[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 132 (Wednesday, July 14, 2021)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37001-37013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-14837]



 ========================================================================
 Rules and Regulations
                                                 Federal Register
 ________________________________________________________________________
 
 This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents 
 having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed 
 to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published 
 under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
 
 The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents. 
 
 ========================================================================
 

  Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 37001]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

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


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

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

ACTION: Final determination.

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

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

DATES: The effective date of this final determination is July 14, 2021.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this rulemaking, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents 
in the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. 
However, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket.
    For further information on how to review the docket, contact the 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by 
email: [email protected].

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department 
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, 
DC, 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-3440. Email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. Rulemaking History
III. Discussion and Rationale
    A. General Comments
    B. Energy Efficiency Metric
    C. Market Analysis
    1. Shipments Estimates
    2. Model Counts
    3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
IV. Final Determination
V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Information Quality
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination

    Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317, as codified). This equipment includes ECUACs and WCUACs, the 
subject of this final determination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was re-designated Part A-1.
    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, Public 
Law 116-260 (Dec. 27, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE is issuing this final determination pursuant to the EPCA 
requirement that not later than 6 years after issuance of any final 
rule establishing or amending an energy conservation standard for 
covered equipment, DOE must publish either a notice of determination 
that standards for the equipment do not need to be amended, or a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') including new proposed energy 
conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). 
(42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6)(C)(i))
    For this final determination, DOE analyzed the ECUACs and WCUACs 
subject to the standards found at title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431. See 10 CFR 431.97. DOE first analyzed 
the potential for energy savings of more efficient ECUACs and WCUACs. 
Based on this analysis, as summarized in section IV of this document, 
DOE has determined that there is not clear and convincing evidence that 
amended standards would result in significant additional conservation 
of energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Therefore, DOE has determined 
that the current standards

[[Page 37002]]

for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.

II. Introduction

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

A. Authority

    EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number 
of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title III, Part 
C of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 
6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy Conservation Program 
for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This includes the 
ECUACs and WCUACs that are the subject of this final determination. (42 
U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the establishment of Federal 
energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
    Federal energy conservation requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede state laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular state laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under EPCA. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D) applying the preemption 
waiver provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6297).
    EPCA contains mandatory energy conservation standards for 
commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, 
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners (``PTACs'') and packaged 
terminal heat pumps (``PTHPs''), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, 
storage water heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot 
water storage tanks. (Id.) In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy 
conservation standards that generally correspond to the levels in 
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings 
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings,'' in effect on October 24, 1992 
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989). ECUACs and WCUACs are covered under 
EPCA's definition of commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) EPCA established initial standards for 
ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 240,000 Btu/h. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a))
    If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to the standard 
levels or design requirements applicable under that standard for 
certain commercial equipment, including ECUACs and WCUACs, not later 
than 180 days after the amendment of the standard, DOE must publish in 
the Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy 
savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Within certain exceptions, DOE must adopt amended 
energy conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing 
evidence to support a determination that the adoption of a more 
stringent efficiency level as a uniform national standard would produce 
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible 
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii))
    To determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected products;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or 
maintenance expenses;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable) 
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (``Secretary'') considers 
relevant.
    (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
    If DOE decides to adopt, as a uniform national standard, the 
efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 
must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication 
of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) 
However, if DOE determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, 
that a more stringent uniform national standard would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified, then DOE must establish the more 
stringent standard not later than 30 months after publication of the 
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and 
(B)(i))
    EPCA also requires that every six years DOE evaluate the energy 
conservation standards for certain commercial equipment, including 
ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish either a notice of determination that 
the standards do not need to be amended, or a NOPR that includes new 
proposed energy conservation standards (proceeding to a final rule, as 
appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) EPCA further provides that, 
not later than three years after the issuance of a final determination 
to not amend standards, DOE must publish either a notice of 
determination that standards for the product do not need to be amended, 
or a NOPR including new proposed energy conservation standards 
(proceeding to a final rule, as appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the analysis on which the 
determination is based publicly available and provide an opportunity 
for written comment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a 
determination that more stringent standards would (1) result in 
significant additional conservation of energy, (2) be technologically 
feasible and (3) economically justified must be supported by clear and 
convincing evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A).) A determination that amended energy conservation 
standards are not needed must be based on the same considerations as if 
it were adopting a standard that is more stringent than an amendment to 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B))

[[Page 37003]]

    DOE is publishing this final determination pursuant to the six-year 
review required by EPCA, having determined that amended standards for 
ECUACs and WCUACs would not result in significant additional 
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible, and be 
economically justified.

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    The current energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are 
located in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. These standards and their 
compliance dates are presented in Table II.1 of this document. The 
current efficiency metric used for ECUACs and WCUACs is the energy 
efficiency ratio (``EER'').

 Table II.1--Federal Energy Conservation Standards for Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Package
                                     Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 Cooling capacity
        Equipment type               (Btu/h)         Heating type      Minimum EER         Compliance date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Water-Cooled............  <65,000..........  All.............            12.1  October 29, 2003.
Small Water-Cooled............  >=65,000 and       No Heating or               12.1  June 1, 2013.
                                 <135,000.          Electric
                                                    Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types             11.9  June 1, 2013.
                                                    of Heating.
Large Water-Cooled............  >=135,000 and      No Heating or               12.5  June 1, 2014.
                                 <240,000.          Electric
                                                    Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types             12.3  June 1, 2014.
                                                    of Heating.
Very Large Water-Cooled.......  >=240,000 and      No Heating or               12.4  June 1, 2014.
                                 <760,000.          Electric
                                                    Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types             12.2  June 1, 2014.
                                                    of Heating.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled....  <65,000..........  All.............            12.1  October 29, 2003.
Small Evaporatively-Cooled....  >=65,000 and       No Heating or               12.1  June 1, 2013.
                                 <135,000.          Electric
                                                    Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types             11.9  June 1, 2013.
                                                    of Heating.
Large Evaporatively-Cooled....  >=135,000 and      No Heating or               12.0  June 1, 2014.
                                 <240,000.          Electric
                                                    Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types             11.8  June 1, 2014.
                                                    of Heating.
Very Large Evaporatively-       >=240,000 and      No Heating or               11.9  June 1, 2014.
 Cooled.                         <760,000.          Electric
                                                    Resistance
                                                    Heating.
                                                   All Other Types             11.7  June 1, 2014.
                                                    of Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Rulemaking History
    On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with 
respect to small, large, and very large commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment (i.e., ASHRAE 90.1-2010). With 
regard to ECUACs and WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1-2010 updated efficiency levels 
for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to 
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large ECUACs 
and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 also updated its referenced test 
procedures for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1-2010 did not amend the 
efficiency levels for certain small (i.e., cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and ECUACs but did amend the test procedure for 
this equipment.
    In a final rule published May 16, 2012, DOE amended the standards 
for ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting EER levels for this equipment 
established in ASHRAE 90.1-2010. 77 FR 28928 (``May 2012 final rule''). 
For certain small (i.e., cooling capacity greater than or equal to 
65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h), large, and very large WCUACs 
and ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy savings potential of standards at 
the max-tech \3\ efficiency levels over those efficiency levels in 
ASHRAE 90.1-2010 (i.e., energy savings estimates for max-tech levels do 
not include the energy savings from increasing the Federal standard at 
the time to the level found in ASHRAE 90.1-2010). 76 FR 25622, 25644-
25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on an analysis of two different shipment 
scenarios (shipments based on historical trends and constant shipments 
fixed to 2009 shipment levels), DOE estimated that efficiency standards 
at the max-tech level would result in additional energy savings of 
between 0.0061 to 0.0102 quads primary energy savings for the six 
classes of small, large, and very large WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 
25644-25645), representing approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent of 
estimated WCUAC energy use during the analysis period. DOE estimated 
that efficiency standards at the max-tech level would result in 
additional energy savings of between 0.0013 to 0.0021 quads primary 
energy for the two classes of very large ECUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 
25646), representing approximately 3.7 percent to 3.9 percent of 
estimated ECUAC energy use during the analysis period. DOE did not 
examine certain small WCUACs and ECUACs (i.e., equipment less than 
65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because the levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 
for such equipment were not amended. 76 FR 25622, 25631. Additionally, 
DOE did not assess potential energy savings for ECUACs with cooling 
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 
Btu/h because it did not find any equipment in this capacity range in 
the U.S. market. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The max-tech level represented the highest efficiency level 
of equipment available on the market at the time of the analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on its analysis and the review of the market, DOE determined 
that it did not have ``clear and convincing evidence'' that significant 
additional conservation of energy would result from adoption of more 
stringent standard levels than those in ASHRAE 90.1-2010 for ECUACs and 
WCUACs. 77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not conduct an economic analysis of 
standards more stringent than the ASHRAE 90.1-2010 levels for ECUACs 
and WCUACs because of the conclusion that more stringent standards 
would result in minimal energy savings. Id.
    Since ASHRAE 90.1-2010 was published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone 
three revisions. On October 9, 2013, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2013; 
on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2016; and on October 
24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019. In none of these

[[Page 37004]]

publications did ASHRAE amend minimum EER levels for small, large, and 
very large WCUACs or ECUACs; therefore, DOE was not prompted to examine 
amended standards for this equipment under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). As 
a result, the current federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are those 
set forth in the May 2012 final rule and codified in Table 1 of 10 CFR 
431.97.
    On July 29, 2019, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'') 
to solicit information and data from interested parties to consider 
amendments to the DOE energy conservation standards for ECUACs and 
WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 (``July 2019 ECS RFI'').
    On September 15, 2020 DOE published a notice of proposed 
determination (``NOPD'') with the tentative determination that energy 
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended 
(``September 2020 NOPD''). 85 FR 57149. The comment period for this 
notice closed on November 30, 2020. On October 1, 2020, DOE held a 
public webinar \4\ to discuss the analysis and results from the 
September 2020 NOPD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The public webinar presentation and transcript can both be 
found at http://www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE-2017-
BT-STD-0032.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received several comments from interested parties in response 
to the publication of the September 2020 NOPD. Table II.2 lists the 
commenters, their abbreviated names used throughout this final 
determination, and organization type. Discussion of the relevant 
comments provided by these organizations and DOE's responses are 
provided in the appropriate sections of this document.

    Table II.2--Interested Parties That Provided Written and Oral Comments Regarding the September 2020 NOPD
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                  Name                             Abbreviation                       Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
United CoolAir.........................  UCA............................  Manufacturer.
Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU    IPI............................  Academic Institution.
 School of Law.
California Investor Owned Utilities      CA IOUs........................  Utilities.
 (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San
 Diego Gas and Electric, and California
 Edison).
Trane Technologies.....................  Trane..........................  Manufacturer.
Daikin.................................  Daikin.........................  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment, quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket for this determination. (Docket 
No. EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032, which is maintained at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032). The references 
are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, 
page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Discussion and Rationale

    DOE developed the conclusions in this notice after considering oral 
and written comments, data, and information from interested parties 
that represent a variety of interests. This section addresses the 
analyses DOE performed for this final determination regarding ECUACs 
and WCUACs. Separate subsections address each component of DOE's 
analyses and responses to relevant comments received regarding the 
September 2020 NOPD.

A. General Comments

    In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several 
general comments. CA IOUs supported DOE's initial determination to 
maintain the current standards, stating that the market for this 
equipment is extremely small. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA stated that 
if DOE is correct in its assumed decline of shipments, then there is no 
need for an increase in efficiency at this time. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
    As discussed below, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and 
convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would 
result in significant additional energy savings and be technologically 
feasible and economically justified.
    DOE received comments from UCA and CA IOUs regarding the test 
procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 
at p. 2) UCA stated that several third party test facilities are 
limited in the physical size and capacity limits they can test; 
therefore, they stated that certain UCA models cannot be tested at 
these facilities. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs encouraged DOE to 
expedite work on an updated test standard for all CUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 
13 at p. 2) Specifically, CA IOUs commented that the Appliance 
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (``ASRAC''), 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 
Working Group unanimously agreed that a new test procedure for CUACs, 
which should include a more representative evaluation of indoor fan 
power consumption, should be completed no later than January 1, 2019. 
Id.
    The September 2020 NOPD sought comment on DOE's determination of 
whether the energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs should 
be amended. Consideration of amendments to the test procedures are not 
within the scope of this determination. DOE will consider comments 
received regarding ECUAC and WCUAC test procedures in the ongoing 
evaluation of the CUAC test procedure. See 82 FR 34427 (July 25, 2017).

B. Energy Efficiency Metric

    The current energy efficiency descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC 
Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 has specified both 
EER and integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'') minimum 
efficiency levels since 2010.
    The EER metric represents the efficiency of the equipment operating 
at full load. The IEER metric factors in the efficiency of operating at 
part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of capacity as 
well as the efficiency at full load by weighting the full- and part-
load efficiencies based on the average amount of time operating at each 
load point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser 
temperatures (i.e., reduced entering water temperature for WCUACs and 
reduced outdoor air dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures for ECUACs) to 
reflect the representative ambient conditions for part-load operation 
in the field. Table III.1 shows the IEER test conditions for ECUACs and 
WCUACs specified in AHRI Standard 340/360-2019, ``Performance Rating of 
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat

[[Page 37005]]

Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019'').\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ AHRI 340/360-2019 is the industry test procedure referenced 
in ASHRAE 90.1-2019 for testing CUACs with cooling capacity greater 
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h.
    \7\ UCA pointed out a typographical error in Table III.6 in the 
September 2020 NOPD (see 85 FR 57149, 57159), in which the entering 
air dry-bulb temperature should be a test condition for ECUACs and 
not WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) This has been corrected in Table 
III.1 of this final determination.

 Table III.1 IEER Test Conditions for Water-cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners From AHRI 340/360-
                                                      2019
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Water-cooled                        Evaporatively-cooled
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Percent load              Entering water     Entering air dry-   Entering air wet-     Makeup water
                                      temperature      bulb  temperature   bulb  temperature      temperature
                                       ([deg]F)          \7\ ([deg]F)          ([deg]F)            ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
100.............................  85.0..............  95.0..............  75.0..............  85.0
75..............................  73.5..............  81.5..............  66.2..............  81.5
50..............................  62.0..............  68.0..............  57.5..............  68.0
25..............................  55.0..............  65.0..............  52.8..............  65.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following equation shows the weighting factors for each testing 
condition.

IIIIIIII = (0.020  A) + (0.617  B) + (0.238  C) 
+ (0.125  D)

Where (see Table III.1 for condenser temperature for all four test 
points):

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

    The intent of this weighted average across a range of condenser 
temperatures is to produce an IEER rating that is more representative 
of outdoor conditions that air conditioners face for much of the year, 
rather than just the peak temperature experienced in most climates for 
only a small minority of operating hours.
    In the September 2020 NOPD, DOE proposed to maintain standards for 
ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER because the current IEER metric may 
not be representative for ECUACs and WCUACs and compliance with IEER 
would impose additional testing and certification burden on a small 
market. 85 FR 57149, 57161. DOE initially determined that for ECUACs, 
the weighting factors for IEER may not be representative of typical 
applications.
    ECUACs may be disproportionately marketed and sold in relatively 
hot and dry climates where there is a larger efficiency benefit to 
using evaporative condenser cooling. 85 FR 57149, 57160. The IEER 
equation assigns a weighting factor of just 2 percent for the full-load 
test point, so almost all of the IEER rating for ECUACs would reflect 
performance at outdoor air temperatures which is cooler than what would 
typically be experienced in the hot and dry climates where this 
equipment is installed. For ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h DOE's preliminary analysis suggested that these units are 
primarily marketed for residential applications, whereas the IEER 
metric was developed for commercial applications by analyzing air 
conditioner energy use in commercial buildings. Id. For WCUACs, it is 
not certain whether the IEER weighting factors appropriately reflect 
the average use of WCUACs given that IEER was developed based on an 
analysis of air-cooled CUACs (``ACUACs''). Id.
    Additionally, IEER requires at least four tests whereas EER 
requires a single test. Examining the models listed in the CCMS 
database, DOE found that many models did not have any online product 
literature demonstrating that they are rated with IEER, suggesting that 
many WCUAC and ECUAC models would need to be retested in order to 
comply with Federal IEER standards. 85 FR 57149, 57161.
    In response to the September 2020 NOPD, DOE received several 
comments in support of its proposal to maintain standards in terms of 
the EER metric. UCA supported DOE's proposal to maintain the EER metric 
for WCUACs, stating that they disagreed with using IEER for certain 
WCUACs installed indoors within mechanical rooms because these units 
typically see constant water temperatures year-round. (UCA, No. 11 at 
p. 1) CA IOUs supported maintaining EER and not adopting IEER for 
ECUACs until the test procedure has been updated and DOE has evaluated 
the appropriate condenser entering air dry-bulb and wet-bulb 
temperatures for the climates in which ECUACs are typically installed. 
(CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2)
    Regarding WCUACs, CA IOUs stated that if DOE were to adopt IEER, 
DOE should complete the test procedure rulemaking first and consider 
aligning the temperature test points and weighting factors with those 
of water-cooled variable refrigerant flow (``VRF'') equipment. (CA 
IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; Public Webinar Transcript,\4\ No. 10 at p. 21).
    For the reasons provided previously and presented in the September 
2020 NOPD, DOE is maintaining federal standards for ECUACs and WCUACs 
in terms of EER.
    DOE's analysis in support of the final determination is based on an 
evaluation of ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER.

C. Market Analysis

    DOE develops information in the market analysis that provides an 
overall picture of the market for the equipment concerned. For this 
final determination, DOE conducted a review of the current market for 
ECUACs and WCUACs, including equipment literature, the AHRI Directory 
of Certified Product Performance (``AHRI Directory''),\8\ and the DOE 
Compliance Certification Management System (``CCMS'') database.\9\ DOE 
also considered market data and stakeholder comments received in 
response to the July 2019 ECS RFI and the September 2020 NOPD, the 
analysis performed in the previous standards rulemaking for ECUACs and 
WCUACs, and the energy savings

[[Page 37006]]

potential for amended standards determined in the May 2012 final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The AHRI Directory for unitary large equipment can be found 
at https://www.ahridirectory.org/Search/SearchHome. AHRI's 
certification program does not currently include ECUACs of any 
cooling capacities or WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than 
250,000 Btu/h.
    \9\ Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the September 2020 
NOPD and this final determination was accessed on December 16, 2019. 
This database can be found at http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Shipments Estimates
    DOE uses projections of annual product shipments to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on 
energy use.\10\ The shipments model takes an accounting approach in 
tracking market shares of each product class and the vintage of units 
in the stock.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ DOE uses data on manufacturing shipments as a proxy for 
national sales, as aggregate data on sales are lacking. In general, 
one would expect a close correspondence between shipments and sales.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The analysis conducted for the September 2020 NOPD was based on the 
same model specification used for the May 2012 final rule and 
incorporated additional shipments data provided by AHRI in response to 
the July 2019 ECS RFI. 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. Based on the shipments 
data, the DOE September 2020 NOPD analysis indicated declining future 
shipments for WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 
Btu/h.
    Table III.2 presents the historical shipments for WCUACs from the 
May 2012 final rule (1984-2009) along with historical shipments in the 
following years as provided by AHRI (2010-2018). As shown in Table 
III.2 for the small and large WCUACs, shipments starting in 2009 are 
lower than in prior years. The very large WCUAC shipments fell in the 
years immediately following 2008, and while the shipments have 
rebounded, they did not rebound to the highest shipment levels seen 
previously.

                                Table III.2--Historical Shipments Data for WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                  Small AC water- Small AC water- Large AC water-  Very large AC
                     Year *                        cooled (<64.9   cooled (65 to  cooled (135 to   water-cooled
                                                      kBtu/h)      134.9 kBtu/h)    249 kBtu/h)   (>=250 kBtu/h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1989............................................  ..............            1437             793            1622
1990............................................  ..............            1503             779            1211
1991............................................  ..............            1107             621             908
1992............................................  ..............            1068             537             720
1993............................................  ..............             985             520             668
1994............................................  ..............             922             504             815
1995............................................  ..............            1121             493             805
1996............................................  ..............            1217             652            1020
1997............................................  ..............             989             522            1216
1998............................................  ..............             795             623            1886
1999............................................  ..............             874             477             898
2000............................................  ..............            1478            1621            1170
2001............................................  ..............             606             409             762
2002............................................  ..............             502             355            1227
2003............................................  ..............             390             287             740
2004............................................  ..............             447             291             711
2005............................................  ..............             177             188             861
2006............................................  ..............             316             278            1231
2007............................................  ..............             359             317            1231
2008............................................  ..............             282             311            1390
2009............................................              91             152             182             585
2010............................................             119             139             186             531
2011............................................              84             209             180             609
2012............................................              95             230             137             624
2013............................................              59             198             164             751
2014............................................              54             216             114             829
2015............................................              52             137             147             770
2016............................................              44             105             154             946
2017............................................              45              62             128             985
2018............................................              39             106             108             844
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Data for 1989-2009 from the May 2012 Final Rule. This data does not include WCUACs with cooling capacity less
  than 65,000 Btu/h because this class was not included in that rulemaking. Data for 2009-2018 provided by AHRI
  in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.

    DOE developed two shipment projections for the September 2020 NOPD 
analysis; one based on historical trends and one that held shipments 
constant at the 2018 shipment level (referred to as ``2019 trend'' and 
``2019 constant'', respectively). 85 FR 57149, 57155-57156. The 2019 
trend and 2019 constant projections are compared to projections from 
the May 2012 final rule that were based on the historical trends and 
fixed at the level of the 2009 shipments (referred to as ``2012 trend'' 
and ``2012 constant'', respectively). This comparison is shown in Table 
III.3 of this document.
    DOE was unable to identify shipments data for the ECUAC equipment 
classes and none were provided by the stakeholders. For the September 
2020 NOPD analysis, shipment projections were developed by scaling the 
WCUAC shipment projections using a ratio of unique model counts for 
each equipment class. 85 FR 57149, 57155. For the small (cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC class of products, the shipment 
projection was further adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to better reflect 
the approximate size of the market in the mid-2000s.\11\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Emerging Technologies 
Program, Application Assessment Report # 0605. Evaluation of the 
Freus Residential Evaporative Condenser System in PG&E Service 
Territory. https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf accessed December 18, 2019.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    WCUACs are typically sold as part of a large project (i.e., a 
multi-tenant, multi-story office building). To account for shipments 
being a function of large office construction, DOE also developed a 
third projection for the very large WCUAC equipment class, using a 
regression analysis with historical data

[[Page 37007]]

and projections of large office existing floor space and large office 
additions as the variables (referred to as ``2019 regression'' in Table 
III.3). 85 FR 57149, 57156.

            Table III.3--Comparison of Shipment Projections for WCUACs and ECUACs by Equipment Class
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     2018     2020     2025     2030     2035     2040     2045
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend.......................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
2012 constant (=2009)............................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
2019 trend.......................................       39       33       18       10        6        3        2
2019 constant (=2018)............................       39       39       39       39       39       39       39
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small WCUAC, =65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend.......................................       93       76       46       28       17       10        6
2012 constant (=2009)............................      152      152      152      152      152      152      152
2019 trend.......................................      106       87       52       32       19       11        7
2019 constant (=2018)............................      106      106      106      106      106      106      106
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Large WCUAC, =135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend.......................................      132      117       87       64       47       35       26
2012 constant (=2009)............................      182      182      182      182      182      182      182
2019 trend.......................................      108      110       78       55       39       28       20
2019 constant (=2018)............................      108      108      108      108      108      108      108
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large WCUAC, =240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend.......................................      953      944      923      903      882      861      840
2012 constant (=2009)............................      585      585      585      585      585      585      585
2019 trend.......................................      844      777      721      664      608      551      495
2019 constant (=2018)............................      844      844      844      844      844      844      844
2019 regression..................................      844     1000      929      927      865      844      828
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend.......................................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
2012 constant (=2009)............................  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......  .......
2019 trend.......................................      156      132       72       40       24       12        8
2019 constant (=2018)............................      156      156      156      156      156      156      156
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Very Large ECUAC, =240,000 and <=760,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 trend.......................................      245      243      238      232      227      221      216
2012 constant (=2009)............................      150      150      150      150      150      150      150
2019 trend.......................................       14       13       12       11       10        9        9
2019 constant (=2018)............................       14       14       14       14       14       14       14
2019 regression..................................       14       17       16       16       14       14       14
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did not analyze small ECUACs and 
WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28927, 
28934-28937. For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE identified a single 
manufacturer of ECUACs in this capacity range, and the models offered 
are single-phase equipment and appear to be predominantly marketed for 
residential applications in regions of the United States with hot and 
dry climates, suggesting that there are few if any shipments in other 
regions of the United States. 84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE identified only 
two distinct product lines of WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h, and DOE's examination of manufacturer literature for 
these WCUACs suggested that these models do not comprise a significant 
share of the market for air conditioners in residential or commercial 
applications. Id.
    The projected trends from the May 2012 final rule and those based 
on the updated data both generally show declines in shipments for small 
(>=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very large WCUACs, and very 
large ECUACs. The shipment levels under the 2019 constant projections 
are lower than the 2012 constant projections for small (>=65,000 and 
<135,000 Btu/h) and large WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The 2019 
constant projections for very large WCUACs are higher than the 2012 
constant projections (but lower than the 2012 trend projections). The 
2019 regression projections for very large WCUACs and ECUACs show a 
more stable level of shipments over the analysis period than the 2019 
trend models, but are lower than the 2012 trend projection.
    Given that DOE did not analyze ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h for the May 2012 final rule, no 
comparisons to the current projections are possible. The current 
trended shipments projections for the small (cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h) equipment classes reach 10 or fewer shipments by 2045.
    In response to the September 2020 NOPD, UCA stated that the 
historical shipments data presented by DOE is not complete and asserted 
that the shipments data does not capture dozens of manufacturers that 
do not belong to

[[Page 37008]]

AHRI and do not report their shipments to AHRI. UCA further stated that 
it sold 40 units in the WCUAC <64.9 kBtu/h category in 2018, while the 
table shows only 39 total units shipped in that year. UCA suggested the 
number could be 10 times higher and asserted similar discrepancies 
could apply across all categories. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1)
    In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE requested data on shipments, and in 
response to the RFI, DOE received shipments data from AHRI. In the 
September 2020 NOPD, DOE presented the shipments information received 
to that point. In addition, DOE requested comments and data concerning 
the tentative determination and the underlying data and analyses. The 
previously discussed number of shipments provided by UCA (40 units) 
only applies for a single manufacturer for a single equipment class of 
WCUAC (<65,000 Btu/h) equipment for a single year. Because this was a 
single data point, DOE lacked sufficient context to incorporate it into 
the shipment analysis (e.g., how this data point compares to UCA's 
shipments in previous years, how this compares to UCA's shipments for 
other WCUAC capacity ranges). Without such context DOE could not 
incorporate this data point. For this Final Determination, DOE did not 
identify any other sources of shipments data beyond the AHRI data 
incorporated in the September 2020 NOPD analyses.
    UCA also disagreed with shipment trends showing a decline in WCUACs 
over the next 20-plus years, as it stated that there are thousands of 
WCUACs that will be replaced over the next decade in the very large 
WCUAC class. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) UCA also commented that its sales 
for its main equipment line has gone down substantially, and that the 
equipment capacities it now offers are more limited. (UCA, No. 11-1\12\ 
at p. 1) For this final determination, the three shipment projections 
developed by DOE were based on the historic shipments data available 
and presented in the September 2020 NOPD, and as historical data they 
would include any replacement shipments that have taken place. As 
additional shipments data were not provided to support UCA's assertion 
regarding replacement of WCUACs over the next decade, DOE did not 
modify the shipment projections.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ A hyphenated comment number indicates that the specific 
comment referenced is found in an attachment accompanying the 
comment submitted by the commenter. The number following the hyphen 
indicates which attachment is being referenced.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Trane commented that there was a major drop in unitary air 
conditioner shipments that also affected WCUACs and ECUACs during the 
great recession of 2008(?), so looking forward 15-20 years, the market 
should also reflect that drop because there will not be units to 
replace. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 15) Daikin commented 
that the need for office space likely will be declining for the 
foreseeable future stating that it was informed by one office building 
client that the client will only need about 70 percent of its current 
square footage going forward. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 
11)
    As stated, DOE did not receive additional shipments data in 
response to the September 2020 NOPD. As such, DOE relied on the 
shipments data presented in the September 2020 NOPD for this final 
determination. Based on the existing shipments data, DOE developed a 
series of shipment projections to reflect uncertainty in the future of 
ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. As presented in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE 
developed three shipment projections (``2019 trend,'' ``2019 
constant,'' and ``2019 regression''). DOE continued to rely on the 2019 
trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression projections presented in 
September 2020 NOPD for this final determination. Additionally, DOE 
performed a sensitivity case to reflect a potential underreporting of 
ECUAC and WCUAC shipments. DOE developed a sensitivity analysis by 
multiplying the three shipment projections by 10 for all equipment 
classes to examine an upper bound estimate for potentially unreported 
shipments. The results of the sensitivity analysis are presented in 
section III.C.3 of this document.
2. Model Counts
    Prior to receipt of updated shipments from AHRI in response to the 
July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the market for WCUACs and 
ECUACs based on models included in the DOE CCMS database.\9\ 84 FR 
36480, 36484. In the September 2020 NOPD DOE provided that the number 
of ECUAC and WCUAC models on the market is substantially less than the 
number of ACUAC models on the market for all capacity ranges, and that 
this is consistent with the relationship between model counts 
identified in the May 2012 final rule. 85 FR 57149, 57156. This initial 
understanding of the ECUAC and WCUAC market as compared to the ACUAC 
market was further supported by the shipments data provided by AHRI. 
See discussion in section III.C.1 of this document. DOE did not receive 
any comments on the model counts presented in the September 2020 NOPD.
3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions
    For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE examined the efficiency ratings of 
ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the market and presented efficiency 
distributions to reflect the current market. 85 FR 57149, 57157-57159. 
Table III.4 presents the summary of statistics by equipment category 
and capacity range of equipment for unique models\13\ from DOE's CCMS 
Database.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The count of unique models excludes basic models that 
appear to be duplicates--i.e., basic models sharing the same 
manufacturer and certified cooling capacity and EER ratings. For 
basic models that had multiple individual models certified with 
different capacities and different EER ratings, the individual 
models were considered to be unique models.

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

[[Page 37009]]

 
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000........................            8          37,950         13.2         15.0         16.0         12.1
>=65,000 and <135,000..........            0             N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000.........            0             N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A
>=240,000 and <760,000.........            4         442,750         11.8         12.7         13.4         11.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For all capacity ranges except very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, the Federal EER standard
  listed is for ``no heat or electric heat'' class. For the very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioner
  class, the Federal EER standard listed is the ``all other types of heating'' class.
** As mentioned later in this section, this maximum EER value was determined to be an outlier, and thus the next
  highest efficiency level (i.e., an EER of 15) was used as the ``max-tech'' value.

    DOE used these efficiency distributions and the previously 
described shipment projections to develop estimated energy savings and 
percent of no-new-standards energy consumption for 30 years of 
shipments (2020-2049).
    Energy savings were estimated based on the forecasted shipments 
labeled 2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 regression. For the savings 
estimates labeled 2019 regression, as noted in section III.C.1 of this 
final determination, a regression projection was only developed for the 
very large equipment class.
    As mentioned in section II.B.2 of this final determination, the 
cumulative site energy savings are calculated using the max-tech level, 
which is the highest value of efficiency in DOE's CCMS Database within 
each capacity range of ECUACs and WCUACs (i.e., <65,000 Btu/h, 65,000-
135,000 Btu/h, 135,000-240,000 Btu/h, and 240,000-760,000 Btu/h). 
However, for very large WCUACs, consideration of the highest efficiency 
value in DOE's CCMS database may not be appropriate for evaluating 
potential amendments to the energy conservation standards. As explained 
in the September 2020 NOPD, DOE considered the single model rated at 
16.1 to be an outlier and subsequently calculated the energy savings 
from potential amended standards for very large WCUACs using the next 
highest level that was achievable across the range of capacities (i.e., 
an EER of 15). 85 FR 57149, 57158. DOE did not receive any comments on 
the use of the max-tech efficiency levels in calculating the estimated 
savings in the NOPD, and the same max-tech levels were used for the 
final determination.
    For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE did not incorporate changing 
trends in shipments by efficiency over time in the no-new-standards 
case. No comments were received on efficiency trends and DOE retained 
this assumption in the energy savings estimates, which vary by shipment 
scenario and equipment class, presented in Table III.5 of this final 
determination.
    Selecting the minimum and maximum estimated savings scenario for 
each equipment class resulted in a range of total estimated site energy 
savings for the WCUAC classes of between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of 
estimated site energy use) and 0.0046 quads (8.6 percent of estimated 
site energy use), and for the ECUAC classes of 0.00006 quads (6.2 
percent of estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 quads (6.0 percent of 
estimated site energy use) during the analysis period. For both 
equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged between 
0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy consumption) and 
0.0047 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site energy consumption) during 
the analysis period depending on the combination of shipment 
projections analyzed. Because DOE received no comments resulting in 
changes to inputs or the analysis, the estimate savings presented in 
Table III.5 are the same as those presented in the September 2020 NOPD.

 Table III.5--Estimated National Site Energy Savings and Percent Energy Reductions for WCUACs and ECUACs at the
                                                 Max-Tech Level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      Cumulative site national energy savings      Reduction in
                                                                     (quads) *                     national site
         Cooling capacity range (Btu/h)          ------------------------------------------------     energy
                                                                                                    consumption
                                                       Trend         Constant       Regression       (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000.........................................         0.00000         0.00000  ..............             0.0
>=65,000 and <135,000...........................         0.00005         0.00019  ..............            13.3
>=135,000 and <240,000..........................         0.00011         0.00025  ..............            10.1
>=240,000 and <760,000..........................         0.00287         0.00395         0.00413             8.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     ECUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000.........................................         0.00001         0.00004  ..............             5.3
>=65,000 and <135,000...........................             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A
>=135,000 and <240,000..........................             N/A             N/A             N/A             N/A

[[Page 37010]]

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

    As noted in section III.C.1 of this document, in response to a UCA 
comment regarding the completeness of shipment data, DOE conducted a 
sensitivity analysis by multiplying annual shipments in the three 
shipment projections by 10 and calculating the resulting estimated 
energy savings using the higher shipment projections. This sensitivity 
resulted in estimated total site energy savings for the WCUAC classes 
of between 0.0303 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of 
the evaluated equipment) and 0.0456 quads (8.6 percent of estimated 
site energy use of the evaluated equipment), and for the ECUAC classes 
of 0.0006 quads (6.2 percent of estimated site energy use of the 
evaluated equipment) and 0.0011 quads (6.0 percent of estimated site 
energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period. For 
both equipment categories, the resulting estimated savings ranged 
between 0.0308 quads (8.5 percent of estimated site energy use of the 
evaluated equipment) and 0.0467 quads (8.6 percent of estimated site 
energy use of the evaluated equipment) during the analysis period.

IV. Final Determination

    As required by EPCA, this final determination analyzes whether 
amended standards for ECUACs and WCUACs would result in significant 
conservation of energy, be technologically feasible and economically 
justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). DOE has determined that the 
energy conservation standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do not need to be 
amended, having determined that it lacks ``clear and convincing'' 
evidence that amended standards would result in significant additional 
conservation of energy. As previously discussed, EPCA specifies that 
for any commercial and industrial equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and ECUACs, DOE may prescribe an 
energy conservation standard more stringent than the level for such 
equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ``clear and convincing 
evidence'' shows that a more stringent standard would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
    IPI objected to DOE's reliance on the significance of energy 
threshold established in the Process Rule. (IPI, No, 12 at p. 1) IPI 
reiterated its comments regarding the significance of energy threshold 
it previously submitted to the rulemaking to update the Process Rule. 
(See IPI, \14\ No. 12-3) IPI stated that DOE failed to analyze the 
benefit to consumers and the environment and the costs of achieving the 
8.6 percent energy savings calculated using max-tech efficiency levels. 
(IPI, No. 12 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ In the February 14, 2020 final rule amending the Process 
Rule the Institute for Policy Integrity at New York University's 
School of Law (referred to as ``IPI'' in this document) is 
abbreviated as ``NYU Law''. See 85 FR 8626.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE disagrees with IPI's characterization of the statutory 
requirements applicable in the present case. EPCA specifically 
stipulates that the Secretary may not adopt a uniform national standard 
more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless such 
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy 
and is technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). A determination of whether energy savings would 
be significant is distinct from consideration of potential consumer 
cost impacts or environmental impacts, which are separate 
considerations in determining whether an amended standard is 
economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). In this 
final determination DOE is unable to determine, with clear and 
convincing evidence, that amended standards would result in significant 
additional conservation of energy based on the low projected energy 
savings combined with low and potentially declining product shipments 
(see sections III.C.3 and III.C.1, respectively).
    An analysis of shipments data, a review of the CCMS database and 
the AHRI Directory, and comments received indicate that WCUACs and 
ECUACs continue to be a minor portion of total commercial air-cooled 
shipments with total combined shipments of less than 1,300 units in 
2018. The shipments of very large WCUACs may be cyclical, linked to 
investment in commercial buildings, but the shipment projections also 
suggest that shipments may be continuing to decline.
    DOE estimates that amended standards for ECUACs at the respective 
``max-tech'' levels would result in additional site energy savings of 
no more than 0.0001 quads during the analysis period. DOE has 
determined the energy savings potential for ECUACs is de minimis. A 
sensitivity analysis allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments 
also resulted in an energy savings potential that is de minimis (see 
Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and 
convincing evidence that amended standards for ECUACs would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy.
    For WCUACs, DOE estimated the additional energy savings based on 
the max- tech levels for small and large WCUACs, which were determined 
by identifying the highest efficiency ratings in the DOE CCMS Database. 
For very large WCUACs DOE determined that there is substantial doubt as 
to the appropriateness of using the highest efficiency reported in the 
DOE CCMS Database as the max-tech level. As discussed, there is a 
substantial question of whether the combination of technologies used to 
achieve the highest reported level for very large WCUACs is practicable 
for basic models across the capacity range of that equipment class. As 
such, DOE has determined that an energy savings calculation that would 
rely on the highest reported efficiency for very large WCUACs would not 
meet the ``clear and convincing evidence'' threshold required by EPCA. 
Instead, DOE analyzed the next most efficient level reported in the DOE 
CCMS

[[Page 37011]]

Database for very large WCUACs, which did not raise similar concerns, 
as the max-tech level for very large WCUACs.
    Using this next highest efficiency level for very large WCUACs and 
the max-tech efficiency levels for the small and large classes of 
WCUACs, DOE calculated that amended standards would result in 
additional site energy savings of no more than 0.0046 quads for all 
WCUAC classes during the analysis period. DOE has determined the energy 
savings potential for WCUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis 
allowing for a factor of 10 increase in shipments also resulted an 
energy savings potential that is de minimis (see Section III.C.3). 
Therefore, DOE has determined that it lacks clear and convincing 
evidence that amended standards for WCUACs would result in significant 
additional conservation of energy. Based on the consideration of 
significant additional conservation of energy and that these markets 
are small and may be declining, DOE has determined that the energy 
conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need to be amended.

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    This final determination has been determined to be not significant 
for purposes of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, Regulatory Planning 
and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, the Office of 
Management and Budget (``OMB'') did not review this final 
determination.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'') 
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless 
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (Aug. 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its 
procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website (https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel).
    In response to the NOPD, UCA provided a number of general comments 
regarding the potential impacts of efficiency regulations on equipment 
and small businesses. UCA commented that small businesses are often not 
members of trade associations and do not have staff reading the Federal 
Register, and therefore do not get information on regulations. UCA also 
stated that small businesses generally do not have the resources to 
evaluate and access newer technologies at the same time as larger 
companies and do not have the resources to develop an alternative 
efficiency determination method. UCA further stated that small 
commercial HVAC manufacturers have higher costs to fabricate units for 
testing. (UCA No. 11-1, pp. 2-3)
    DOE reviewed this final determination pursuant to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 
19, 2003. As stated, this final determination is not amending standards 
for ECUACs and WCUACs. Further, this final determination does not amend 
the certification and reporting requirements. Therefore, DOE certifies 
that this final determination has no significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared 
a final regulatory flexibility analysis (``FRFA'') for this final 
determination. DOE will transmit this certification and supporting 
statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 
Small Business Administration for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

    Pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
(``NEPA''), DOE has analyzed this final determination in accordance 
with NEPA and DOE's NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). 
DOE has determined that this rule qualifies for categorical exclusion 
A4 because it is an interpretation or ruling in regards to an existing 
regulation and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a 
categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. Therefore, DOE has 
determined that promulgation of this rule is not a major Federal action 
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment within the 
meaning of NEPA, and does not require an environmental assessment or an 
environmental impact statement.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), 
imposes certain requirements on Federal agencies formulating and 
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that 
have Federalism implications. The Executive Order requires agencies to 
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any 
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and 
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive Order 
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure 
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have Federalism implications. 
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the 
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the 
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this final 
determination does not amend the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, there 
is no impact on the policymaking discretion of the States. Therefore, 
no action is required by Executive Order 13132.

[[Page 37012]]

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'') 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). 
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may 
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the 
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one 
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a 
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the 
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. 
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to 
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers 
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant 
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving 
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small 
governments before establishing any requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE published 
a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation 
under UMRA. 62 FR 12820. DOE's policy statement is also available at 
https://energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This final determination does not contain a Federal 
intergovernmental mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditure of 
$100 million or more in one year by State, local, and Tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. As a result, 
the analytical requirements of UMRA do not apply.

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

    Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most 
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines 
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by 
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant 
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information 
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which 
are available at https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this final determination under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 
has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those 
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

L. Information Quality

    On December 16, 2004, OMB, in consultation with the Office of 
Science and Technology Policy (``OSTP''), issued its Final Information 
Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (``the Bulletin''). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 
14, 2005). The Bulletin establishes that certain scientific information 
shall be peer reviewed by qualified specialists before it is 
disseminated by the Federal Government, including influential 
scientific information related to agency regulatory actions. The 
purpose of the bulletin is to enhance the quality and credibility of 
the Government's scientific information. Under the Bulletin, the energy 
conservation standards rulemaking analyses are ``influential scientific 
information,'' which the Bulletin defines as ``scientific information 
the agency reasonably can

[[Page 37013]]

determine will have, or does have, a clear and substantial impact on 
important public policies or private sector decisions.'' Id. at 70 FR 
2667.
    In response to OMB's Bulletin, DOE conducted formal peer reviews of 
the energy conservation standards development process and the analyses 
that are typically used and has prepared a report describing that peer 
review.\15\ Generation of this report involved a rigorous, formal, and 
documented evaluation using objective criteria and qualified and 
independent reviewers to make a judgment as to the technical/
scientific/business merit, the actual or anticipated results, and the 
productivity and management effectiveness of programs and/or projects. 
DOE has determined that the peer-reviewed analytical process continues 
to reflect current practice, and the Department followed that process 
for developing energy conservation standards in the case of the present 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final 
determination.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 7, 
2021, by Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 
and Acting Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable 
Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. 
That document with the original signature and date is maintained by 
DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with 
requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE 
Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit 
the document in electronic format for publication, as an official 
document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no 
way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2021-14837 Filed 7-13-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P