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency
Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures
and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts
of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the
rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and
policies available on the Office of the General Counsel's website
(www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
For manufacturers of ACUACs and ACUHPs, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. (See 13 CFR part 121.) The size standards are listed by North
American Industry Classification System (``NAICS'') code and industry
description and are available at www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards. Manufacturing of ACUACs and ACUHPs is classified under
NAICS 333415, ``Air Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' The
SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be
considered as a small business for this category.
To estimate the number of companies that could be small business
manufacturers of ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE conducted a market survey using
public information and subscription-based company reports to identify
potential small business manufacturers. DOE reviewed its Compliance
Certification Database,\8\ the California Energy Commission's
Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System,\9\ the ENERGY STAR
Product Finder dataset,\10\ individual company websites, import/export
logs (e.g., ImportYeti \11\), and equipment specifications to create a
list of companies that manufacture, produce, import, or private label
the equipment covered by this proposed rulemaking. DOE further relied
on public information and market research tools (e.g., reports from Dun
and Bradstreet \12\) to determine company structure, location,
headcount, and annual revenue. DOE screened out companies that do not
offer the equipment covered by this proposed rulemaking, do not meet
the SBA's definition of a ``small business,'' or are foreign-owned and
operated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ U.S. Department of Energy's Compliance Certification
Database is available at regulations.doe.gov/certification-data
(last accessed March 30, 2023).
\9\ California Energy Commission's Modernized Appliance
Efficiency Database System is available at
cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/Search/AdvancedSearch.aspx
(last accessed Nov. 28, 2023).
\10\ ENERGY STAR Product Finder is available at
www.energystar.gov/productfinder (last accessed Nov. 28, 2023).
\11\ ImportYeti login is available at www.importyeti.com/ (last
accessed Jan. 11, 2024).
\12\ The Dun & Bradstreet subscription login is available at
app.dnbhoovers.com (last accessed Jan. 11, 2024).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE identified nine original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'')
that sell ACUACs and ACUHPs in the United States. Of these nine OEMs,
DOE determined none of them qualify as a domestic small business
manufacturer of ACUACs or ACUHPs. Given the lack of small domestic OEMs
with a direct compliance burden, DOE tentatively concludes and
certifies that this proposed rule would not have ``a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities,'' and that the preparation
of an IRFA is not warranted.
DOE will transmit the 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).
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
proposed rulemaking.
List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business
information, Energy conservation, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 12,
2024, by Jeffrey Marootian, Principal Deputy 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 April 17, 2024.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend
part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.
0
2. Revise Sec. 431.97 to read as follows:
Sec. 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.
(a) All basic models of commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable
DOE test procedure in Sec. 431.96, be compliant with the applicable
standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section, and
be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 429.
[[Page 43785]]
(b) Each air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment (excluding air-cooled equipment with cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h and double-duct air conditioners or heat pumps)
manufactured on or after January 1, 2023, and before January 1, 2029,
must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s)
set forth in table 1 to this paragraph (b). Each air-cooled commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment (excluding air-cooled
equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h and double-duct
air conditioners or heat pumps) manufactured on or after January 1,
2029, must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in table 2 to this paragraph (b). Each water-cooled
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment manufactured
on or after the compliance date listed in table 3 to this paragraph (b)
must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s)
set forth in table 3. Each evaporatively-cooled commercial air
conditioning and heating equipment manufactured on or after the
compliance date listed in table 4 to this paragraph (b) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
table 4. Each double-duct air conditioner or heat pump manufactured on
or after January 1, 2010, must meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in table 5 to this paragraph
(b).
Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity
Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h
[Excluding double-duct air-conditioners and heat pumps]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment with a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-
Duct Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary heating Compliance date: equipment
Cooling capacity Subcategory type Minimum efficiency \1\ manufactured starting on . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. AC......................... Electric Resistance IEER = 14.8................ January 1, 2023.
Heating or No Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. AC......................... All Other Types of IEER = 14.6................ January 1, 2023.
Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. HP......................... Electric Resistance IEER = 14.1................ January 1, 2023.
Heating or No Heating. COP = 3.4..................
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. HP......................... All Other Types of IEER = 13.9................ January 1, 2023.
Heating. COP = 3.4..................
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. AC......................... Electric Resistance IEER = 14.2................ January 1, 2023.
Heating or No Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. AC......................... All Other Types of IEER = 14.0................ January 1, 2023.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. HP......................... Electric Resistance IEER = 13.5................ January 1, 2023.
Heating or No Heating. COP = 3.3..................
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. HP......................... All Other Types of IEER = 13.3................ January 1, 2023.
Heating. COP = 3.3..................
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. AC......................... Electric Resistance IEER = 13.2................ January 1, 2023.
Heating or No Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. AC......................... All Other Types of IEER = 13.0................ January 1, 2023.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. HP......................... Electric Resistance IEER = 12.5................ January 1, 2023.
Heating or No Heating. COP = 3.2..................
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. HP......................... All Other Types of IEER = 12.3................ January 1, 2023.
Heating. COP = 3.2..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3 of appendix A to this subpart for the test conditions upon which the COP standards are based.
Table 2 to Paragraph (b)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling
Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h
[Excluding double-duct air-conditioners and heat pumps]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment with a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-
Duct Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary heating Compliance date: equipment
Cooling capacity Subcategory type Minimum efficiency manufactured starting on . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. AC......................... Electric Resistance IVEC = 14.3................ January 1, 2029.
Heating or No Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. AC......................... All Other Types of IVEC = 13.8................ January 1, 2029.
Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. HP......................... All Types of Heating.. IVEC = 13.4................ January 1, 2029.
IVHE = 6.2.................
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. AC......................... Electric Resistance IVEC = 13.8................ January 1, 2029.
Heating or No Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. AC......................... All Other Types of IVEC = 13.3................ January 1, 2029.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. HP......................... All Types of Heating.. IVEC = 13.1................ January 1, 2029.
IVHE = 6.0.................
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. AC......................... Electric Resistance IVEC = 12.9................ January 1, 2029.
Heating or No Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. AC......................... All Other Types of IVEC = 12.2................ January 1, 2029.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. HP......................... All Types of Heating.. IVEC = 12.1................ January 1, 2029.
IVHE = 5.8.................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 43786]]
Table 3 to Paragraph (b)--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air
Conditioning Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary Compliance date: equipment
Cooling capacity heating type Minimum efficiency manufactured starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000 Btu/h.................... All................ EER = 12.1.............. October 29, 2003.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h No Heating or EER = 12.1.............. June 1, 2013.
Electric
Resistance Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h All Other Types of EER = 11.9.............. June 1, 2013.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ No Heating or EER = 12.5.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Electric
Resistance Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ All Other Types of EER = 12.3.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ No Heating or EER = 12.4.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Electric
Resistance Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ All Other Types of EER = 12.2.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 4 to Paragraph (b)--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air
Conditioning Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning Equipment
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary Compliance date: equipment
Cooling capacity heating type Minimum efficiency manufactured starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000 Btu/h.................... All................ EER = 12.1.............. October 29, 2003.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h No Heating or EER = 12.1.............. June 1, 2013.
Electric
Resistance Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h All Other Types of EER = 11.9.............. June 1, 2013.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ No Heating or EER = 12.0.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Electric
Resistance Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/ All Other Types of EER = 11.8.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ No Heating or EER = 11.9.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Electric
Resistance Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/ All Other Types of EER = 11.7.............. June 1, 2014.
h. Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 5 to Paragraph (b)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Double-Duct Air Conditioners or Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double-Duct Air Conditioners or Heat Pumps
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supplementary heating Compliance date: equipment
Cooling capacity Subcategory type Minimum efficiency \1\ manufactured starting on . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. AC......................... Electric Resistance EER = 11.2................. January 1, 2010.
Heating or No Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. AC......................... All Other Types of EER = 11.0................. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. HP......................... Electric Resistance EER = 11.0................. January 1, 2010.
Heating or No Heating. COP = 3.3..................
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.. HP......................... All Other Types of EER = 10.8................. January 1, 2010.
Heating. COP = 3.3..................
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. AC......................... Electric Resistance EER = 11.0................. January 1, 2010.
Heating or No Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. AC......................... All Other Types of EER = 10.8................. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. HP......................... Electric Resistance EER = 10.6................. January 1, 2010.
Heating or No Heating. COP = 3.2..................
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. HP......................... All Other Types of EER = 10.4................. January 1, 2010.
Heating. COP = 3.2..................
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h. AC......................... Electric Resistance EER = 10.0................. January 1, 2010.
Heating or No Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h. AC......................... All Other Types of EER = 9.8.................. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h. HP......................... Electric Resistance EER = 9.5.................. January 1, 2010.
Heating or No Heating. COP = 3.2..................
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h. HP......................... All Other Types of EER = 9.3.................. January 1, 2010.
Heating. COP = 3.2..................
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See section 3 of appendix A to this subpart for the test conditions upon which the COP standards are based.
(c) Each water-source heat pump manufactured starting on the
compliance date listed in table 6 to this paragraph (c) must meet the
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in
this paragraph (c).
[[Page 43787]]
Table 6 to Paragraph (c)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Water-Source
Heat Pumps
[Water-to-air, water-loop]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Water-Source Heat Pumps (Water-to-Air, Water-Loop)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
equipment
Cooling capacity Minimum efficiency manufactured
starting on . .
.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<17,000 Btu/h................. EER = 12.2............ October 9, 2015.
COP = 4.3.............
>=17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/ EER = 13.0............ October 9, 2015.
h. COP = 4.3.............
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 EER = 13.0............ October 9, 2015.
Btu/h. COP = 4.3.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Each non-standard size packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC)
and packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP) manufactured on or after October
7, 2010, must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in table 7 to this paragraph (d). Each standard size
PTAC manufactured on or after October 8, 2012, and before January 1,
2017, must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in table 7. Each standard size PTHP manufactured on
or after October 8, 2012, must meet the applicable minimum energy
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in table 7. Each standard size
PTAC manufactured on or after January 1, 2017, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in table 8 to
this paragraph (d).
Table 7 to Paragraph (d)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for PTAC and PTHP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: products
Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Minimum manufactured on and after .
efficiency . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC................... Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h...... EER = 11.7....... October 8, 2012.\2\
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 13.8-(0.3 x October 8, 2012.\2\
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap \1\).
>15,000 Btu/h..... EER = 9.3........ October 8, 2012.\2\
Non-Standard Size. <7,000 Btu/h...... EER = 9.4........ October 7, 2010.
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.9-(0.213 October 7, 2010.
<=15,000 Btu/h. x Cap \1\).
>15,000 Btu/h..... EER = 7.7........ October 7, 2010.
PTHP................... Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h...... EER = 11.9....... October 8, 2012.
COP = 3.3........
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 14.0-(0.3 x October 8, 2012.
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap \1\).
COP = 3.7-(0.052
x Cap \1\)..
>15,000 Btu/h..... EER = 9.5........ October 8, 2012.
COP = 2.9........
Non-Standard Size. <7,000 Btu/h...... EER = 9.3........ October 7, 2010.
COP = 2.7........
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.8-(0.213 October 7, 2010.
<=15,000 Btu/h. x Cap \1\).
COP = 2.9-(0.026
x Cap \1\)..
>15,000 Btu/h..... EER = 7.6........ October 7, 2010.
COP = 2.5........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
\2\ And manufactured before January 1, 2017. See table 8 to this paragraph (d) for updated efficiency standards
that apply to this category of equipment manufactured on and after January 1, 2017.
Table 8 to Paragraph (d)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for PTAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: products
Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Minimum manufactured on and after .
efficiency . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC................... Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h...... EER = 11.9....... January 1, 2017.
>=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 14.0-(0.3 x January 1, 2017.
<=15,000 Btu/h. Cap \1\).
>15,000 Btu/h..... EER = 9.5........ January 1, 2017.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Cap'' means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.
(e)(1) Each single package vertical air conditioner and single
package vertical heat pump manufactured on or after January 1, 2010,
but before October 9, 2015 (for models >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/
h), or October 9, 2016 (for models >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h),
must meet the applicable minimum energy conservation standard level(s)
set forth in this paragraph (e)(1).
[[Page 43788]]
Table 9 to Paragraph (e)(1)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and
Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Efficiency level products manufactured on
and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h... AC............... EER = 9.0........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single HP............... EER = 9.0........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps, COP = 3.0........
single-phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 8.9........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single and <135,000 HP............... EER = 8.9........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 3.0........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 8.6........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single and <240,000 HP............... EER = 8.6........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 2.9........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Each single package vertical air conditioner and single package
vertical heat pump manufactured on and after October 9, 2015 (for
models >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h), or October 9, 2016 (for
models >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h), but before September 23,
2019, must meet the applicable minimum energy conservation standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (e)(2).
Table 10 to Paragraph (e)(2)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and
Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Efficiency level products manufactured on
and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h... AC............... EER = 9.0........ January 1, 2010.
conditioners and single HP............... EER = 9.0........ January 1, 2010.
package vertical heat pumps, COP = 3.0........
single-phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2015.
conditioners and single and <135,000 HP............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2015.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 3.0........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2016.
conditioners and single and <240,000 HP............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2016.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 3.0........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(3) Each single package vertical air conditioner and single package
vertical heat pump manufactured on and after September 23, 2019, must
meet the applicable minimum energy conservation standard level(s) set
forth in this paragraph (e)(3).
Table 11 to Paragraph (e)(3)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners
and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Efficiency level products manufactured on
and after . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Single package vertical air <65,000 Btu/h... AC............... EER = 11.0....... September 23, 2019.
conditioners and single HP............... EER = 11.0....... September 23, 2019.
package vertical heat pumps, COP = 3.3........
single-phase and three-phase.
Single package vertical air >=65,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2015.
conditioners and single and <135,000 HP............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2015.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 3.0........
Single package vertical air >=135,000 Btu/h AC............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2016.
conditioners and single and <240,000 HP............... EER = 10.0....... October 9, 2016.
package vertical heat pumps. Btu/h. COP = 3.0........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f)(1) Each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after
October 29, 2012, and before May 28, 2024 and each computer room air
conditioner with a net sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal
to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after
October 29, 2013, and before May 28, 2024 must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this paragraph
(f)(1).
[[Page 43789]]
Table 12 to Paragraph (f)(1)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity ----------------------------
Downflow Upflow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled..................................... <65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.20 2.09
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 2.10 1.99
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 1.90 1.79
Water-Cooled................................... <65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.60 2.49
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 2.50 2.39
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.40 2.29
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer............. <65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.55 2.44
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 2.45 2.34
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.35 2.24
Glycol-Cooled.................................. <65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.50 2.39
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 2.15 2.04
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer............ <65,000 Btu/h..................... 2.45 2.34
>=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. 2.10 1.99
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h 2.05 1.94
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Each computer room air conditioner manufactured on or after May
28, 2024, must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (f)(2).
Table 13 to Paragraph (f)(2)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Floor-Mounted Computer Room Air
Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Downflow and upflow ducted Upflow non-ducted and horizontal flow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum NSenCOP Minimum NSenCOP
Equipment type efficiency Net sensible efficiency
Net sensible ------------------------ cooling -----------------------
cooling capacity Upflow capacity Upflow Horizontal
Downflow ducted non-ducted flow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled................... <80,000 Btu/h... 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.16 2.65
>=80,000 Btu/h 2.58 2.55 >=65,000 Btu/h 2.04 2.55
and <295,000 and <240,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h 2.36 2.33 >=240,000 Btu/h 1.89 2.47
and <930,000 and <760,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Air-Cooled with Fluid <80,000 Btu/h... 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.09 2.65
Economizer.
>=80,000 Btu/h 2.58 2.55 >=65,000 Btu/h 1.99 2.55
and <295,000 and <240,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h 2.36 2.33 >=240,000 Btu/h 1.81 2.47
and <930,000 and <760,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Water-Cooled................. <80,000 Btu/h... 2.82 2.79 <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.43 2.79
>=80,000 Btu/h 2.73 2.70 >=65,000 Btu/h 2.32 2.68
and <295,000 and <240,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h 2.67 2.64 >=240,000 Btu/h 2.20 2.60
and <930,000 and <760,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Water-Cooled with Fluid <80,000 Btu/h... 2.77 2.74 <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.35 2.71
Economizer.
>=80,000 Btu/h 2.68 2.65 >=65,000 Btu/h 2.24 2.60
and <295,000 and <240,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h 2.61 2.58 >=240,000 Btu/h 2.12 2.54
and <930,000 and <760,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled................ <80,000 Btu/h... 2.56 2.53 <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.08 2.48
>=80,000 Btu/h 2.24 2.21 >=65,000 Btu/h 1.90 2.18
and <295,000 and <240,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h 2.21 2.18 >=240,000 Btu/h 1.81 2.18
and <930,000 and <760,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid <80,000 Btu/h... 2.51 2.48 <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.00 2.44
Economizer.
>=80,000 Btu/h 2.19 2.16 >=65,000 Btu/h 1.82 2.10
and <295,000 and <240,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
>=295,000 Btu/h 2.15 2.12 >=240,000 Btu/h 1.73 2.10
and <930,000 and <760,000
Btu/h. Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 14 to Paragraph (f)(2)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Ceiling-Mounted Computer Room Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum SCOP efficiency
Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity ----------------------------
Ducted Non-ducted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge Condenser... <29,000 Btu/h..................... 2.05 2.08
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.02 2.05
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 1.92 1.94
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge Condenser <29,000 Btu/h..................... 2.01 2.04
and Fluid Economizer.
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 1.97 2
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 1.87 1.89
Air-Cooled with Ducted Condenser............... <29,000 Btu/h..................... 1.86 1.89
[[Page 43790]]
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 1.83 1.86
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 1.73 1.75
Air-Cooled with Fluid Economizer and Ducted <29,000 Btu/h..................... 1.82 1.85
Condenser.
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 1.78 1.81
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 1.68 1.7
Water-Cooled................................... <29,000 Btu/h..................... 2.38 2.41
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.28 2.31
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 2.18 2.2
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer............. <29,000 Btu/h..................... 2.33 2.36
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 2.23 2.26
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 2.13 2.16
Glycol-Cooled.................................. <29,000 Btu/h..................... 1.97 2
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 1.93 1.98
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 1.78 1.81
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer............ <29,000 Btu/h..................... 1.92 1.95
>=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h.. 1.88 1.93
>=65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. 1.73 1.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(g)(1) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump
manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in table 15 to this
paragraph (g)(1) and prior to January 1, 2024, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this paragraph
(g)(1).
Table 15 to Paragraph (g)(1)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: equipment
Equipment type Cooling capacity Heating type \1\ Efficiency level manufactured on and after . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air Conditioners >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or 11.2 EER............................ January 1, 2010.
(Air-Cooled). <135,000 Btu/h. Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of 11.0 EER............................ January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or 11.0 EER............................ January 1, 2010.
<240,000 Btu/h. Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of 10.8 EER............................ January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or 10.0 EER............................ January 1, 2010.
<760,000 Btu/h. Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of 9.8 EER............................. January 1, 2010.
Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Air- >=65,000 Btu/h and No Heating or 11.0 EER, 3.3 COP................... January 1, 2010.
Cooled). <135,000 Btu/h. Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of 10.8 EER, 3.3 COP................... January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and No Heating or 10.6 EER, 3.2 COP................... January 1, 2010.
<240,000 Btu/h. Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of 10.4 EER, 3.2 COP................... January 1, 2010.
Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and No Heating or 9.5 EER, 3.2 COP.................... January 1, 2010.
<760,000 Btu/h. Electric Resistance
Heating.
All Other Types of 9.3 EER, 3.2 COP.................... January 1, 2010.
Heating.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps (Water- <17,000 Btu/h........ Without Heat Recovery 12.0 EER............................ October 29, 2012.
Source). 4.2 COP............................. October 29, 2003.
With Heat Recovery... 11.8 EER............................ October 29, 2012.
4.2 COP............................. October 29, 2003.
>=17,000 Btu/h and All.................. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................... October 29, 2003.
<65,000 Btu/h.
>=65,000 Btu/h and All.................. 12.0 EER, 4.2 COP................... October 29, 2003.
<135,000 Btu/h.
>=135,000 Btu/h and Without Heat Recovery 10.0 EER, 3.9 COP................... October 29, 2013.
<760,000 Btu/h.
With Heat Recovery... 9.8 EER, 3.9 COP.................... October 29, 2013.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ VRF multi-split heat pumps (air-cooled) with heat recovery fall under the category of ``All Other Types of Heating'' unless they also have electric
resistance heating, in which case it falls under the category for ``No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.''
(2) Each variable refrigerant flow air conditioner or heat pump
(except air-cooled systems with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/
h) manufactured on or after January 1, 2024, must meet the applicable
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this paragraph
(g)(2).
[[Page 43791]]
Table 16 to Paragraph (g)(2)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment type Size category Heating type Minimum efficiency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VRF Multi-Split Air >=65,000 and All.................................. 15.5 IEER.
Conditioners (Air-Cooled). <135,000 Btu/h.
>=135,000 and All.................................. 14.9 IEER.
<240,000 Btu/h.
>=240,000 Btu/h All.................................. 13.9 IEER.
and <760,000
Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps >=65,000 and Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 14.6 IEER, 3.3 COP.
(Air-Cooled). <135,000 Btu/h.
Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 14.4 IEER, 3.3 COP.
>=135,000 and Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 13.9 IEER, 3.2 COP.
<240,000 Btu/h. Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 13.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
>=240,000 Btu/h Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 12.7 IEER, 3.2 COP.
and <760,000 Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 12.5 IEER, 3.2 COP.
Btu/h.
VRF Multi-Split Heat Pumps <65,000 Btu/h.. Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
(Water-Source). Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
>=65,000 and Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 16.0 IEER, 4.3 COP.
<135,000 Btu/h. Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 15.8 IEER, 4.3 COP.
>=135,000 and Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 14.0 IEER, 4.0 COP.
<240,000 Btu/h. Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 13.8 IEER, 4.0 COP.
>=240,000 Btu/h Heat Pump without Heat Recovery...... 12.0 IEER, 3.9 COP.
and <760,000 Heat Pump with Heat Recovery......... 11.8 IEER, 3.9 COP.
Btu/h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(h) Each direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system manufactured
on or after the compliance date listed in table 17 to this paragraph
(h) must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard
level(s) set forth in this paragraph (h).
Table 17 to Paragraph (h)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date: equipment
Equipment category Subcategory Efficiency level manufactured starting on .
. .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Direct expansion-dedicated (AC)--Air-cooled ISMRE2 = 3.8.............. May 1, 2024.
outdoor air systems. without ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(AC w/VERS)--Air- ISMRE2 = 5.0.............. May 1, 2024.
cooled with
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(ASHP)--Air-source ISMRE2 = 3.8.............. May 1, 2024.
heat pumps without ISCOP2 = 2.05.............
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(ASHP w/VERS)--Air- ISMRE2 = 5.0.............. May 1, 2024.
source heat pumps ISCOP2 = 3.20.............
with ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(WC)--Water-cooled ISMRE2 = 4.7.............. May 1, 2024.
without ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
(WC w/VERS)--Water- ISMRE2 = 5.1.............. May 1, 2024.
cooled with
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WSHP)--Water-source ISMRE2 = 3.8.............. May 1, 2024.
heat pumps without ISCOP2 = 2.13.............
ventilation energy
recovery systems.
(WSHP w/VERS)--Water- ISMRE2 = 4.6.............. May 1, 2024.
source heat pumps ISCOP2 = 4.04.............
with ventilation
energy recovery
systems.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(i) Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h
and air-cooled, three-phase variable refrigerant flow multi-split air
conditioning and heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less than
65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in
tables 18 and 19 to this paragraph (i) must meet the applicable minimum
energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in this paragraph (i).
Table 18 to Paragraph (i)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Commercial Package Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-
Phase, Small Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling
Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Minimum equipment manufactured
efficiency starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Split-System..... 13.0 SEER....... June 16, 2008.\1\
Conditioning Equipment.
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Single-Package... 14.0 SEER....... January 1, 2017.\1\
Conditioning Equipment.
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Split-System..... 14.0 SEER; 8.2 January 1, 2017.\1\
Conditioning and Heating HSPF.
Equipment.
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Single-Package... 14.0 SEER; 8.0 January 1, 2017.\1\
Conditioning and Heating HSPF.
Equipment.
VRF Air Conditioners.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... ................. 13.0 SEER....... June 16, 2008.\1\
VRF Heat Pumps................ <65,000 Btu/h.... ................. 13.0 SEER; 7.7 June 16, 2008.\1\
HSPF.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before January 1, 2025. For equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, see table
19 to this paragraph (i) for updated efficiency standards.
[[Page 43792]]
Table 19 to Paragraph (i)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Commercial Package
Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-
Phase, Small Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling
Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compliance date:
Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Minimum equipment manufactured
efficiency starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Split-System..... 13.4 SEER2...... January 1, 2025.
Conditioning Equipment.
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Single-Package... 13.4 SEER2...... January 1, 2025.
Conditioning Equipment.
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Split-System..... 14.3 SEER2; 7.5 January 1, 2025.
Conditioning and Heating HSPF2.
Equipment.
Commercial Package Air <65,000 Btu/h.... Single-Package... 13.4 SEER2; 6.7 January 1, 2025.
Conditioning and Heating HSPF2.
Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial <=30,000 Btu/h... Split-System..... 12.7 SEER2...... January 1, 2025.
Package Air Conditioning
Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial <=30,000 Btu/h... Single-Package... 13.9 SEER2...... January 1, 2025.
Package Air Conditioning
Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial <=30,000 Btu/h... Split-System..... 13.9 SEER2; 7.0 January 1, 2025.
Package Air Conditioning and HSPF2.
Heating Equipment.
Space-Constrained Commercial <=30,000 Btu/h... Single-Package... 13.9 SEER2; 6.7 January 1, 2025.
Package Air Conditioning and HSPF2.
Heating Equipment.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity <65,000 Btu/h.... Split-System..... 13.0 SEER2...... January 1, 2025.
Commercial Package Air
Conditioning.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity <65,000 Btu/h.... Split-System..... 14.0 SEER2; 6.9 January 1, 2025.
Commercial Package Air HSPF2.
Conditioning and Heating
Equipment.
VRF Air Conditioners.......... <65,000 Btu/h.... ................. 13.4 SEER2...... January 1, 2025.
VRF Heat Pumps................ <65,000 Btu/h.... ................. 13.4 SEER2; 7.5 January 1, 2025.
HSPF2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2024-08545 Filed 5-17-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P