[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 15, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 57149-57165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-18800]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032]
RIN 1904-AE07


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Water-
Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed determination and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), as amended, 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including 
evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners and water-
cooled commercial package air conditioners (referred to as 
evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (``ECUACs'') 
and water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (``WCUACs'') in 
this document). EPCA also requires the U.S. Department of Energy 
(``DOE'') to periodically determine whether more stringent, amended 
standards would result in significant additional conservation of 
energy, be technologically feasible, and be economically justified. In 
this notice of proposed determination (``NOPD''), DOE has tentatively 
determined that the standards for small (cooling capacity less than 
135,000 Btu/h), large (cooling capacity greater than or equal to 
135,000 and less than 240,000 Btu/h), and very large (cooling capacity 
greater than or equal to 240,000 and less than 760,000 Btu/h) ECUACs 
and WCUACs do not need to be amended, and DOE requests comment on this 
proposed determination and the associated analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Thursday, October 1, 2020, from 
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for 
webinar registration information, participant instructions,

[[Page 57150]]

and information about the capabilities available to webinar 
participants.
    Comments: Written comments and information are requested and will 
be accepted on or before November 30, 2020.
    Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the 
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons 
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032 
and/or regulatory information number (RIN) 1904-AE07, by any of the 
following methods:
    (1) Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    (2) Email: [email protected]. Include the docket 
number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032 in the subject line of the message.
    (3) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    (4) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on the 
rulemaking process, see section V of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for information 
on how to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Pete Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other 
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 586-6636 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
    A. General Comments
    B. Market Analysis
    1. Shipments Estimates
    2. Model Counts
    3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
    C. Energy Efficiency Descriptors
    1. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs and WCUACs
    2. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs With Cooling Capacity 
Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
    3. Burden of IEER Testing
    4. Maintaining the EER Metric
    D. Proposed Determination
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777
    C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    F. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    G. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    J. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    L. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    M. Information Quality
V. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Submission of Comments
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination

    Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (42 
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified) This equipment includes ECUACs and 
WCUACs, the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this NOPD pursuant to EPCA's requirement that every 
six years DOE evaluate the energy conservation standards for certain 
commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish either a 
notice of determination that the standards do not need to be amended, 
or a notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') that includes new 
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
    For this proposed determination, DOE analyzed ECUACs and WCUACs 
subject to standards specified in 10 CFR 431.97. Based on the analysis 
and comments received, DOE proposes that the standards for ECUACs and 
WCUACs do not need to be amended, because there is not clear and 
convincing evidence that amended standards would result in significant 
additional conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed determination, as well as the historical 
background relevant to the establishment of standards for ECUACs and 
WCUACs.

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, among other things, 
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of 
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part C 
of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program for 
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions 
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes the 
ECUACs and WCUACs that are the subject of this NOPD. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(1)(B)-(D))

[[Page 57151]]

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
    Federal energy conservation requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D).
    EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for 
commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, 
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged 
terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot 
water storage tanks. Id. In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy 
conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in 
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings 
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,'' in effect on October 24, 1992 
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989). ECUACs and WCUACs are covered under 
EPCA's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) EPCA established initial standards for 
ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 240,000 Btu/h. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a))
    If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard 
levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for 
certain commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, not later 
than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in 
the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy 
savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Within certain exceptions,\3\ DOE must adopt amended 
energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing 
evidence to support a determination that the adoption of a more 
stringent efficiency level as a uniform national standard would produce 
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ DOE cannot adopt an ASHRAE standard that (1) increases 
energy use or decreases the minimum required energy efficiency. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On February 14, 2020, DOE published an update to appendix A to 
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430, ``Procedures for Use in New or Revised 
Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures for Consumer Products 
and Commercial/Industrial Equipment'' (``Process Rule''). 85 FR 8626. 
The updated Process Rule \4\ codifies in regulation the ``clear and 
convincing'' threshold that EPCA requires DOE meet when establishing 
standards more-stringent than those specified by ASHRAE 90.1. 85 FR 
8626, 8704-8708; Section 9(a)(1) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR 
part 430. DOE will establish more stringent standards only if it can 
meet the very high bar to demonstrate the ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' threshold, which only exists where the specific facts and 
data made available to DOE demonstrate that there is no substantial 
doubt that a standard more stringent than that contained in the ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 amendment is permitted because it would result in a 
significant additional amount of energy savings, is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. Id.; Section 9(b) of appendix A to 
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ As updated, the Process Rule explicitly applies to the 
evaluation of ASHRAE equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). 85 FR 
8626, 8704-8708; Sections 2 and 9 of appendix A to subpart C of 10 
CFR part 430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also established a significance threshold for energy savings in 
the updated Process Rule. Specifically, DOE established a two-step 
approach that considers both an absolute site energy savings threshold 
value (over a 30-year period) of 0.3 quadrillion Btu (``quads'') and a 
percentage threshold value of a 10 percent reduction in the covered 
product or equipment's energy use. Id.; Section 6(a) of appendix A to 
subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE first evaluates the projected energy 
savings from a potential maximum technologically feasible (``max-
tech'') standard against the 0.3 quads of site energy threshold. Id.; 
Section 6(b)(2) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the 
0.3 quad-threshold is not met or exceeded, DOE then compares the max-
tech savings to the total energy usage of the covered equipment to 
calculate a percentage reduction in energy usage. Id.; Section 6(b)(3) 
of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If this comparison does 
not yield a reduction in site energy use of at least 10 percent over a 
30-year period, DOE proposes that no significant energy savings would 
likely result from setting new or amended standards. Id.; Section 
6(b)(4) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If either one of 
these thresholds is reached, DOE will conduct analyses to ascertain 
whether a standard can be prescribed that produces the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency that is both technologically feasible 
and economically justified and still constitutes significant energy 
savings at the level determined to be economically justified. Id.; 
Section 6(b)(5) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. The two-
step approach allows DOE to ascertain whether a potential standard 
considered satisfies EPCA's significant energy savings requirements in 
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) to ensure that DOE avoids setting a standard 
that ``will not result in significant conservation of energy.'' 85 FR 
8626, 8655.
    To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial 
cost, or maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if 
applicable) savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') 
considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))(I)-(VII))

    If DOE decides to adopt as a uniform national standard the 
efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 
must establish such

[[Page 57152]]

standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended 
industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE 
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a more 
stringent uniform national standard would result in significant 
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and 
economically justified, then DOE must establish the more stringent 
standard not later than 30 months after publication of the amended 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i))
    EPCA also requires that every six years DOE evaluate the energy 
conservation standards for certain commercial equipment, including 
ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish either a notice of determination that 
the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new 
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that, 
not later than three years after the issuance of a final determination 
not to amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of 
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, 
or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the analysis on which the 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a 
determination that more stringent standards would (1) result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and (2) be both 
technologically feasible and economically justified must be supported 
by clear and convincing evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A); 85 FR 8626, 8704-8708; Section 9(c) of appendix A 
to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430)
    DOE is publishing this NOPD pursuant to the six-year review 
required by EPCA, having initially determined that amended standards 
for ECUACs and WCUACs would not result in significant additional 
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be 
economically justified.

B. Rulemaking History

    On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with 
respect to small, large, and very large commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010). With 
regard to ECUACs and WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 updated efficiency levels 
for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to 
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large ECUACs 
and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test 
procedures for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 did not amend the 
efficiency levels for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and ECUACs, but did amend the test procedure for 
this equipment.
    In a final rule published May 16, 2012, DOE amended the standards 
for ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting the energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') 
levels for this equipment established in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 77 FR 28928 
(``May 2012 final rule''). For certain small (i.e., cooling capacity 
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), 
large, and very large WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy 
savings potential of standards at the max-tech \5\ efficiency levels 
over those efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (i.e., energy savings 
estimates for max-tech levels do not include the energy savings from 
increasing the Federal standard at the time to the level found in 
ASHRAE 90.1-2010). 76 FR 25622, 25644-25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on an 
analysis of two different shipment scenarios (shipments based on 
historical trends and constant shipments fixed to 2009 shipment 
levels), DOE estimated that efficiency standards at the max-tech level 
would result in additional energy savings of between 0.0061 to 0.0102 
quads primary energy savings for the six classes of small, large, and 
very large WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 25644-25645), representing 
approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent of estimated WCUAC energy use 
during the analysis period. DOE estimated that efficiency standards at 
the max-tech level would result in additional energy savings of between 
0.0013 to 0.0021 quads primary energy for the two classes of very large 
ECUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 25646), representing approximately 3.7 
percent to 3.9 percent of estimated ECUAC energy use during the 
analysis period. DOE did not examine certain small WCUACs and ECUACs 
(i.e., equipment less than 65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because the 
levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for such equipment were not amended. 76 FR 
25622, 25631. Additionally, DOE did not assess potential energy savings 
for ECUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h 
but less than 240,000 Btu/h because it did not find any equipment in 
this capacity range on the U.S. market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The max-tech level represented the highest efficiency level 
of equipment available on the market at the time of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its analysis and the review of the market, DOE determined 
that it did not have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant 
additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more 
stringent standard levels than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for ECUACs and 
WCUACs. 77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not conduct an economic analysis of 
standards more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 levels for ECUACs 
and WCUACs because of the conclusion that more stringent standards 
would result in minimal energy savings. Id.
    Since ASHRAE 90.1-2010 was published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone 
three revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2013; 
on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2016; and on October 
24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019. In none of these 
publications did ASHRAE amend minimum EER levels for small, large, and 
very large WCUACs or ECUACs; therefore, DOE was not triggered to 
examine amended standards for this equipment under 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A). As a result, the current Federal standards for ECUACs 
and WCUACs are those set forth in the May 2012 final rule and codified 
in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and their compliance dates 
are provided in Table II.1 of this NOPD.

 Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package
                                     Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                  Cooling capacity
         Equipment type               (Btu/h)          Heating type      Minimum EER        Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled.............  <65,000..........  All..............            12.1  October 29, 2003.

[[Page 57153]]

 
Small Water-Cooled.............  >=65,000 and       No Heating or                12.1  June 1, 2013.
                                  <135,000.          Electric
                                                     Resistance
                                                     Heating.
                                                    All Other Types              11.9  June 1, 2013.
                                                     of Heating.
Large Water-Cooled.............  >=135,000 and      No Heating or                12.5  June 1, 2014.
                                  <240,000.          Electric
                                                     Resistance
                                                     Heating.
                                                    All Other Types              12.3  June 1, 2014.
                                                     of Heating.
Very Large Water-Cooled........  >=240,000 and      No Heating or                12.4  June 1, 2014.
                                  <760,000.          Electric
                                                     Resistance
                                                     Heating.
                                                    All Other Types              12.2  June 1, 2014.
                                                     of Heating.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.....  <65,000..........  All..............            12.1  October 29, 2003.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled.....  >=65,000 and       No Heating or                12.1  June 1, 2013.
                                  <135,000.          Electric
                                                     Resistance
                                                     Heating.
                                                    All Other Types              11.9  June 1, 2013.
                                                     of Heating.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled.....  >=135,000 and      No Heating or                12.0  June 1, 2014.
                                  <240,000.          Electric
                                                     Resistance
                                                     Heating.
                                                    All Other Types              11.8  June 1, 2014.
                                                     of Heating.
Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled  >=240,000 and      No Heating or                11.9  June 1, 2014.
                                  <760,000.          Electric
                                                     Resistance
                                                     Heating.
                                                    All Other Types              11.7  June 1, 2014.
                                                     of Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2019, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'') 
to collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE's energy 
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (``July 2019 
ECS RFI''). In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE solicited information to help 
determine whether amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result 
in significant additional conservation of energy and whether such 
standards would be technologically feasible and economically justified. 
84 FR 36480, 36483. DOE specifically sought information and data on 
whether the market size and shipment data used in the May 2012 final 
rule reflect the current market size and shipments of WCUACs and 
ECUACs; the range of efficiency levels currently on the market for each 
equipment class of ECUACs and WCUACs; the integrated energy efficiency 
ratio (``IEER'') metric and weighting factors and its applicability to 
the average use cycles of ECUACs and WCUACs; the share of ECUAC and 
WCUAC models on the market that are currently rated for both EER and 
IEER; and any information regarding the regulatory burden amended 
standards might impose on manufacturers. 84 FR 36480.
    DOE received several comments from interested parties in response 
to the publication of the July 2019 ECS RFI. Table II.2 lists the 
commenters, their abbreviated names used throughout this NOPD, and 
organization type. Discussion of the relevant comments provided by 
these organizations and DOE's responses are provided in the appropriate 
sections of this document.

  Table II.2--Interested Parties That Provided Comment on the July 2019
                                 ECS RFI
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Name                   Abbreviation     Organization type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trane............................  Trane.............  Manufacturer.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and     AHRI..............  Industry
 Refrigeration Institute.                               Representative.
California Investor Owned          CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 Utilities (Pacific Gas and
 Electric Company, San Diego Gas
 and Electric, and California
 Edison).
Appliance Standards Awareness      ASAP and NRDC.....  Efficiency/
 Project; Natural Resources                             Environmental
 Defense Council.                                       Advocates.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Rationale

    DOE developed this proposed determination after considering 
comments, data, and information from interested parties that represent 
a variety of interests. This notice addresses issues raised by these 
commenters.

A. General Comments

    CA IOUs expressed general support for analyzing updated energy 
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4) 
ASAP and NRDC commented that DOE should analyze the potential for 
energy savings from amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, and in 
particular for ``large'' and ``very large'' WCUACs. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 
7 at p. 1) CA IOUs recommended that DOE complete the test procedure 
rulemaking prior to initiating any energy conservation standards 
rulemaking to provide an opportunity for stakeholders to understand the 
test procedure on which equipment is being rated before analyzing more 
stringent energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3) As 
stated and explained further in the subsequent sections, DOE is not 
proposing more stringent standards for WCUACs or ECUACs. CA IOUs also 
suggested consolidating any energy conservation standards rulemaking 
for ECUACs and WCUACs with that of water-source heat pumps (``WSHPs''). 
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 4) CA IOUs stated given the technical 
similarities among ECUACs, WCUACs, and WSHPs, and the limited shipments 
of this equipment, DOE should consolidate the rulemakings for all three 
equipment categories as a means to reduce regulatory burden for 
industry and DOE. Id. While these equipment categories may share some 
technical similarities, WSHPs are subject to different test procedures 
and standards than those of ECUACs and WCUACs. Furthermore, the WSHP 
market is about 100 times larger than the ECUAC and WCUAC market 
combined, with about 200,000 shipments annually. (Docket EERE-

[[Page 57154]]

2014-BT-STD-0015-0043 at p. 133) For these reasons, DOE has not 
consolidated the evaluation of ECUAC and WCUAC energy conservation 
standards with that of WSHPs.
    Trane commented generally about the cumulative regulatory burden 
that manufacturers face, stressing that increased Federal efficiency 
standards for air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners 
(``ACUACs'') and commercial warm air furnaces (``CWAFs'') as well as 
alternative refrigerant requirements would make testing and product 
development for ECUACs and WCUACs particularly burdensome. (Trane, No. 
4 at p. 3) Again, as discussed in the following sections, DOE is not 
proposing to amend standards for ECUACs or WCUACs.

B. Market Analysis

    For this proposed determination, DOE conducted a review of the 
current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, including equipment literature, 
the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance (``AHRI 
Directory''),\6\ and the DOE Compliance Certification Management System 
(``CCMS'') database.\7\ DOE also considered market data and stakeholder 
comments received in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, the analysis 
performed in the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs, 
and the energy savings potential for amended standards determined in 
the May 2012 final rule. The following sub-sections discuss DOE's 
analysis of the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, relevant analyses 
and results from the May 2012 final rule, including shipments 
estimates, and comments received in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The AHRI Directory for unitary large equipment can be found 
at https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome. AHRI's 
certification program does not currently include ECUACs of any 
cooling capacities or WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than 
250,000 Btu/h.
    \7\ Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the July 2019 ECS 
RFI was accessed on April 1, 2019. Updated data for this document 
was accessed on December 16, 2019. This database can be found at 
http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Shipments Estimates
    As part of the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and WCUACs, 
AHRI provided historical shipments data from 1989 to 2009 for WCUACs by 
cooling capacity range. (Docket No. EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0005 at pp. 
54-55) This previously submitted historical data showed strongly 
decreasing shipments for certain small (i.e., 65,000 to 134,900 Btu/h 
cooling capacity), large (i.e., 135,000 to 249,000 Btu/h cooling 
capacity), and very large (i.e., 250,000 Btu/h and over cooling 
capacity) WCUACs from 1989 to 2009. DOE developed shipments projections 
for the two smaller equipment classes using an exponential curve fit to 
the available historical data. Because the historical trends showed a 
steep decline in shipments for these classes, the shipment projections 
resulted in very few shipments by the end of the 30-year analysis 
period. 76 FR 25622, 25642. For very large WCUACs, the decline in 
shipments was less definitive, although a linear fit of the available 
21 years of shipment data showed gradually declining shipments. For 
each of the WCUAC equipment classes analyzed, DOE used the historical 
shipments data to analyze two shipment scenarios: (1) Based on 
historical trends of declining shipments described earlier in this 
paragraph, and (2) based on shipments remaining constant at 2009 
levels. DOE analyzed the energy savings potential by equipment class 
for both scenarios to provide a range of energy savings estimates. 76 
FR 25622, 25641-25642.
    In the May 2012 final rule analysis, DOE did not identify any 
models of certain small (i.e., greater than 65,000 Btu/h but less than 
135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) or large ECUACs, and thus DOE assumed 
no shipments for these equipment classes. 76 FR 25622, 25639. DOE 
identified multiple models of very large ECUACs, but because no 
shipments data were available for ECUACs, DOE developed shipment 
estimates based on the ratio of the number of identified models of very 
large ECUACs (9) to the number of models of very large WCUACs (35). 76 
FR 25622, 25642.
    In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE presented the shipment estimates 
relied on in the May 2012 final rule, noting that average shipments of 
ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 
Btu/h were previously estimated to be less than 1,000 for each 
equipment class and noted that such equipment is only a small fraction 
of shipments of the commercial unitary air conditioner (``CUAC'') 
market. 84 FR 36480, 36484. In development of the present evaluation, 
DOE searched for, but was unable to identify, publicly available 
sources of shipments of ECUACs and WCUACs. In the July 2019 ECS RFI, 
DOE presented a model count of the available models certified in the 
CCMS database and preliminarily finding that the number of models of 
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market is significantly less than 
the number of ACUAC models on the market for all capacity ranges, 
suggesting that the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs is much 
smaller than the present-day market for ACUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36484-
36485.
    In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the 
shipments estimates for WCUACs and ECUACs analyzed in the May 2012 
final rule are representative of the current market. DOE also requested 
data on historical and recent shipments for each of the equipment 
classes of WCUACs and ECUACs, including for units with cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE requested feedback on whether the 
historical decline in shipments for WCUACs that was found in the May 
2012 final rule analysis still applies for the current WCUAC market, 
and specifically, information on market forces that are expected to 
influence future WCUAC and ECUAC shipment trends, and whether there is 
any information to suggest a growing or declining ECUAC market. 84 FR 
36480, 36484-36485.
    In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, Trane agreed with DOE's 
assessment that the WCUAC and ECUAC market is a fraction of all CUAC 
shipments, and that the historical data from the last rulemaking is 
generally representative of the WCUAC market. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 1) 
Trane stated that it may be prudent to add more recent shipping history 
to the analysis to determine if it changes any assumptions as this 
market is tied specifically to multi-floor office building 
construction. Id. AHRI also stated most WCUAC products are linked to 
multi-floor office buildings. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI further stated 
that DOE's WCUAC shipment estimates from the May 2012 final rule do not 
reflect the current market trend. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) Trane and AHRI 
commented that estimates developed for the May 2012 final rule were 
based on shipment analysis data through 2009, which was at a point of a 
very large downturn in the market due to the great recession. (Trane, 
No. 4 at p. 1; AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI stated that for this reason, 
and the fact that shipments are linked to investment in the commercial 
building sector, DOE's 30-year shipment prediction models are not based 
on representative data and do not reflect reasonable assumptions. 
(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) Trane commented that the market has since 
rebounded and grown to more typical historical levels. (Trane, No. 4 at 
p. 1) Trane and CA IOUs recommended adding more recent WCUAC shipments 
history to the analysis, with the CA IOUs stating that the data did not 
break out shipments by cooling type or geographic locations of where 
shipments are sold. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3) 
Trane

[[Page 57155]]

recommended the shipments analysis should reflect the relationship to 
multi-floor office building construction. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 1) AHRI 
provided recent data on the current WCUAC market size and trend. (AHRI, 
No. 5 at p. 5)
    Trane stated that the ECUAC market is declining as other 
manufacturers have exited this market. Trane also stated both the ECUAC 
and WCUAC markets are small and that it is questionable whether 
additional analysis would significantly affect conclusions about the 
market size. (Trane, No. 4 at pp. 1-2) Trane suggested that because of 
the small market size for this equipment and the significant burden 
associated with compliance with recent regulations for similar 
equipment (i.e., ACUACs and CWAFs), if the energy conservation 
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs were to exceed the requirements in 
ASHRAE 90.1, manufacturers would consider exiting the market. (Trane, 
No. 4 at p. 3)
    DOE acknowledges the market downturn that occurred in the years at 
the end of the range of historical shipments used in the May 2012 final 
rule. DOE incorporated the additional shipments data from AHRI to 
develop revised shipment projections using the same model specification 
as used for the May 2012 final rule. Table III.1 presents the 
historical shipments for WCUACs from the May 2012 final rule (1984-
2009) along with historical shipments in the following years as 
provided by AHRI (2010-2018). As shown in Table III.1 for the small and 
large WCUACs, shipments starting in 2009 are lower than in prior years. 
The very large WCUAC shipments fell in the years immediately following 
2008, and while the shipments have rebounded, they did not rebound to 
the highest shipment levels seen previously.

                                Table III.1--Historical Shipments Data for WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Small AC water- Large AC water-  Very large AC
                Year *                    Small AC water-cooled    cooled (65 to  cooled (135 to   water-cooled
                                             (<64.9 kBtu/h)        134.9 kBtu/h)    249 kBtu/h)   (>=250 kBtu/h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989..................................  ........................           1,437             793           1,622
1990..................................  ........................           1,503             779           1,211
1991..................................  ........................           1,107             621             908
1992..................................  ........................           1,068             537             720
1993..................................  ........................             985             520             668
1994..................................  ........................             922             504             815
1995..................................  ........................           1,121             493             805
1996..................................  ........................           1,217             652           1,020
1997..................................  ........................             989             522           1,216
1998..................................  ........................             795             623           1,886
1999..................................  ........................             874             477             898
2000..................................  ........................           1,478           1,621           1,170
2001..................................  ........................             606             409             762
2002..................................  ........................             502             355           1,227
2003..................................  ........................             390             287             740
2004..................................  ........................             447             291             711
2005..................................  ........................             177             188             861
2006..................................  ........................             316             278           1,231
2007..................................  ........................             359             317           1,231
2008..................................  ........................             282             311           1,390
2009..................................  91......................             152             182             585
2010..................................  119.....................             139             186             531
2011..................................  84......................             209             180             609
2012..................................  95......................             230             137             624
2013..................................  59......................             198             164             751
2014..................................  54......................             216             114             829
2015..................................  52......................             137             147             770
2016..................................  44......................             105             154             946
2017..................................  45......................              62             128             985
2018..................................  39......................             106             108             844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data for 1989-2009 from the May 2012 Final Rule. This data does not include WCUACs with cooling capacity less
  than 65,000 Btu/h because this class was not included in that rulemaking. Data for 2009-2018 provided by AHRI
  in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.

    Similar to the approach in the May 2012 final rule, for this 
analysis DOE developed two shipment projections; one based on 
historical trends and one that held shipments constant at the 2018 
shipment level (referred to as ``2019 trend'' and ``2019 constant'', 
respectively). The 2019 trend and 2019 constant projections are 
compared to projections from the May 2012 final rule that were based on 
the historical trends and fixed at the level of the 2009 shipments 
(referred to as ``2012 trend'' and ``2012 constant'', respectively). 
This comparison is shown in Table III.2 of this document.
    DOE was unable to identify shipments data for the ECUAC equipment 
classes and none were provided by the stakeholders. As was the approach 
used in the May 2012 final rule for the present analysis, shipment 
projections were developed by scaling the WCUAC shipment projections 
using a ratio of unique model counts for each equipment class (see 
section III.B.3 of this document). For the small (cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC class of products, the shipment projection was 
further adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to better reflect the approximate 
size of the market in the mid-2000s.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Emerging Technologies 
Program, Application Assessment Report # 0605. Evaluation of the 
Freus Residential Evaporative Condenser System in PG&E Service 
Territory. https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf accessed December 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    AHRI commented that WCUACs are typically sold as part of a large 
project

[[Page 57156]]

(i.e., a multi-tenant, multi-story office building). (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 
4) To account for shipments being a function of large office 
construction, DOE also developed a third projection for the very large 
WCUAC equipment class, using a regression analysis with historical data 
and projections of large office existing floor space and large office 
additions as the variables (referred to as ``2019 regression'' in Table 
III.2 of this document).

                  Table III.2--Comparison of Shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs by Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2018     2020     2025     2030     2035     2040     2045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h:
    2012 trend...................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    2012 constant (=2009)........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    2019 trend...................................       39       33       18       10        6        3        2
    2019 constant (=2018)........................       39       39       39       39       39       39       39
Small WCUAC, >=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h:
    2012 trend...................................       93       76       46       28       17       10        6
    2012 constant (=2009)........................      152      152      152      152      152      152      152
    2019 trend...................................      106       87       52       32       19       11        7
    2019 constant (=2018)........................      106      106      106      106      106      106      106
Large WCUAC, >=135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h:
    2012 trend...................................      132      117       87       64       47       35       26
    2012 constant (=2009)........................      182      182      182      182      182      182      182
    2019 trend...................................      108      110       78       55       39       28       20
    2019 constant (=2018)........................      108      108      108      108      108      108      108
Very Large WCUAC, >=240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h:
    2012 trend...................................      953      944      923      903      882      861      840
    2012 constant (=2009)........................      585      585      585      585      585      585      585
    2019 trend...................................      844      777      721      664      608      551      495
    2019 constant (=2018)........................      844      844      844      844      844      844      844
    2019 regression..............................      844    1,000      929      927      865      844      828
Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h:
    2012 trend...................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    2012 constant (=2009)........................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
    2019 trend...................................      156      132       72       40       24       12        8
    2019 constant (=2018)........................      156      156      156      156      156      156      156
Very Large ECUAC, >=240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h:
    2012 trend...................................      245      243      238      232      227      221      216
    2012 constant (=2009)........................      150      150      150      150      150      150      150
    2019 trend...................................       14       13       12       11       10        9        9
    2019 constant (=2018)........................       14       14       14       14       14       14       14
    2019 regression..............................       14       17       16       16       14       14       14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did not analyze small ECUACs and 
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. For the July 2019 
ECS RFI, DOE identified a single manufacturer of ECUACs in this 
capacity range, and the models offered are single-phase equipment and 
appear to be predominantly marketed for residential applications in 
regions of the United States with hot and dry climates, suggesting that 
there are few if any shipments in other regions of the United States. 
84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE identified only two distinct product lines of 
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and DOE's 
examination of manufacturer literature for these WCUACs suggested that 
these models do not comprise a significant share of the market for air 
conditioners in residential or commercial applications. Id.
    In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, AHRI provided shipment data 
for WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. (AHRI, No. 5 
at p. 5) Based on the shipments data, DOE's analysis points to 
declining future shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h.
    The projected trends from the May 2012 final rule and those based 
on the updated data both generally show declines in shipments for small 
(>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very large WCUACs, and very 
large ECUACs. The shipment levels under the 2019 constant projections 
are lower than the 2012 constant projections for small (>=65,000 and 
<135,000 Btu/h) and large WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The 2019 
constant projections for very large WCUACs are higher than the 2012 
constant projections (but lower than the 2012 trend projections). The 
2019 regression projections for very large WCUACs and ECUACs show a 
more stable level of shipments over the analysis period than the 2019 
trend models, but are lower than the 2012 trend projection.
    As DOE did not analyze ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h for the May 2012 final rule, no comparisons to the 
current projections are possible. The current trended shipments 
projections for the small (cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) 
equipment classes reach 10 or fewer shipments by 2045.
2. Model Counts
    For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the current 
market for WCUACs and ECUACs, based on models included in the DOE CCMS 
database.\7\ 84 FR 36480, 36484. DOE also compared the number of ECUAC 
and WCUAC models to the number of ACUAC models listed in DOE's CCMS 
database.
    In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on the size of the 
current market for ECUACs and WCUACs, as compared to the market for 
ACUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36485. Trane commented that DOE's analysis clearly 
shows that the market for ECUACs and WCUACs is much smaller than the 
market for ACUACs. Trane further stated that ECUACs and WCUACs differ 
from ACUACs in that shipments of ECUACs and WCUACs are somewhat 
regionalized in the United States due to

[[Page 57157]]

their more niche applications. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
    Table III.3 shows the number of models listed within the DOE CCMS 
database that DOE identified for each class of ACUACs, ECUACs, and 
WCUACs.\7\

                            Table III.3--Model Counts for ECUACs, WCUACs, and ACUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                 Number of models
                 Cooling capacity range (Btu/h)                  -----------------------------------------------
                                                                       ECUAC           WCUAC           ACUAC
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000.........................................................              11               9         * 2,748
>=65,000 and <135,000...........................................               0              47           2,274
>=135,000 and <240,000..........................................               0              34           2,194
>=240,000 and <760,000..........................................              15             363           4,817
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This <65,000 Btu/h air-cooled model count includes only basic models of three-phase air-cooled commercial air
  conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.

    As shown in Table III.3, the number of ECUAC and WCUAC models 
currently on the market is substantially less than the number of ACUAC 
models on the market for all capacity ranges. This is consistent with 
the relationship between model counts identified in the May 2012 final 
rule, further suggesting that the current market for ECUACs and WCUACs 
is much smaller than the market for ACUACs.
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
    For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of 
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market. DOE requested comment on the 
range of efficiency levels for each equipment class of ECUACs and 
WCUACs currently on the market and on whether efficiency levels above 
the current baseline standard are achievable for equipment across all 
cooling capacity ranges. 84 FR 36480, 36485.
    In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, ASAP and NRDC encouraged DOE 
to analyze energy savings potential from amended standards for both 
ECUACs and WCUACs, particularly those of large and very large WCUACs. 
They stated that the efficiency distribution for WCUACs presented in 
the July 2019 ECS RFI illustrates that the average and maximum EERs of 
WCUACs on the market are significantly higher than the current 
standard. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at pp. 1-2) They stated that this shows 
there is a wide availability of models that exceed the standard across 
all covered capacity ranges. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 1)
    AHRI recommended that DOE not change the baseline standard for 
WCUACs. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI also commented that a significant 
part of WCUAC shipments are moving towards replacement installations in 
renovated buildings, specifically in mechanical rooms of office 
buildings, which constrains the size and thus the potential for 
increased EER performance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) AHRI also stated the 
potential improvements in EER ratings are limited for WCUACs based on 
existing technology. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2) Trane also stated that 
WCUACs are typically only available from a manufacturer in one 
efficiency tier, and are therefore not offered as part of ``standard'' 
or ``high efficiency'' model lines. Trane also commented that the WCUAC 
EER data from the CCMS Database presented in the July 2019 ECS RFI is 
representative of what is currently available today in the market. 
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) With respect to ECUACs, Trane stated that the 
market is primarily for replacement purposes and that because of this, 
ECUACs face size constraints similar to WCUACs despite being installed 
outdoors, which limits the potential for increased EER levels. (Trane, 
No. 4 at p. 2)
    In response to comments, DOE updated the estimated energy savings 
and percent of no-new-standards energy consumption for 30 years of 
shipments (2020-2049) using the 2012 final rule model and input 
assumptions, but updated the shipment projections to reflect more 
recent information outlined in sections above. DOE also updated 
efficiency distributions to reflect the current market and Table III.4 
presents the summary of statistics by equipment category and capacity 
range of equipment for unique models \9\ from DOE's CCMS Database.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ The count of unique models excludes basic models that appear 
to be duplicates--i.e., basic models sharing the same manufacturer 
and certified cooling capacity and EER ratings. For basic models 
that had multiple individual models certified with different 
capacities and different EER ratings, the individual models were 
considered to be unique models.

                                       Table III.4--Current Market Efficiency Distributions for WCUACs and ECUACs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Average                           EER                           Current
                                                             Number of        cooling    ------------------------------------------------   Federal EER
             Cooling capacity range (Btu/h)                unique models  capacity (Btu/                                                  standard level
                                                                                h)            Minimum         Average         Maximum            *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                              Water-Cooled Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000.................................................               1          58,000            12.2            12.2            12.2            12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000...................................              23          99,478            12.1            12.8            15.3            12.1
>=135,000 and <240,000..................................              15         175,600            13.5            14.6            16.3            12.5
>=240,000 and <760,000..................................             234         493,556            12.5            13.8            16.1            12.4
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000.................................................               8          37,950            13.2              15            16.0            12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000...................................               0             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000..................................               0             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A

[[Page 57158]]

 
>=240,000 and <760,000..................................               4         442,750            11.8            12.7            13.4            11.7
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all capacity ranges except very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, the Federal EER standard listed is for ``no heat or electric heat''
  class. For the very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioner class, the Federal EER standard listed is the ``all other types of heating'' class.

    Savings were estimated based on the forecasted shipments labeled 
2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression. For the savings 
estimates labeled 2019 regression, as noted in Section III.B.1 of this 
NOPD, a regression projection was only developed for the very large 
equipment class.
    As mentioned in section II.B of this NOPD, the cumulative site 
energy savings are calculated using the max-tech level, which is the 
highest value of efficiency in DOE's CCMS Database within each capacity 
range of ECUACs and WCUACs (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h, 65,000-135,000 Btu/h, 
135,000-240,000 Btu/h, and 240,000-760,000 Btu/h). However, for very 
large WCUACs, consideration of the highest efficiency value in DOE's 
CCMS database may not be appropriate for evaluating potential 
amendments to the energy conservation standards.
    The very large WCUAC equipment class represents a wide range of 
cooling capacities (>=240,000 and <760,000 Btu/h). For the very large 
WCUAC class, there is only one individual model rated at the highest 
level of 16.1 EER, and that individual model is part of a larger model 
line with many other offerings, all of which have EER ratings 
significantly lower than 16.1. As explained in the following 
discussion, DOE's examination of this model line indicates that the 
individual model in question is an outlier among: (1) Models in the 
product line rated within the same basic model (and at approximately 
the same capacity as) the individual model in question; as well as (2) 
models in the product line rated at capacities across the capacity 
range of the very large equipment class. This individual model rated at 
16.1 EER is within a basic model for which all other individual models 
(with similar technology options and approximately the same cooling 
capacity as the model rated at 16.1 EER) have an EER rating of 15 or 
lower. Within this product line, the model numbers certified in DOE's 
CCMS Database indicate that among individual models rated as part of 
the same basic model, the differences in these models' rated 
efficiencies depend on fan diameter and number of fan blades. This 
unique model (rated at 16.1 EER) shows a relationship between 
technology options and rated efficiency that appears inconsistent with 
all other models of the product line. Specifically, there are two 
options for number of fan blades, and all other individual models in 
the basic model except for the model rated at 16.1 EER show that for 
the same fan diameter, the model with the higher number of fan blades 
has a lower EER rating. It is unclear why a higher number of fan blades 
results in a higher EER rating for only this specific individual model.
    Moreover, there are basic models within this product line rated at 
a wide range of capacities across the very large WCUAC class that have 
the same combination of technology options that distinguish the 
individual model rated at 16.1 EER. However, the EER ratings for all of 
these models are significantly lower than 16.1, between 13.5-14.5. It 
is not clear why this combination of technology options results in a 
higher efficiency at only one rated capacity; and this discrepancy 
suggests that a 16.1 EER level may not be achievable with these 
technology options at other capacities within the very large WCUAC 
equipment class. Therefore, DOE considered the model rated at 16.1 to 
be an outlier. As such, DOE calculated the energy savings from 
potential amended standards for very large WCUACs using the next 
highest level that was achievable across the range of capacities (i.e., 
an EER of 15).
    The estimated energy savings, which vary by shipment scenario and 
equipment class, are presented in Table III.5 of this NOPD. Selecting 
the minimum and maximum estimated savings level for each equipment 
class resulted in a range of total estimated site energy savings for 
the WCUAC classes of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of estimated 
site energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy 
use), and for the ECUAC classes of 0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of 
estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated 
site energy use) during the analysis period. For all equipment classes, 
the resulting estimated savings ranged between 0.0031 quads (8.5 
percent of estimated site energy consumption) and 0.0047 quads (8.5 
percent of estimated site energy consumption) during the analysis 
period.

 Table III.5--Estimated National Site Energy Savings and Percent Energy Reductions for WCUACs and ECUACs at the
                                                 Max-Tech Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Cumulative site national energy savings       Reduction in
                                                                    (quads) *                     national site
         Cooling capacity range (Btu/h)         ------------------------------------------------      energy
                                                                                                   consumption
                                                      Trend         Constant       Regression       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................................         0.00000         0.00000  ..............              0.0
>=65,000 and <135,000..........................         0.00005         0.00019  ..............             13.3
>=135,000 and <240,000.........................         0.00011         0.00025  ..............             10.1
>=240,000 and <760,000.........................         0.00287         0.00395         0.00413              8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 57159]]

 
                                                     ECUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................................         0.00001         0.00004  ..............              5.3
>=65,000 and <135,000..........................             N/A             N/A             N/A              N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000.........................             N/A             N/A             N/A              N/A
>=240,000 and <760,000.........................         0.00005         0.00006         0.00007              6.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30-
  year analysis period (2020-2049).

    For the May 2012 final rule analysis, DOE did not incorporate 
changing trends in shipments by efficiency over time in the no-new-
standards case, and the updated energy savings estimates presented in 
Table III.5 of this NOPD also use a constant efficiency distribution of 
shipments over time. DOE does not have data on efficiency trends for 
WCUAC and ECUACs and seeks comment on efficiency trends specific to 
this equipment.

C. Energy Efficiency Descriptors

    The current energy efficiency descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC 
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 specifies both EER 
and IEER minimum efficiency levels. The EER metric represents the 
efficiency of the equipment operating at full load. The IEER metric 
factors in the efficiency of operating at part loads of 75 percent, 50 
percent, and 25 percent of capacity as well as the efficiency at full 
load. The IEER metric weights the full- and part-load efficiencies 
based on the average amount of time operating at each loading point. 
Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser temperatures (i.e., 
reduced entering water temperature for WCUACs and reduced outdoor air 
dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures for ECUACs) to reflect the 
representative ambient conditions for part-load operation in the field. 
ASHRAE 90.1 has included minimum efficiency levels for ECUACs and 
WCUACs in terms of both EER and IEER since 2010. In the July 2019 ECS 
RFI, DOE requested comment on the representativeness of IEER for WCUACs 
and ECUACs, and more specifically that of ECUACs with cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h, and the burden that IEER testing may impose on 
manufacturers. 84 FR 36480, 36486-36487.
    In response to the July 2019 ECS RFI, Trane and AHRI generally 
supported adopting the IEER metric for the Federal standards for 
WCUACs. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2; AHRI No. 5 at p. 3) Trane also supported 
adopting the IEER metric for Federal standards for ECUACs. Trane 
further stated that WCUACs and ECUACs are space constrained, which 
significantly limits the ability to develop products with any further 
increase in full load efficiency, and that a part load metric therefore 
provides many more opportunities to increase efficiency performance 
without requiring physically larger units. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) ASAP 
and NRDC stated that it would make sense to move to a part-load metric 
for ECUACs and WCUACs to better represent field performance and reflect 
the efficiency benefits of technologies that improve part-load 
performance, and encouraged DOE to investigate appropriate test points 
and weighting factors that could be used for a part-load metric for 
ECUACs and WCUACs. (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs recommended 
that DOE maintain the current performance metric of EER. (CA IOUs, No. 
6 at p. 1) CA IOUs expressed general support for including part-load 
conditions in an integrated metric, but strongly recommended that DOE 
not adopt IEER as it is currently specified in the industry standards. 
(CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
    As discussed in the following subsections, DOE is not proposing to 
change the metric for the ECUAC and WCUAC energy conservation 
standards.
1. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs and WCUACs
    As previously mentioned, IEER includes lower condenser temperatures 
for part-load tests. Table III.6 shows the IEER test conditions for 
ECUACs and WCUACs specified in AHRI Standard 340/360-2019, 
``Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019'').\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ AHRI 340/360-2019 is the industry test procedure referenced 
in ASHRAE 90.1-2019 for testing CUACs with cooling capacity greater 
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h.

 Table III.6--IEER Test Conditions for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners From AHRI 340/360-
                                                      2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     Water-cooled                    Evaporatively-cooled
                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------
              Percent load                 Entering water   Entering air dry- Entering air wet-   Makeup water
                                             temperature    bulb temperature  bulb temperature     temperature
                                              ([deg]F)          ([deg]F)          ([deg]F)          ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.....................................              85.0              95.0              75.0              85.0
75......................................              73.5              81.5              66.2              81.5
50......................................              62.0              68.0              57.5              68.0

[[Page 57160]]

 
25......................................              55.0              65.0              52.8              65.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Performance of equipment at each of the four IEER testing 
conditions are combined in a weighted average to determine the IEER 
rating. The following equation shows the weighting factors for each 
testing condition.

IEER = (0.020 [middot] A) + (0.617 [middot] B) + (0.238 [middot] C) + 
(0.125 [middot] D)

Where (see Table III.6 for condenser temperature for all four test 
points):

A = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 100 percent capacity at standard rating 
conditions
B = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 75 percent capacity and reduced 
condenser temperature
C = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 50 percent capacity and reduced 
condenser temperature
D = EER, Btu/W[middot]h, at 25 percent capacity and reduced 
condenser temperature.

    The intent of this weighted average across a range of condenser 
temperatures is to produce an IEER rating that is more representative 
of outdoor conditions that air conditioners face for much of the year, 
rather than just the peak temperature experienced in most climates for 
only a small minority of operating hours.
    In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the 
weighting factors and IEER metric are an appropriate representation of 
average use cycles for ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480, 36486. DOE also 
sought comment on the extent to which ECUACs and/or WCUACs are 
installed in hot and dry climates as compared to other climates as well 
as the types of building that represent the primary markets for all 
equipment classes of ECUACs and WCUACs. Id.
    Trane stated that IEER is more representative of the applied energy 
efficiency performance of WCUACs and ECUACs than EER, which is only 
representative of full load operation, and that the current IEER test 
conditions and weightings in the industry standards are representative 
of typical applications and average use cycles for WCUACs and ECUACs. 
(Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) AHRI supported adopting IEER for WCUACs as 
defined by AHRI Standard 340/360 and AHRI Standard 210/240, 
``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump 
Equipment''.\11\ (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ AHRI 210/240 is an industry test procedure for testing 
CUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trane stated that WCUACs are installed primarily in 6- to 10-story 
office buildings in large metropolitan areas with varying climates in 
the Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and South. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) 
AHRI stated that WCUACs are mostly installed in office buildings, and 
that IEER was developed, in part, based on operation in such building 
types, and as such IEER is a representative metric for WCUACs. (AHRI, 
No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI commented that the small market size prohibits a 
full study of WCUAC-specific IEER weighting factors. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 
3)
    ASAP and NRDC encouraged DOE to investigate appropriate test 
conditions and weighting factors for IEER for both ECUACs and WCUACs 
based on the wide range of EER performance for WCUACs (see section 
III.B.3). (ASAP and NRDC, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs suggested aligning the 
temperature test points of WCUACs with that of water-cooled variable 
refrigerant flow equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 3)
    CA IOUs recommended that DOE determine the geographic concentration 
of ECUAC sales to ensure the temperature test conditions and weightings 
are reflective of their installation locations; CA IOUs provided data 
on the reference climates for California's 16 climate zones with some 
of the hottest, driest regions in the country where ECUACs may be 
installed, emphasizing that the average U.S. climate is not where 
ECUACs are installed and so the IEER metric based on the average U.S. 
climate has limited utility. (CA IOUs, No. 6 at p. 2) Trane stated that 
the IEER weighting factors and test conditions were representative for 
ECUACs and also stated that ECUACs are installed more frequently in low 
humidity regions like the West. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2)
    For ECUACs, the weighting factors for IEER may not be 
representative of typical applications. As suggested by commenters, 
ECUACs may be disproportionally marketed and sold in relatively hot and 
dry climates in which there is a larger efficiency benefit to using 
evaporative condenser cooling. As shown in the IEER equation, the 
weighting factor for the full-load test point is only 2 percent, so 
almost all of the IEER rating for ECUACs reflects performance at 
outdoor air temperatures cooler than what would be typically 
experienced in hot and dry climates.
    Regarding WCUACs, the IEER weighting factors were developed based 
on an analysis of ACUACs. AHRI's comment indicates that an analysis of 
IEER weighting factors specific to WCUACs has not been conducted. As 
such, it is uncertain whether the IEER weighting factors appropriately 
reflect the average use of WCUACs, and therefore, whether the IEER 
metric is representative of typical applications for WCUACs.
2. Representativeness of IEER for ECUACs With Cooling Capacity Less 
Than 65,000 Btu/h
    ASHRAE 90.1-2016 includes IEER efficiency requirements for all 
classes of ECUACs, including ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h. However, DOE's preliminary analysis of models in this 
equipment class certified in DOE's CCMS database suggests that these 
units are primarily marketed for residential applications. In contrast, 
the IEER metric was developed for commercial applications by analyzing 
air conditioner energy use in commercial buildings. Therefore, it is 
not clear whether IEER would be representative of average use cycles 
for ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
    Several issues relating to the representativeness of average use 
cycles for ECUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h and the IEER metric are 
apparent. One issue is the condenser conditions and weighting factors 
used for determining IEER. Over one-third of the weighting for 
determining IEER for ECUACs is based on performance at outdoor air dry-
bulb temperatures of 68 [deg]F and 65 [deg]F. While many commercial 
buildings

[[Page 57161]]

have substantial cooling loads at these temperatures, residential 
cooling loads at these temperatures are likely significantly lower. 
This is due in part to the lower density of people and electronics 
(both of which generate heat) typically seen in residential buildings 
as compared to commercial buildings. Also, commercial buildings tend to 
be larger and thus have lower surface area to volume ratios than low-
rise residential buildings, which results in less heat loss through the 
building envelope per volume of conditioned air in commercial buildings 
(all other things being equal). Therefore, for residential 
applications, IEER may overweight cooling at lower outdoor ambient 
temperatures and underweight cooling at higher ambient temperatures.
    Another issue relating to the representativeness of average use 
cycles for ECUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h and the IEER metric is that 
the IEER equation for adjusting for cyclic degradation \12\ (see 
equation 4 of AHRI 340/360-2019) assumes continuous operation of the 
indoor fan when the compressor is not operating. While this may be 
representative of commercial applications (in which the indoor fan 
often runs continuously to provide ventilation), the indoor fan 
presumably does not run continuously in many residential applications 
because most residential air conditioning systems are not installed to 
provide ventilation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ For units that cannot reduce compressor capacity 
sufficiently to meet a target IEER load fraction during steady-state 
operation, the cyclic degradation adjustment in AHRI 340/360-2019 
quantifies the reduced efficiency that would be seen in field 
applications from compressor cycling at part-load conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the IEER 
metric is representative of the average use cycle for ECUACs with 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. Specifically, DOE sought 
feedback on whether the outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures 
and IEER weighting factors from AHRI 340/360-2019 are representative 
for this equipment class. DOE also sought comment on whether this 
equipment class of ECUACs is typically installed residentially or 
commercially and whether the indoor fan runs continuously in the field. 
84 FR 36480, 36487. DOE received no comments regarding this issue.
3. Burden of IEER Testing
    IEER requires at least four tests whereas EER requires a single 
test. In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on the share of 
ECUAC and WCUAC models that rate with both EER and IEER. For those 
models that are not already rated for IEER, DOE requested comment on 
the extent to which IEER would impose testing and certification burden 
on manufacturers. 84 FR 36480, 36487.
    AHRI indicated that all its members that manufacture WCUACs already 
rate most products with both EER and IEER because IEER is required for 
ASHRAE 90.1 compliance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) Trane stated that 
although it rates all its WCUAC and ECUAC equipment with EER and IEER, 
it would need to do some design work and testing in order to comply 
with a newly-instated Federal IEER standard. (Trane, No. 4 at p. 2) 
Trane stated that this burden might be reduced by adopting the test 
conditions and definition for IEER in ASHRAE 90.1. Id.
    AHRI urged DOE to delay implementation of a new WCUAC metric until 
after 2023 to reduce the cumulative regulatory burden for manufacturers 
that make several types of air-conditioning equipment covered by DOE. 
(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI requested clarification on the estimated 
implementation timeline if IEER were to be adopted for WCUACs, and on 
whether the timeline would be similar to the timeline and compliance 
date for the May 2012 final rule. (Id., at p. 4)
    Of the models listed in the CCMS database,\7\ 62 out of 115 WCUAC 
basic models did not have any online product literature demonstrating 
that they are rated with IEER. For ECUACs, 8 out of 12 basic models 
listed in the CCMS database \7\ also did not have any online product 
literature with IEER ratings. This suggests that many WCUAC and ECUAC 
models would need to be retested in order to comply with Federal IEER 
standards.
4. Maintaining the EER Metric
    DOE is not proposing to adopt standards in terms of IEER for WCUACs 
and ECUACs. As discussed, it is unclear whether the IEER weighting 
factors are representative of typical installations of WCUACs. It is 
even less clear whether the weighting factors and test conditions of 
IEER as currently calculated under the industry standard are 
appropriately representative of the average use of ECUACs, including 
ECUACs with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. In addition, a 
survey of the market indicates that a number of basic models of WCUACs 
and ECUACs do not currently rate to IEER. Complying with Federal 
standards in terms of IEER for WCUACs and ECUACs would require 
additional testing and certification, and given the small market, may 
be unduly burdensome.

D. Proposed Determination

    DOE proposes that the energy conservation standards for WCUACs and 
ECUACs do not need to be amended, having initially determined that it 
lacks ``clear and convincing'' evidence that amended standards would 
result in significant additional conservation of energy. EPCA specifies 
that for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE may prescribe 
an energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such 
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' shows that a more stringent standard would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) As discussed, the ``clear and 
convincing'' threshold is a very high bar. ASHRAE not acting to amend 
the minimum efficiency levels in Standard 90.1, as in the present case 
for the classes of WCUACs and ECUACs evaluated in this document, is 
tantamount to a decision that the existing Federal standards, which 
align with the minimum levels in Standard 90.1, remain in place and 
requires clear and convincing evidence for DOE to determine otherwise. 
85 FR 8626, 8704-8708; Section 9(c) of appendix A to subpart C of 10 
CFR part 430.
    In considering more stringent efficiency levels for WCUACs and 
ECUACs than those specified by the current ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 
evaluated the significance of their potential energy savings as well as 
the specific facts and data made available to DOE.
    As stated in section II.A of this NOPD, the Process Rule 
establishes a two-step process for determining the significance of 
energy savings using an absolute and percentage threshold. Id.; Section 
6 of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. DOE first evaluates 
whether standards at the max-tech level would result in a minimum site-
energy savings of 0.3 quads over a 30-year period. Id.; Section 6(b)(2) 
of appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the 0.3 quads 
threshold is not met, DOE then evaluates whether energy savings at the 
max-tech level represent at least 10 percent of the total energy usage 
of the covered equipment over a 30-year period. Id.; Section 6(b)(3) of 
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430. If the percentage threshold 
is not met by a showing of clear and convincing evidence, DOE proposes 
to determine that no significant energy savings would

[[Page 57162]]

likely result from setting amended standards. Id.; Section 6(b)(4) of 
appendix A to subpart C of 10 CFR part 430.
    An analysis of updated shipments data and a review of the CCMS 
database and the AHRI Directory indicate that WCUACs and ECUACs 
continue to be a minor portion of total commercial air-cooled shipments 
with total combined shipments of less than 1,300 units in 2018. The 
shipments of very large WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to investment in 
commercial buildings, but the shipment projections also suggest that 
shipments may be continuing to decline.
    Using updated shipments and efficiency ratings from the CCMS 
database, DOE estimated that amended standards at current max-tech 
levels would result in additional site energy savings of between 
0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 
quads (6.0 percent of estimated site energy use) for the ECUAC classes 
during the analysis period.\13\ Neither the estimated absolute savings 
nor the estimated percentage savings meet the applicable significance 
thresholds. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that no 
significant energy savings would likely result from setting amended 
standards for ECUACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The range of site energy savings for ECUACs was determined 
using the resulting minimum and maximum estimated energy savings by 
shipment projection scenario at the equipment class level (presented 
in Table III.5 of this NOPD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For WCUACs, DOE estimated the additional energy savings based on 
the max-tech levels for small and large WCUACs, which were determined 
by identifying the highest efficiency ratings in the DOE CCMS Database. 
For very large WCUACs DOE initially determined that there is 
substantial doubt as to the appropriateness of using the highest 
efficiency reported in the DOE CCMS Database as the max-tech level. As 
discussed, there is a substantial question of whether the combination 
of technologies used to achieve the highest reported level for very 
large WCUACs is practicable for basic models across the capacity range 
of that equipment class. As such, DOE has initially determined that an 
energy savings calculation that would rely on the highest reported 
efficiency for very large WCUACs would not meet the ``clear and 
convincing evidence'' threshold required by EPCA. Instead DOE analyzed 
the next most efficient level reported in the DOE CCMS Database for 
very large WCUACs, which did not raise similar concerns, as the max-
tech level for very large WCUACs.
    Using this next highest efficiency level for very large WCUACs, DOE 
calculated that amended standards would result in additional site 
energy savings of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site 
energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy use) 
for all WCUAC classes during the analysis period.\14\ Neither the 
estimated absolute savings nor the estimated percentage savings meet 
the applicable significance thresholds. Therefore, DOE has tentatively 
determined that no significant energy savings would likely result from 
setting amended standards for WCUACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ The range of site energy savings for WCUACs was determined 
using the resulting minimum and maximum estimated energy savings by 
shipment projection scenario at the equipment class level (presented 
in Table III.5 of this NOPD).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE requests comment and data on its tentative determinations 
regarding the energy savings from amended standards for ECUACs and 
WCUACs.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This proposed determination is not a ``significant regulatory 
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this 
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the 
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office 
of Management and Budget.

B. Review Under Executive Orders 13771 and 13777

    On January 30, 2017, the President issued Executive Order (E.O.) 
13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs.'' E.O. 
13771 stated the policy of the executive branch is to be prudent and 
financially responsible in the expenditure of funds, from both public 
and private sources. E.O. 13771 stated it is essential to manage the 
costs associated with the governmental imposition of private 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations.
    Additionally, on February 24, 2017, the President issued E.O. 
13777, ``Enforcing the Regulatory Reform Agenda.'' E.O. 13777 required 
the head of each agency to designate an agency official as its 
Regulatory Reform Officer (``RRO''). Each RRO oversees the 
implementation of regulatory reform initiatives and policies to ensure 
that agencies effectively carry out regulatory reforms, consistent with 
applicable law. Further, E.O. 13777 requires the establishment of a 
regulatory task force at each agency. The regulatory task force is 
required to make recommendations to the agency head regarding the 
repeal, replacement, or modification of existing regulations, 
consistent with applicable law. At a minimum, each regulatory reform 
task force must attempt to identify regulations that:
    (1) Eliminate jobs, or inhibit job creation;
    (2) Are outdated, unnecessary, or ineffective;
    (3) Impose costs that exceed benefits;
    (4) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with 
regulatory reform initiatives and policies;
    (5) Are inconsistent with the requirements of Information Quality 
Act, or the guidance issued pursuant to that Act, in particular those 
regulations that rely in whole or in part on data, information, or 
methods that are not publicly available or that are insufficiently 
transparent to meet the standard for reproducibility; or
    (6) Derive from or implement Executive Orders or other Presidential 
directives that have been subsequently rescinded or substantially 
modified.
    DOE initially concludes that this determination is consistent with 
the directives set forth in these executive orders.
    As discussed in this document, DOE is proposing not to amend energy 
conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs. Therefore, if finalized 
as proposed, this determination is expected to be an E.O. 13771 other 
action.

C. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (http://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    DOE reviewed this proposed determination under the provisions of

[[Page 57163]]

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003. Because DOE is proposing not to amend 
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, if adopted, the determination would 
not amend any energy conservation standards. On the basis of the 
foregoing, DOE certifies that the proposed determination, if adopted, 
would have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of 
small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared an IRFA for this 
proposed determination. DOE will transmit this certification and 
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy 
of the Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

D. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of ECUACs and WCUACs must certify to DOE that their 
equipment complies with any applicable energy conservation standards. 
In certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment 
according to the DOE test procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs, including 
any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established 
regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for 
all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including 
ECUACs and WCUACs. 76 FR 12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 30, 
2015). The collection-of-information requirement for the certification 
and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This requirement has been approved 
by OMB under OMB control number 1910-1400. Public reporting burden for 
the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, 
including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data 
sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and 
reviewing the collection of information.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

E. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    DOE is analyzing this proposed action in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for actions that are interpretations or rulings 
with respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, 
Appendix A4. DOE anticipates that this action qualifies for categorical 
exclusion A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regard to an 
existing regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for 
application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will 
complete its NEPA review before issuing the final action.

F. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), 
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this 
proposed determination and has tentatively determined that it would not 
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. 
EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as 
to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this 
proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such 
preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 
U.S.C. 5316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no further action is 
required by Executive Order 13132.

G. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, 
``Civil Justice Reform,'' imposes on Federal agencies the general duty 
to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors 
and ambiguity, (2) write regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 
provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a 
general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. 
61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). Regarding the review required by section 
3(a), section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that 
Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the 
regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any, (2) 
clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 
provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting 
simplification and burden reduction, (4) specifies the retroactive 
effect, if any, (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses 
other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship 
under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of 
Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations 
in light of applicable standards in section 3(a) and section 3(b) to 
determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or 
more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined 
that, to the extent permitted by law, this NOPD meets the relevant 
standards of Executive Order 12988.

H. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also

[[Page 57164]]

available at http://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. This proposed determination contains neither an 
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditure of 
$100 million or more in one year by the private sector. As a result, 
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

I. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
1999

    Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family 
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. 
This proposed determination would not have any impact on the autonomy 
or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has 
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking 
Assessment.

J. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental Actions and 
Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 
8859 (March 15, 1988), DOE has determined that this proposed 
determination would not result in any takings that might require 
compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

K. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 
2001

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for Federal agencies to review 
most disseminations of information to the public under information 
quality guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general 
guidelines issued by OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 
(Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 
(Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed this NOPD under the OMB and DOE 
guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable 
policies in those guidelines.

L. Review Under Executive Order 13211

    Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355 
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OIRA 
at OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant 
energy action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action 
by an agency that promulgates or is expected to lead to promulgation of 
a final rule, and that (1) is a significant regulatory action under 
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a 
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, 
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on 
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, 
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected 
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
    Because this proposed determination does not propose amended energy 
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, it is not a significant 
energy action, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator 
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

M. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\15\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues 
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process 
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer Review 
Report.'' 2007. Available at http://energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at 
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information, 
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities 
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website: 
https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/standards.aspx?productid=3. Participants are responsible for ensuring 
their systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rulemaking no later than the date provided in the DATES 
section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may 
submit comments, data, and other information on using any of the 
methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this 
document.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any

[[Page 57165]]

documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to http://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 
http://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 http://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 http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If 
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly 
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying 
documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand 
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in 
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No 
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any 
defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or 
any form of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the 
electronic signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions 
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of 
the issues and assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes 
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and 
information about this process or would like to request a public 
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff 
at (202) 586-6636 or via email at 
[email protected].

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed determination.
    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on August 21, 
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 
and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the 
Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date 
is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in 
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the 
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to 
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as 
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative 
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon 
publication in the Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 21, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-18800 Filed 9-14-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P