[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 44 (Monday, March 7, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12802-12851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-04151]



[[Page 12801]]

Vol. 87

Monday,

No. 44

March 7, 2022

Part III





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Part 431





Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Computer 
Room Air Conditioners; Proposed Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 87 , No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / 
Proposed Rules  

[[Page 12802]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008]
RIN 1904-AF01


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Computer Room Air Conditioners

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), 
prescribes energy conservation standards for various consumer products 
and certain commercial and industrial equipment, including small, 
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, of which computer room air conditioners (CRACs) are a 
category. EPCA requires the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE or the 
Department) to consider the need for amended standards each time the 
relevant industry standard is amended with respect to the standard 
levels or design requirements applicable to that equipment, or 
periodically under a six-year-lookback review provision. In this 
document, DOE is proposing amended energy conservation standards for 
CRACs that rely on a new efficiency metric and are equivalent to those 
levels specified in the industry standard. DOE has preliminarily 
determined that it lacks the clear and convincing evidence required by 
the statute to adopt standards more stringent than the levels specified 
in the industry standard. This document also announces a public meeting 
webinar to receive comment on these proposed standards and associated 
analyses and results.

DATES: 
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Wednesday, 
April 13, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section VII, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.
    Comments: DOE will accept written comments, data, and information 
regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) on and before May 
6, 2022.
    Comments regarding the likely competitive impact of the proposed 
standard should be sent to the Department of Justice contact listed in 
the ADDRESSES section on or before April 6, 2022.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons 
may submit comments by email to the following address: 
[email protected]. Include docket number EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0008 and/or RIN 1904-AF01 in the subject line of the message. 
Submit electronic comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or 
ASCII file format, and avoid the use of special characters or any form 
of encryption.
    No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section VII (Public Participation) of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including the Federal eRulemaking 
Portal, email, postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department 
has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment 
submission process in light of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is 
currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and 
hand delivery/courier. DOE is currently accepting only electronic 
submissions at this time. If a commenter finds that this change poses 
an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at 
(202) 586-1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once 
the COVID-19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates 
resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, 
including postal mail and hand delivery/courier.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the 
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, not all 
documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as 
information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at: www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2020-BT-STD-0008. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section VII.D ``Public Participation,'' for 
information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
    EPCA requires the Attorney General to provide DOE a written 
determination of whether the proposed standard is likely to lessen 
competition. The U.S. Department of Justice Antitrust Division invites 
input from market participants and other interested persons with views 
on the likely competitive impact of the proposed standard for CRACs. 
Interested persons may contact the Division at 
[email protected] on or before the date specified in the DATES 
section. Please indicate in the ``Subject'' line of your email the 
title and Docket Number of this proposed rulemaking.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  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. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the webinar, contact 
the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 
or by email: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRACs
III. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019
    A. General
    B. Test Procedure
    C. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity Crosswalk Analyses
    1. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb Temperature From 75 [deg]F to 
85 [deg]F
    2. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
    3. Changes in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow 
Ducted CRACs
    4. Power Adder To Account for Pump and Heat Rejection Fan Power 
in NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
    5. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured Efficiency and 
Capacity From Test Procedure Changes
    (a) Calculation of Crosswalked NSenCOP Levels

[[Page 12803]]

    (b) Calculation of Translated NSCC Boundaries
    D. Crosswalk Results
    E. Comments Received Regarding DOE's Crosswalk Methodology
IV. Methodology for Estimates of Potential Energy Savings From 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 Levels
    A. Annual Energy Use
    1. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
    2. Analysis Method and Annual Energy Use Results
    B. Shipments Analysis
    C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency Distribution
    D. Other Analytical Inputs
    1. Equipment Lifetime
    2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
    E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings
V. Conclusions
    A. Consideration of More-Stringent Efficiency Levels
    B. Review Under Six-Year Lookback Provision
    C. Definition for Ducted Condenser
    D. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    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
VII. Public Participation
    A. Participation in the Webinar
    B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution
    C. Conduct of the Webinar
    D. Submission of Comments
    E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule

    Title III, Part C \1\ of EPCA \2\ established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311-
6317) Such equipment includes CRACs, the subject of this proposed 
rulemaking. (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 the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, 
Public Law 117-58 (Nov. 15, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is triggered to consider amending the energy 
conservation standards for certain types of commercial and industrial 
equipment, including the equipment at issue in this document, whenever 
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning 
Engineers (ASHRAE) amends the standard levels or design requirements 
prescribed in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings 
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (ASHRAE Standard 90.1). Under a 
separate provision of EPCA, DOE is required to review the existing 
energy conservation standards for those types of covered equipment 
subject to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years to determine whether 
those standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)) For 
each type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 
amended, DOE must adopt amended energy conservation standards at the 
new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless clear and 
convincing evidence supports a determination that adoption of a more-
stringent efficiency level would produce significant additional energy 
savings and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE adopts as a uniform national standard 
the efficiency level 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)) If 
DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the 
statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not 
later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) ASHRAE last updated ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 on October 24, 2019 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019), thereby 
triggering DOE's previously referenced obligations pursuant to EPCA to 
determine for CRACs, whether: (1) The amended industry standard should 
be adopted; or (2) clear and convincing evidence exists to justify 
more-stringent standard levels.
    The current Federal energy conservation standards for CRACs are set 
forth at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), 10 CFR 
431.97 and, as specified in 10 CFR 431.96, those standards are 
denominated in terms of Sensible Coefficient of Performance (SCOP) and 
based on the rating conditions in American National Standards Institute 
(ANSI)/ASHRAE 127-2007, ``Method of Testing for Rating Computer and 
Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners'' (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007). 
However, the efficiency levels for CRACs set forth in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2019 are specified in terms of Net Sensible Coefficient of 
Performance (NSenCOP) and based on rating conditions in Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI) Standard 
1360-2017, ``Performance Rating of Computer and Data Processing Room 
Air Conditioners'' (AHRI 1360-2017), which differ from the rating 
conditions specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 for most configurations of 
CRACs. Therefore, while SCOP and NSenCOP are both ratios of the net 
sensible cooling capacity (NSCC) to the power consumed by the unit, 
they are measured at different rating conditions for most 
configurations of CRACs \3\ and correspondingly provide different 
representations of efficiency. DOE has compared the stringency of 
standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (in terms of NSenCOP) to the 
corresponding current Federal energy conservation standards (in terms 
of SCOP) by conducting a crosswalk analysis. Based on the results of 
that analysis, DOE has tentatively concluded that the ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2019 levels are equivalent in stringency to the current Federal 
standards for six equipment classes and are more stringent than the 
current Federal standards for the remaining 46 equipment classes of 
CRACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ Additionally, for water-cooled and glycol-cooled CRACs, 
NSenCOP includes power adders to account for power that would be 
consumed in field installations by pumps and heat rejection 
component (e.g., cooling tower or dry cooler) fans. See section 
III.C of this NOPR for further discussion of the evaluation of 
differences between SCOP and NSenCOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For all CRAC equipment classes, DOE has tentatively determined that 
there is not clear and convincing evidence of significant additional 
energy savings to justify amended standards for CRACs that are more 
stringent than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels. Clear and 
convincing evidence would exist only where the specific facts and data 
made available to DOE regarding a particular ASHRAE amendment 
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.

[[Page 12804]]

    DOE normally performs multiple in-depth analyses to determine 
whether there is clear and convincing evidence to support more 
stringent energy conservation standards (i.e., whether more stringent 
standards would produce significant additional conservation of energy 
and be technologically feasible and economically justified). However, 
as discussed in this notice in section V.A, due to the lack of 
available market and performance data, DOE is unable to conduct the 
analysis necessary to evaluate the potential energy savings or evaluate 
whether more stringent standards would be technologically feasible or 
economically justified, with sufficient certainty. Therefore, in 
accordance with the statutory provisions discussed in this section and 
elsewhere in this document, DOE is proposing amended energy 
conservation standards for CRACs corresponding to the efficiency levels 
specified for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. The proposed 
standards, which are expressed in NSenCOP, are presented in Table I-1 
and Table I-2. These proposed standards, if adopted, would apply to all 
CRACs listed in Table I-1 and Table I-2 manufactured in, or imported 
into, the United States starting on the tentative compliance date of 
360 days after the publication date of the final rule adopting amended 
energy conservation standards. See section V.D of this NOPR for a 
discussion on the applicable lead-times considered to determine this 
compliance date.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ For downflow and upflow-ducted CRACs, the NSCC measured per 
AHRI 1360-2017 and the latest draft of AHRI 1360 is higher than the 
NSCC measured per the current Federal test procedure (which 
references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007). Therefore, to ensure equipment 
currently covered by Federal standards is not removed from coverage, 
DOE translated the currently applicable upper capacity limit for 
these classes (760,000 Btu/h) to NSCC as measured per AHRI 1360-2017 
and the latest draft of AHRI 1360, resulting in a crosswalked upper 
capacity boundary of 930,000 Btu/h. Consequently, DOE has used 
930,000 Btu/h as the translated upper capacity limit for downflow 
and upflow-ducted CRACs in the analysis presented in this notice. 
For up-flow non-ducted CRACs, because there is no change in return 
air temperature conditions between ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and AHRI 
1360-Draft, the capacity boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
remain the same as those specified in the current Federal standards, 
and DOE correspondingly proposes to retain the current capacity 
boundaries. For horizontal-flow CRACs, DOE does not currently 
prescribe standards; therefore, a crosswalk of current capacity 
boundaries is not applicable. See section III.C.5 of this NOPR for 
further discussion of DOE's crosswalk analysis of capacity 
boundaries for CRACs.
    \5\ Btu/h refers to ``British thermal units per hour.''
    \6\ The proposed standard for this equipment class is of 
equivalent stringency to the currently applicable Federal standard--
the proposed level is a translation from the current metric (SCOP) 
to the proposed metric (NSenCOP) and aligns with the corresponding 
level in ASHRAE Standard 90.1.

                                        Table I-1--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Floor-Mounted CRACs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                            Minimum NSenCOP                                          Minimum NSenCOP
                                                                              efficiency                                               efficiency
            Equipment type              Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------- Net sensible cooling capacity -------------------------
                                                     \4\                               Upflow                                   Upflow  non-  Horizontal
                                                                         Downflow      ducted                                      ducted        flow
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled............................  <80,000 Btu/h \5\............         2.70         2.67  <65,000 Btu/h................         2.16         2.65
                                        >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000           2.58     \6\ 2.55  >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000           2.04         2.55
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
                                        >=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000          2.36         2.33  >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000          1.89         2.47
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
Air-Cooled with Fluid Economizer......  <80,000 Btu/h................         2.70         2.67  <65,000 Btu/h................     \6\ 2.09         2.65
                                        >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000           2.58     \6\ 2.55  >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000       \6\ 1.99         2.55
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
                                        >=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000          2.36         2.33  >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000          1.81         2.47
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
Water-Cooled..........................  <80,000 Btu/h................         2.82         2.79  <65,000 Btu/h................         2.43         2.79
                                        >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000           2.73     \6\ 2.70  >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000           2.32         2.68
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
                                        >=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000          2.67         2.64  >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000          2.20         2.60
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer....  <80,000 Btu/h................         2.77         2.74  <65,000 Btu/h................         2.35         2.71
                                        >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000           2.68     \6\ 2.65  >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000           2.24         2.60
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
                                        >=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000          2.61         2.58  >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000          2.12         2.54
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled.........................  <80,000 Btu/h................         2.56         2.53  <65,000 Btu/h................         2.08         2.48
                                        >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000           2.24         2.21  >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000           1.90         2.18
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
                                        >=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000          2.21         2.18  >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000          1.81         2.18
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer...  <80,000 Btu/h................         2.51         2.48  <65,000 Btu/h................         2.00         2.44
                                        >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000           2.19         2.16  >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000           1.82         2.10
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
                                        >=295,000 Btu/h and <930,000          2.15         2.12  >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000          1.73         2.10
                                         Btu/h.                                                   Btu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                   Table I-2--Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for Ceiling-Mounted CRACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    Minimum NSenCOP efficiency
               Equipment type                   Net sensible cooling capacity    -------------------------------
                                                                                      Ducted        Non-ducted
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge           <29,000 Btu/h......................            2.05            2.08
 Condenser.
                                             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            2.02            2.05
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            1.92            1.94

[[Page 12805]]

 
Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge           <29,000 Btu/h......................            2.01            2.04
 Condenser and Fluid Economizer.             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            1.97            2.00
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            1.87            1.89
Air-Cooled with Ducted Condenser...........  <29,000 Btu/h......................            1.86            1.89
                                             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            1.83            1.86
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            1.73            1.75
Air-Cooled with Ducted Condenser and Fluid   <29,000 Btu/h......................            1.82            1.85
 Economizer.                                 >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            1.78            1.81
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            1.68            1.70
Water-Cooled...............................  <29,000 Btu/h......................            2.38            2.41
                                             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            2.28            2.31
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            2.18            2.20
Water-Cooled with Fluid Economizer.........  <29,000 Btu/h......................            2.33            2.36
                                             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            2.23            2.26
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            2.13            2.16
Glycol-Cooled..............................  <29,000 Btu/h......................            1.97            2.00
                                             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            1.93            1.98
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            1.78            1.81
Glycol-Cooled with Fluid Economizer........  <29,000 Btu/h......................            1.92            1.95
                                             >=29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h...            1.88            1.93
                                             >=65,000 Btu/h.....................            1.73            1.76
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Introduction

    The following section briefly discusses the statutory authority 
underlying this proposed rule, as well as some of the relevant 
historical background related to the establishment of energy 
conservation standards for CRACs.

A. Authority

    EPCA, Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), 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, section 
441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), established the Energy 
Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth 
a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This 
covered equipment includes small, large, and very large commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes CRACs, 
the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
    Under EPCA, the energy conservation program 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 efficiency 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 circumstances for particular State 
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other 
provisions set forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
    Subject to certain criteria and conditions, DOE is required to 
develop test procedures to measure the energy efficiency, energy use, 
or estimated annual operating cost of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
6314) Manufacturers of covered equipment must use the Federal test 
procedures as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment 
complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted 
pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making 
representations about the energy use or efficiency of that equipment 
(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to 
determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards 
promulgated under EPCA. The DOE test procedures for CRACs appear at 10 
CFR part 431, subpart F.
    DOE is to consider amending the energy efficiency standards for 
certain types of commercial and industrial equipment, including the 
equipment at issue in this document, whenever ASHRAE amends the 
standard levels or design requirements prescribed in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1, and at a minimum, every six years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)-(C)) 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 sets industry energy efficiency levels for small, 
large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged terminal heat 
pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, 
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks 
(collectively ``ASHRAE equipment''). For each type of listed equipment, 
EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must adopt 
amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency levels, unless DOE 
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence,\7\ that 
adoption of a more stringent level would produce significant additional 
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE makes such 
a determination, it must publish a

[[Page 12806]]

final rule to establish the more stringent standards. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The clear and convincing threshold is a heightened standard, 
and would only be met where the Secretary has an abiding conviction, 
based on available facts, data, and DOE's own analyses, that it is 
highly probable an amended standard would result in a significant 
additional amount of energy savings, and is technologically feasible 
and economically justified. American Public Gas Association v. U.S. 
Dep't of Energy, No. 20-1068, 2022 WL 151923, at *4 (D.C. Cir. 
January 18, 2022) (citing Colorado v. New Mexico, 467 U.S. 310, 316, 
104 S.Ct. 2433, 81 L.Ed.2d 247 (1984)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in 
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would 
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been 
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable 
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy 
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 
2007). If the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the energy efficiency 
level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency level) as compared to 
the energy efficiency level specified by the uniform national standard 
adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the other amendments made to 
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g., the inclusion of an 
additional metric) DOE has stated that it does not have authority to 
conduct a rulemaking pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) to consider a 
higher standard for that equipment, though this does not limit DOE's 
authority to consider higher standards as part of a six-year lookback 
rulemaking analysis (pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C); see 
discussion in the following paragraphs). See 74 FR 36312, 36313 (July 
22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). If an amendment to 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changes the metric for the standard on which the 
Federal requirement was based, DOE performs a crosswalk analysis to 
determine whether the amended metric under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 results 
in an energy efficiency level more stringent than the current DOE 
standard.
    Under EPCA, DOE must also review energy efficiency standards for 
CRACs every six years and either: (1) Issue a notice of determination 
that the standards do not need to be amended as adoption of a more 
stringent level is not supported by clear and convincing evidence; or 
(2) issue a notice of proposed rulemaking including new proposed 
standards based on certain criteria and procedures in subparagraph 
(B).\8\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ In relevant part, subparagraph (B) specifies that: (1) In 
making a determination of economic justification, DOE must consider, 
to the maximum extent practicable, the benefits and burdens of an 
amended standard based on the seven criteria described in EPCA; (2) 
DOE may not prescribe any standard that increases the energy use or 
decreases the energy efficiency of a covered equipment; and (3) DOE 
may not prescribe any standard that interested persons have 
established by a preponderance of evidence is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States of any product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability, 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes) that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)-(iii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In deciding whether a more-stringent standard is economically 
justified, under either the provisions of 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) or 42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C), DOE must determine whether the benefits of the 
standard exceed its burdens. DOE must make this determination after 
receiving comments on the proposed standard, and by considering, to the 
maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:

    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) 
compared to any increase in the price, initial charges, or 
maintenance expenses for the covered equipment that are likely to 
result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to 
result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
covered equipment likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
    Further, EPCA establishes a rebuttable presumption that an energy 
conservation standard is economically justified if the Secretary finds 
that the additional cost to the consumer of purchasing a product that 
complies with the standard will be less than three times the value of 
the energy (and, as applicable, water) savings during the first year 
that the consumer will receive as a result of the standard, as 
calculated under the applicable test procedure. (42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) However, while this rebuttable presumption analysis 
applies to most commercial and industrial equipment (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a)), it is not a required analysis for ASHRAE equipment (42 U.S.C. 
6316(b)(1)).
    EPCA also contains what is known as an ``anti-backsliding'' 
provision, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered product. 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Also, the Secretary may not prescribe 
an amended or new standard if interested persons have established by a 
preponderance of the evidence that the standard is likely to result in 
the unavailability in the United States in any covered product type (or 
class) of performance characteristics (including reliability), 
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the 
same as those generally available in the United States. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(II)(aa))

B. Background

Current Standards
    EPCA defines ``commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment'' as air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water 
source (not including ground water source) electrically operated, 
unitary central air conditioners and central air conditioning heat 
pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(A); 10 CFR 431.92) 
EPCA further classifies ``commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment'' into categories based on cooling capacity (i.e., 
small, large, and very large categories). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B)-(D); 10 
CFR 431.92) ``Small commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment'' means equipment rated below 135,000 Btu/h (cooling 
capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(B); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Large commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means equipment rated: 
(i) At or above 135,000 Btu/h; and (ii) below 240,000 Btu/h (cooling 
capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(C); 10 CFR 431.92) ``Very large 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'' means 
equipment rated: (i) At or above 240,000 Btu/h; and (ii) below 760,000 
Btu/h (cooling capacity). (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D); 10 CFR 431.92)
    Pursuant to its authority under EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) and 
in response to updates to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE has established the 
category of CRAC, which meets the EPCA definition of ``commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment,'' but which EPCA did 
not expressly identify. See 10 CFR 431.92 and 431.97. Within this 
additional equipment category, further distinctions are made at the 
equipment class level based on capacity and other equipment attributes.
    DOE defines ``computer room air conditioner'' as commercial package 
air-conditioning and heating equipment (packaged or split) that is: 
Used in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other information 
technology cooling applications; rated for SCOP and tested in 
accordance with 10 CFR 431.96, and is not a covered product under 42 
U.S.C. 6291(1)-(2) and 42 U.S.C. 6292. A

[[Page 12807]]

computer room air conditioner may be provided with, or have as 
available options, an integrated humidifier, temperature, and/or 
humidity control of the supplied air, and reheating function. 10 CFR 
431.92.
    In a final rule published on May 16, 2012 (``May 2012 final 
rule''), DOE established energy conservation standards for CRACs. 
Compliance with standards was required for units manufactured (1) on 
and after October 29, 2012, for equipment classes with NSCC less than 
65,000 Btu/h and (2) on or after October 29, 2013, for equipment 
classes with NSCC greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 
760,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28929, 28995. These standards are set forth in 
DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97 and are repeated in Table II-1.

                            Table II-1--Current Federal Energy Conservation Standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Minimum SCOP efficiency
                Equipment type                    Net sensible cooling capacity  -------------------------------
                                                                                     Downflow         Upflow
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled....................................  <65,000 Btu/h...................            2.20            2.09
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/            2.10            1.99
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/           1.90            1.79
                                                 h.
Water-Cooled..................................  <65,000 Btu/h...................            2.60            2.49
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/            2.50            2.39
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/           2.40            2.29
                                                 h.
Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer..........  <65,000 Btu/h...................            2.55            2.44
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/            2.45            2.34
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/           2.35            2.24
                                                 h.
Glycol-Cooled.................................  <65,000 Btu/h...................            2.50            2.39
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/            2.15            2.04
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/           2.10            1.99
                                                 h.
Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer.........  <65,000 Btu/h...................            2.45            2.34
                                                >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/            2.10            1.99
                                                 h.
                                                >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/           2.05            1.94
                                                 h.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE's current equipment classes for CRACs are differentiated by 
condenser heat rejection medium (air-cooled, water-cooled, water-cooled 
with fluid economizer, glycol-cooled, or glycol-cooled with fluid 
economizer), NSCC (less than 65,000 Btu/h, greater than or equal to 
65,000 Btu/h and less than 240,000 Btu/h, or greater than or equal to 
240,000 Btu/h and less than 760,000 Btu/h), and direction of 
conditioned air over the cooling coil (upflow or downflow). 10 CFR 
431.97.
    DOE's test procedure for CRACs, set forth at 10 CFR 431.96, 
currently incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 127-2007 (omit 
section 5.11), with additional provisions indicated in 10 CFR 431.96(c) 
and (e). The energy efficiency metric is SCOP for all CRAC equipment 
classes.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for CRACs
    As discussed, the energy conservation standards for CRACs were most 
recently amended in the May 2012 final rule. 77 FR 28928. The May 2012 
final rule established equipment classes for CRACs and adopted energy 
conservation standards that correspond to the levels in the 2010 
revision of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2010).
    ASHRAE released the 2016 version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2016) on October 26, 2016, which updated its test 
procedure reference for CRACs from ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 to AHRI 
Standard 1360-2016, ``Performance Rating of Computer and Data 
Processing Room Air Conditioners'' (AHRI 1360-2016), which in turn 
references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2012, ``Method of Testing for Rating 
Computer and Data Processing Room Unitary Air Conditioners'' (ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2012). The energy efficiency metric for CRACs in AHRI 1360-
2016 is NSenCOP. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 established new equipment 
classes and added efficiency levels for horizontal-flow CRACs, 
disaggregated the upflow CRAC equipment classes into upflow ducted and 
upflow non-ducted equipment classes, and established different sets of 
efficiency levels for upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted equipment 
classes based on the corresponding rating conditions specified in AHRI 
1360-2016.
    DOE published a notice of data availability and request for 
information (NODA/RFI) in response to the amendments to the industry 
consensus standard contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 in the 
Federal Register on September 11, 2019 (September 2019 NODA/RFI). 84 FR 
48006. In the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE explained its methodology 
and assumptions to compare the current Federal standards for CRACs (in 
terms of SCOP) to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 (in terms of 
NSenCOP) and requested comment on its methodology and results. 84 FR 
48006, 48014-48019. DOE received a number of comments from interested 
parties in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI.
    On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE officially released for distribution 
and made public ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
updated its test procedure reference for CRACs from AHRI 1360-2016 to 
AHRI 1360-2017, which also references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2012. ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 maintained the equipment class structure for floor-
mounted CRACs as established in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, and updated 
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 for all but three of 
those equipment classes. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 also added classes 
for air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers and a new table with new 
efficiency levels for ceiling-mounted CRAC equipment classes. The 
equipment in the horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted classes is 
currently not subject to Federal standards set forth in 10 CFR 
431.97.\9\ In contrast, upflow and downflow air-cooled CRACs with fluid 
economizers are currently subject to the

[[Page 12808]]

Federal standards in 10 CFR 431.97 for air-cooled equipment classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ DOE issued a draft guidance document on October 7, 2015 to 
clarify that horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted CRACs are covered 
equipment and are required to be tested under the current DOE test 
procedure for purposes of making representations of energy 
consumption. (Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-GUID-0022, No. 3, pp. 1-2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE also published a NODA/RFI in response to the amendments in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and the comments received in response to the 
September 2019 NODA/RFI, in the Federal Register on September 25, 2020 
(September 2020 NODA/RFI). 85 FR 60642. In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, 
DOE conducted a crosswalk analysis (similar to the September 2019 NODA/
RFI) to compare the current Federal standards for CRACs (in terms of 
SCOP) to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (in terms of NSenCOP) 
and requested comment on its methodology and results. 85 FR 60642, 
60653-60660. DOE received comments in response to the September 2020 
NODA/RFI from the interested parties listed in Table II-2 of this NOPR 
regarding CRACs, the subject of this proposed rulemaking.

          Table II-2--September 2020 NODA/RFI Written Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Reference in this
          Commenter(s)                   NOPR           Commenter type
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness     Joint Commenters..  Efficiency
 Project, Natural Resources                            Organizations.
 Defense Council, Northwest
 Energy Efficiency Alliance.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and    AHRI..............  Trade Association.
 Refrigeration Institute.
California Investor Owned         CA IOUs...........  Utilities.
 Utilities.
Rheem...........................  Rheem.............  Manufacturer.
Trane...........................  Trane.............  Manufacturer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record for 
the September 2020 NODA/RFI docket.\10\ For cases in which this NOPR 
references comments received in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI 
(which are contained within a different docket), the full docket number 
(rather than just the document number) is included in the parenthetical 
reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to develop 
energy conservation standards for CRACs. (Docket No. EERE-2020-BT-
STD-0008, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). The 
references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket 
ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additionally, on February 6, 2022, DOE published a test procedure 
NOPR (February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR), in which DOE proposed an amended 
test procedure for CRACs that incorporates by reference the substance 
of the draft version of the latest AHRI 1360 standard, AHRI Standard 
1360-202X, Performance Rating of Computer and Data Processing Room Air 
Conditioners (AHRI 1360-202X Draft) and adopts NSenCOP as the test 
metric for CRACs. 87 FR 6948. AHRI Standard 1360-202X Draft is in draft 
form and its text was provided to the Department for the purposes of 
review only during the drafting of the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR. As 
stated in the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR, DOE intends to update the 
reference to the final published version of AHRI 1360-202X Draft in the 
test procedure final rule, unless there are substantive changes between 
the draft and published versions, in which case DOE may adopt the 
substance of the AHRI 1360-202X Draft or provide additional opportunity 
for comment. 87 FR 6948, 6951.

III. Discussion of Changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019

A. General

    As mentioned, DOE presented an efficiency crosswalk analysis in the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI to compare the stringency of the current 
Federal standards (represented in terms of SCOP based on the current 
DOE test procedure) for CRACs to the stringency of the efficiency 
levels for this equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (represented in 
terms of NSenCOP and based on AHRI 1360-2017). 85 FR 60642, 60648 
(Sept. 25, 2020). And in the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR DOE proposed to 
incorporate by reference the latest draft version of AHRI Standard 
1360, AHRI 1360-202X Draft, and adopt NSenCOP as the test metric in the 
DOE test procedure for CRACs. 87 FR 6948. Because the rating conditions 
specified in AHRI 1360-2017 and AHRI 1360-202X Draft are the same for 
the classes covered by DOE's crosswalk analysis (upflow ducted, upflow 
non-ducted, and downflow), the same crosswalk as described in the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI can be used to compare DOE's current SCOP-based 
CRAC standards to relevant NSenCOP values determined according to AHRI 
1360-202X Draft.
    In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE's analysis focused on whether 
DOE had been triggered by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 updates to minimum 
efficiency levels for CRACs and whether more-stringent standards were 
warranted. As discussed in detail in section III.C of this NOPR, DOE 
conducted a crosswalk analysis of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
standard levels (in terms of NSenCOP) and the corresponding current 
Federal energy conservation standards (in terms of SCOP) to compare the 
stringencies. 85 FR 60642, 60653-60658. DOE has tentatively determined 
that the updates in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 increased the stringency 
of efficiency levels for 48 equipment classes and maintained equivalent 
levels for 6 equipment classes of CRACs relative to the current Federal 
standard. 85 FR 60642, 60658-60660. In addition, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 includes efficiency levels for 18 classes of horizontal-flow CRACs 
and 48 classes of ceiling-mounted CRACs which are not currently subject 
to Federal standards and therefore require no crosswalk. As discussed 
in section V of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt standards for 
horizontal-flow CRACs and ceiling-mounted CRACs.
    Table III-1 show the equipment classes and efficiency levels for 
CRACs provided in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 alongside the current 
Federal energy conservation standards. Table III-1 also displays the 
corresponding existing Federal equipment classes for clarity and 
indicates whether the updated levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
trigger DOE's evaluation pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A) (i.e., 
whether the update results in a standard level more stringent than the 
current Federal level). The remainder of this section explains DOE's 
methodology for evaluating the updated levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 and addresses comments received regarding CRAC efficiency levels 
and associated analyses discussed in the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 12809]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.003


[[Page 12810]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.004


[[Page 12811]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.005


[[Page 12812]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.006


[[Page 12813]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.007


[[Page 12814]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.008


[[Page 12815]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.009


[[Page 12816]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.010


[[Page 12817]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.011

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

B. Test Procedure

    As noted in section III.A of this document, ASHRAE adopted 
efficiency levels for all CRAC equipment classes denominated in terms 
of NSenCOP in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (measured per AHRI 1360-2017) 
whereas DOE's current standards are denominated in terms of SCOP 
(measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007). ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
incorporates by references AHRI 1360-2017. In the February 2022 CRAC TP 
NOPR, DOE proposed to adopt an amended test procedure for CRACs that 
incorporates by reference the substance of the updated draft version of 
the AHRI 1360 Standard, AHRI 1360-202X Draft. 87 FR 6948. Because the 
rating conditions specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft and AHRI 1360-2017 
are the same for the classes for which DOE requires a crosswalk (upflow 
ducted, upflow non-ducted, and downflow), DOE has tentatively concluded 
that the NSenCOP levels specified for equipment classes in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 as measured per AHRI 1360-2017 would remain 
unchanged if measured per AHRI 1360-202X Draft. Therefore, in the 
crosswalk analysis presented in the following sections, DOE considers 
that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 NSenCOP levels are measured per AHRI 
1360-202X Draft.

C. Methodology for Efficiency and Capacity Crosswalk Analyses

    For the efficiency crosswalk, DOE analyzed the CRAC equipment 
classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 that are currently subject to 
Federal standards (i.e., all upflow and downflow classes).\11\ As 
discussed in the subsequent paragraphs, for certain CRAC classes, 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies classes that disaggregate the 
current Federal equipment classes into additional classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes efficiency levels for 
horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted classes of CRACs. DOE does not 
currently prescribe standards for horizontal-flow or ceiling-mounted 
classes, so these classes were not included in the crosswalk 
analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For upflow CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes separate sets 
of efficiency levels for ducted and non-ducted units. This reflects the 
differences in rating conditions for upflow ducted and upflow non-
ducted units in AHRI 1360-202X Draft (e.g., return air temperature and 
external static pressure (ESP). The current Federal test procedure does 
not specify different rating conditions for upflow ducted as compared 
to upflow non-ducted CRACs, and DOE's current standards set forth in 10 
CFR 431.97 also do not differentiate between upflow ducted and upflow 
non-ducted CRACs. For the purpose of the efficiency crosswalk analysis, 
DOE converted the single set of current Federal SCOP standards, which 
encompasses all upflow CRACs, to two sets of ``crosswalked'' NSenCOP 
levels for both the upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted classes present 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
    Similarly, for air-cooled CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes 
separate sets of efficiency levels for equipment with and without fluid 
economizers. Specifically, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies less 
stringent efficiency levels for equipment with fluid economizers, 
reflecting the additional pressure drop in the indoor air stream from 
the presence of the fluid economizer that the indoor fan must overcome. 
DOE's current standards set forth in 10 CFR 431.97 do not distinguish 
air-cooled CRACs based on the presence of fluid economizers. Therefore, 
DOE's crosswalk analysis converted the single set of current Federal 
standards for air-cooled classes (in terms of SCOP) to two sets of 
standards in terms of NSenCOP for air-cooled classes distinguishing 
CRACs with and without fluid economizers. However, there is no 
difference between the rating conditions in AHRI 1360-202X Draft for 
air-cooled CRACs with and without fluid economizers, so the results of 
the crosswalk analysis converting the current standards to NSenCOP 
standards are identical for these classes.
    As explained previously, the efficiency levels for CRACs in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 rely on a different metric (NSenCOP) and test 
procedure (AHRI 1360-2017, and now by extension AHRI 1360-202X Draft) 
than

[[Page 12818]]

the metric and test procedure required under the current Federal 
standards (relying on SCOP and ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, respectively). 
AHRI 1360-202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 notably also specify 
different rating conditions. These differences are listed in Table III-
2, and are discussed in detail in sections III.C.1 through III.C.4 of 
this document.

                  Table III-2--Differences in Rating Conditions Between DOE's Current Test Procedure and AHRI Standard 1360-202X Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test parameter                       Affected equipment       Current DOE test procedure (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-
                                      categories.                                 2007)
                                                  AHRI 1360-202X Draft
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Return air dry-bulb temperature      Upflow ducted and               75 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature
 (RAT).                               downflow.
                                             85 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Entering water temperature (EWT)...  Water-cooled..........                    86 [deg]F
                                                        83 [deg]F
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP (varies with NSCC).............  Upflow ducted.........  <20 kW................  0.8 in H2O...........  <80 kBtu/h...........  0.3 in H2O.
                                                            --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             >=20 kW...............  1.0 in H2O...........  >=80 kBtu/h and <295   0.4 in H2O.
                                                                                                             kBtu/h.
                                                                                                           ---------------------------------------------
                                                                                                            >=295 kBtu/h and <760  0.5 in H2O.
                                                                                                             kBtu/h.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adder for heat rejection fan and     Water-cooled and        No added power consumption for heat rejection
 pump power (add to total power       glycol-cooled.                          fan and pump
 consumption).
                                        5 percent of NSCC for water-cooled CRACs.
 
                                      7.5 percent of NSCC for glycol-cooled CRACs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The differences between these specified rating conditions in AHRI 
1360-202X Draft compared to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 impacts the capacity 
boundaries for CRAC equipment classes. The capacity values that bound 
the CRAC equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and in DOE's 
current standards at 10 CFR 431.97 are in terms of NSCC. In ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019, the capacity boundaries for downflow and upflow-
ducted CRAC equipment classes are increased relative to the boundaries 
of the analogous classes in the current Federal standards. For certain 
equipment classes, NSCC values determined according to AHRI 1360-202X 
Draft's different rating conditions are higher than the NSCC values 
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007. Therefore, the test 
conditions in AHRI 1360-202X Draft result in an increased NSCC value 
for certain equipment classes, as compared to the NSCC measured in 
accordance with the current Federal test procedure requirement. This 
means that some CRACs would switch classes (i.e., move into a higher 
capacity equipment class) if the test conditions in AHRI 1360-202X 
Draft are used without shifting current equipment class boundaries to 
match the impact of the changes in rating conditions.
    The stringency of both the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency level 
and the current Federal standard decreases as the equipment class 
capacity increases for upflow and downflow CRAC classes. Therefore, 
class switching would subject some CRAC models to an efficiency level 
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 that is less stringent than the 
standard level that is applicable to that model under the current 
Federal requirements. Lowering the stringency of the efficiency level 
in the Federal requirements is impermissible under EPCA's anti-
backsliding provision at 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I).
    To evaluate the capacity boundaries under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
and allow for an appropriate comparison between current Federal 
efficiency standards and the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 and to avoid potential backsliding, a capacity crosswalk was 
conducted to translate the NSCC boundaries that separate equipment 
classes in the Federal efficiency standards to account for the expected 
increase in measured NSCC values for affected equipment classes (i.e., 
equipment classes with test procedure changes that increase NSCC). 
DOE's capacity crosswalk calculated the increases in the capacity 
boundaries of affected equipment classes from the Federal efficiency 
standards if ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 were adopted, to evaluate this 
equipment class switching issue and to avoid backsliding that would 
occur from class switching if capacity boundaries did not account for 
the changed rating conditions in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
    Both the efficiency and capacity crosswalk analyses have a similar 
structure and the data for both analyses came from several of the same 
sources. The crosswalk analyses were informed by numerous sources, 
including public manufacturer literature, manufacturer performance data 
obtained through non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), results from DOE's 
testing of two CRAC units, and DOE's Compliance Certification Database 
\12\ for CRACs. DOE analyzed each test procedure change (e.g., change 
in rating conditions) independently, and used the available data to 
determine an aggregated percentage by which that change impacted 
efficiency (SCOP) and/or NSCC. Updated SCOP levels and NSCC equipment 
class boundaries were calculated for each class (as applicable) by 
combining the percentage changes for every test procedure change 
applicable to that class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at: 
www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The following sub-sections describe the approaches used to analyze 
the impacts on the measured efficiency and capacity of each difference 
in rating conditions between DOE's current test procedure and AHRI 
1360-202X Draft. As discussed, the crosswalk analysis methodology 
described in the following sub-sections is the same as presented in the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI. No additional data sources were added to the 
analysis for this NOPR.
1. Increase in Return Air Dry-Bulb Temperature From 75 [deg]F to 85 
[deg]F
    ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced by DOE's current test 
procedure, specifies a return air dry-

[[Page 12819]]

bulb temperature (RAT) of 75 [deg]F for testing all CRACs. AHRI 1360-
202X Draft specifies a RAT of 85 [deg]F for upflow ducted and downflow 
CRACs, but specifies an RAT for upflow non-ducted units of 75 [deg]F.
    SCOP and NSCC both increase with increasing RAT for two reasons. 
First, a higher RAT increases the cooling that must be done for the air 
to approach its dew point temperature (i.e., the temperature at which 
water vapor will condense if there is any additional cooling). Second, 
a higher RAT will tend to raise the evaporating temperature of the 
refrigerant, which in turn raises the temperature of fin and tube 
surfaces in contact with the air--the resulting reduction in the 
portion of the heat exchanger surface that is below the air's dew point 
temperature reduces the potential for water vapor to condense on these 
surfaces. This is seen in product specifications which show that the 
sensible heat ratio \13\ is consistently higher at a RAT of 85 [deg]F 
than at 75 [deg]F. Because increasing RAT increases the fraction of 
total cooling capacity that is sensible cooling (rather than latent 
cooling), the NSCC increases. Further, because SCOP is calculated with 
NSCC in the numerator of the calculation, an increase in NSCC also 
inherently increases SCOP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ ``Sensible heat ratio'' is the ratio of sensible cooling 
capacity to the total cooling capacity. The total cooling capacity 
includes both sensible cooling capacity (cooling associated with 
reduction in temperature) and latent cooling capacity (cooling 
associated with dehumidification).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To analyze the magnitude of the impacts of increasing RAT for 
upflow ducted and downflow CRACs on SCOP and NSCC, DOE gathered data 
from three separate sources and aggregated the results for each 
crosswalk analysis. First, DOE used product specifications for several 
CRAC models that provide SCOP and NSCC ratings for RATs ranging from 75 
[deg]F to 95 [deg]F. Second, DOE analyzed manufacturer performance data 
obtained under NDAs that showed the performance impact of individual 
test condition changes, including the increase in RAT. Third, DOE used 
results from testing two CRAC units: One air-cooled upflow ducted and 
one air-cooled downflow unit. DOE combined the results of these sources 
to find the aggregated increases in SCOP and NSCC due to the increase 
in RAT. The increase in SCOP due to the change in RAT was found to be 
approximately 19 percent, and the increase in NSCC was found to be 
approximately 22 percent.
2. Decrease in Entering Water Temperature for Water-Cooled CRACs
    ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced by DOE's current test 
procedure, specifies an entering water temperature (EWT) of 86 [deg]F 
for water-cooled CRACs, while AHRI 1360-202X Draft specifies an 
entering water temperature of 83 [deg]F. A decrease in the EWT for 
water-cooled CRACs increases the temperature difference between the 
water and hot refrigerant in the condenser coil, thus increasing 
cooling capacity and decreasing compressor power. To analyze the impact 
of this decrease in EWT on SCOP and NSCC, DOE analyzed manufacturer 
data obtained through NDAs and a publicly-available presentation from a 
major CRAC manufacturer and calculated a SCOP increase of approximately 
2 percent and an NSCC increase of approximately 1 percent.
3. Changes in External Static Pressure Requirements for Upflow Ducted 
CRACs
    For upflow ducted CRACs, AHRI 1360-202X Draft specifies lower ESP 
requirements than ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's 
current test procedure. The ESP requirements in all CRAC industry test 
standards vary with NSCC; however, the capacity bins (i.e., capacity 
ranges over which each ESP requirement applies) in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 
are different from those in AHRI 1360-202X Draft. Testing with a lower 
ESP decreases the indoor fan power input without a corresponding 
decrease in NSCC, thus increasing the measured SCOP. Additionally, the 
reduction in fan heat entering the indoor air stream that results from 
lower fan power also slightly increases NSCC, further increasing SCOP.
    To analyze the impacts on measured SCOP and NSCC of the changes in 
ESP requirements between DOE's current test procedure and AHRI 1360-
202X Draft, DOE aggregated data from its analysis of fan power 
consumption changes, manufacturer data obtained through NDAs, and 
results from DOE testing. Notably, the impact of changes in ESP 
requirements on SCOP and NSCC was calculated separately in DOE's 
analysis for each capacity range specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft 
(i.e., <80 kBtu/h, 80-295 kBtu/h, and >=295 kBtu/h). As discussed in 
III.C of this document, NSCC values determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 
127-2007 are lower than NSCC values determined according to AHRI 1360-
202X Draft for certain CRAC classes, including upflow-ducted classes. 
The increase in NSCC in AHRI 1360-202X Draft also impacts the ESP 
requirements in AHRI 1360-202X Draft for upflow-ducted units, because 
the ESP requirements are specified based on NSCC. Different ESP 
requirements impact the stringency of the test--as discussed, testing 
with a lower ESP increases the measured SCOP. AHRI 1360-202X Draft 
addresses this issue by updating the NSCC capacity bin boundaries 
associated with the applicable ESP. For the purposes of the efficiency 
and capacity crosswalk analyses in this NOPR, DOE used the adjusted 
capacity boundaries in AHRI 1360-202X Draft for upflow ducted classes 
presented in Table III-4 (as discussed in section III.C.5 of this 
document) to specify the applicable ESP requirement.
    DOE conducted an analysis to estimate the change in fan power 
consumption due to the changes in ESP requirements using performance 
data and product specifications for 77 upflow CRAC models with 
certified SCOP ratings at or near the current applicable SCOP standard 
level in DOE's Compliance Certification Database. Using the certified 
SCOP and NSCC values, DOE determined each model's total power 
consumption for operation at the rating conditions specified in DOE's 
current test procedure. DOE then used fan performance data for each 
model to estimate the change in indoor fan power that would result from 
the lower ESP requirements in AHRI 1360-202X Draft and modified the 
total power consumption for each model by the calculated value. For 
several models, detailed fan performance data were not available, so 
DOE used fan performance data for comparable air conditioning units 
with similar cooling capacity, fan drive, and fan motor horsepower.
    DOE also received manufacturer data (obtained through NDAs) showing 
the impact on efficiency and NSCC of the change in ESP requirements. 
Additionally, DOE conducted tests on an upflow-ducted CRAC at ESPs of 1 
in. H2O and 0.4 in. H2O (the applicable ESP 
requirements specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and AHRI 1360-202X 
Draft, respectively), and included the results of those tests in this 
analysis.
    For each of the three capacity ranges for which ESP requirements 
are specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft, Table III-3 shows the 
approximate aggregated percentage increases in SCOP and NSCC associated 
with the decreased ESP requirements specified in AHRI 1360-202X Draft 
for upflow ducted units.

[[Page 12820]]



  Table III-3--Percentage Increase in SCOP and NSCC From Decreases in External Static Pressure Requirements for
                Upflow Ducted Units Between DOE's Current Test Procedure and AHRI 1360-202X Draft
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   ESP requirements
                                   in DOE's current
  Net sensible cooling capacity     test procedure     ESP requirements     Approx. average     Approx. average
        range (kBtu/h) *           (ANSI/ASHRAE 127-   in AHRI 1360-202X      percentage          percentage
                                    2007) (in H2O)      draft (in H2O)     increase in SCOP    increase in NSCC
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65.............................                 0.8                 0.3                   7                   2
>=65 to <240:
    >=65 to <68.2 **............                 0.8                 0.4               *** 8               *** 2
    >=68.2 to <240 **...........                   1
>=240 to <760...................                   1                 0.5                   6                   2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These boundaries are consistent with the boundaries in ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007 and differ from the boundaries in
  AHRI 1360-202X Draft, which reflect the expected capacity increases for upflow-ducted and downflow equipment
  classes at the AHRI 1360-202X Draft return air temperature test conditions.
** 68.2 kBtu/h is equivalent to 20 kW, which is the capacity value that separates ESP requirements in ANSI/
  ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's current test procedure.
*** This average percentage increase is an average across upflow ducted CRACs with net sensible cooling capacity
  >=65 and <240 kBtu/h, including models with capacity <20 kW and >=20 kW. DOE's Compliance Certification
  Database shows that most of the upflow CRACs with a net sensible cooling capacity >=65 kBtu/h and <240 kBtu/h
  have a net sensible cooling capacity >=20 kW.

4. Power Adder To Account for Pump and Heat Rejection Fan Power in 
NSenCOP Calculation for Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled CRACs
    Energy consumption for heat rejection components for air-cooled 
CRACs (i.e., condenser fan motor(s)) is measured in the current DOE 
test procedure for CRACs; however, for water-cooled and glycol-cooled 
CRACs energy consumption for heat rejection components is not measured 
because these components (i.e., water/glycol pump, dry cooler/cooling 
tower fan(s)) are not considered to be part of the CRAC unit. ANSI/
ASHRAE 127-2007, which is referenced in DOE's current test procedure, 
does not include any factor in the calculation of SCOP to account for 
the power consumption of heat rejection components for water-cooled and 
glycol-cooled CRACs.
    In contrast, AHRI 1360-202X Draft specifies to increase the 
measured total power input for CRACs to account for the power 
consumption of fluid pumps and heat rejection fans. Specifically, 
Sections 6.3.1.3 and 6.3.1.4 of AHRI 1360-202X Draft specify to add a 
percentage of the measured NSCC (5 percent for water-cooled CRACs and 
7.5 percent for glycol-cooled CRACs) in kW to the total power input 
used to calculate NSenCOP. DOE calculated the impact of these additions 
on SCOP using Equation 1:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.012

    Where, x is equal to 5 percent for water-cooled CRACs and 7.5 
percent for glycol-cooled CRACs, and SCOP1 is the SCOP value 
adjusted for the energy consumption of heat rejection pumps and fans.
5. Calculating Overall Changes in Measured Efficiency and Capacity From 
Test Procedure Changes
    Different CRAC equipment classes are subject to different 
combinations of the test procedure changes between DOE's current test 
procedure and AHRI 1360-202X Draft analyzed in the crosswalk analyses. 
To combine the impact of the changes in rating conditions, DOE 
calculated the crosswalked NSenCOP levels and translated NSCC 
boundaries as detailed in the following sections.
(a) Calculation of Crosswalked NSenCOP Levels
    To combine the impact on SCOP of the changes to rating conditions 
(i.e., increase in RAT, decrease in condenser EWT for water-cooled 
units, and decrease of the ESP requirements for upflow ducted units), 
DOE multiplied together the calculated adjustment factors representing 
the measurement changes corresponding to each individual rating 
condition change, as applicable, as shown in Equation 2. These 
adjustment factors are equal to 100 percent (which represents SCOP 
measured per the current Federal test procedure) plus the calculated 
percent change in measured efficiency.
    To account for the impact of the adder for heat rejection pump and 
fan power for water-cooled and glycol-cooled units, DOE used Equation 
3. Hence, DOE determined crosswalked NSenCOP levels corresponding to 
the current Federal SCOP standards for each CRAC equipment class using 
the following two equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.013


[[Page 12821]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.014

    In these equations, NSenCOP1 refers to a partially-
crosswalked NSenCOP level that incorporates the impacts of changes in 
RAT, condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP (as applicable), but not the 
impact of adding the heat rejection pump and fan power; x1, 
x2, and x3 represent the percentage change in 
SCOP due to changes in RAT, condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP 
requirements, respectively; and x4 is equal to 5 percent for 
water-cooled equipment classes and 7.5 percent for glycol-cooled 
equipment classes. For air-cooled classes, x4 is equal to 0 
percent; therefore, for these classes, NSenCOP is equal to 
NSenCOP1.
(b) Calculation of Translated NSCC Boundaries
    To combine the impact on NSCC of the changes to rating conditions, 
DOE used a methodology similar to that used for determining the impact 
on SCOP. To determine adjusted NSCC equipment class boundaries, DOE 
multiplied together the calculated adjustment factors representing the 
measurement changes corresponding to each individual rating condition 
change, as applicable, as shown in Equation 4. These adjustment factors 
are equal to 100 percent (which represents NSCC measured per the 
current Federal test procedure) plus the calculated percent change in 
measured NSCC. In this equation, Boundary refers to the original NSCC 
boundaries (i.e., 65,000 Btu/h, 240,000 Btu/h, or 760,000 Btu/h as 
determined according to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007), Boundary1 
refers to the updated NSCC boundaries as determined according to AHRI 
1360-202X Draft, and y1, y2, and y3 
represent the percentage changes in NSCC due to changes in RAT, 
condenser EWT, and indoor fan ESP requirements, respectively.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.015

    As mentioned, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and AHRI 1360-202X Draft 
include updated equipment class capacity boundaries for only upflow-
ducted and downflow equipment classes. The updated class ranges for 
these categories are <80,000 Btu/h, >=80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 Btu/h, 
and >=295,000 Btu/h. In previous versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 
these ranges are <65,000 Btu/h, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and 
>=240,000 Btu/h. The capacity range boundaries for upflow non-ducted 
classes were left unchanged at 65,000 Btu/h and 240,000 Btu/h in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019.
    DOE's capacity crosswalk analysis indicates that the primary driver 
for increasing NSCC is increasing RAT. The increases in RAT in AHRI 
1360-202X Draft, as compared to ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007, only apply to 
upflow ducted and downflow equipment classes. Based on the analysis 
performed for this document, DOE found that all the equipment class 
boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, which are in increments of 
5,000 Btu/h, vary by no more than 1.4 percent of the boundary 
translations calculated from DOE's capacity crosswalk. DOE considers 
this 1.4 percent variance to be de minimis because the only difference 
appears to be rounding--when rounded to increments of 5,000 Btu/h, 
DOE's crosswalk boundary translations are equivalent to the equipment 
class boundaries in ASHRAE 90.1-2019. As such, to align DOE's analysis 
more closely with ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, DOE has used the equipment 
class boundaries in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 as the preliminary 
translated boundaries for the crosswalk analysis. Use of the equipment 
class boundaries from ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 allows for an 
appropriate comparison between the energy efficiency levels and 
equipment classes specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and those in the 
current DOE standards, while addressing the backsliding potential from 
class switching discussed previously.
    ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not include an upper capacity limit 
for coverage of CRACs. DOE's current standards are applicable only to 
CRACs with an NSCC less than 760,000 Btu/h, which is the upper boundary 
for very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, the statutory limits on DOE's authority.\14\ 10 CFR 
431.97(e). However, the change in the ratings conditions in AHRI 1360-
202X Draft means this boundary (calculated according to the current 
Federal test procedure, which references ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007) must be 
expressed in its calculated equivalent for AHRI 1360-202X Draft under 
the crosswalk analysis. Otherwise, equipment currently covered and 
subject to the Federal standards may be removed from coverage, 
violating the anti-backsliding provision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ At the time EPCA was amended to include the definition for 
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment, equipment covered by ASHRAE that met the statutory 
definition of ``commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment'' was generally comfort cooling equipment, which was rated 
according to the corresponding test procedures at 80 [deg]F/67 
[deg]F indoor air. The upper boundary of 760,000 Btu/h specified by 
EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) reflects a capacity rating at 80 [deg]F/
67 [deg]F indoor air. As discussed, DOE has tentatively translated 
the 760,000 Btu/h limit to an equivalent rating that is based on 
testing according to the conditions specified in the updated 
industry test procedure for CRAC. Consequently, DOE does not have 
authority to set standards for models with a capacity beyond the 
760,000 Btu/h limit specified by EPCA, as translated to a rating 
measured per AHRI 1360-202X Draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In order to account for all equipment currently subject to the 
Federal standards, DOE calculated the AHRI 1360-202X Draft equivalent 
of the 760,000 Btu/h equipment class boundary for certain equipment 
classes as part of its capacity crosswalk analysis. This translation of 
the upper boundary of the equipment classes applies only for downflow 
and upflow-ducted classes (the classes for which the RAT increase 
applies). Consistent with the adjustments made in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019, DOE averaged the crosswalked capacity results across the affected 
equipment classes, and rounded to the nearest 5,000 Btu/h. Following 
this approach, DOE has derived 930,000 Btu/h as the translated upper 
capacity limit for downflow and upflow-ducted CRACs in the analysis 
presented in this notice. The 930,000

[[Page 12822]]

Btu/h upper capacity limit (as measured per AHRI 1360-202X Draft) used 
in the crosswalk analysis is equivalent to the 760,000 Btu/h upper 
capacity limit (as measured per ANSI/ASHRAE 127-2007) established in 
the current DOE standards.

D. Crosswalk Results

    The ``crosswalked'' DOE efficiency levels (expressed in terms of 
NSenCOP) and equipment class capacity boundaries (adjusted to account 
for changes in rating conditions) were then compared with the NSenCOP 
efficiency levels and capacity boundaries specified in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2019 to determine the stringency of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
requirements relative to current Federal standards.
    Table III-4 presents the preliminary results for the crosswalk 
analyses (see section III.C of this document for a discussion of the 
methodology for the crosswalk analyses). The last column in the table, 
labeled ``Crosswalk Comparison,'' indicates whether the ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2019 levels are less stringent, equivalent to, or more stringent 
than the current Federal standards, based on DOE's analysis.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.016


[[Page 12823]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.017


[[Page 12824]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.018


[[Page 12825]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.019


[[Page 12826]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.020

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    As indicated by the crosswalk, the standard levels established for 
CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are equivalent to the current 
Federal standards for six equipment classes and are more stringent than 
the current Federal standards for 48 equipment classes of CRACs. ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 also added 66 equipment classes of ceiling-mounted 
and horizontal-flow CRACs that did not require a crosswalk because 
there are currently no Federal standards for classes. As discussed in 
section V of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt standards for 
horizontal-flow CRACs and ceiling-mounted CRACs. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 also incorporates shifted capacity bin boundaries for upflow 
ducted and downflow CRAC equipment classes. DOE's crosswalk analysis 
indicates that these updated boundaries appropriately reflect the 
increase in NSCC that results from the changes in test procedure 
adopted under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and are equivalent to the 
capacity boundaries in the current Federal standards once those changes 
are accounted for (as discussed in previous sections).

E. Comments Received Regarding DOE's Crosswalk Methodology

    DOE presented and requested comments on the crosswalk analysis and 
preliminary results in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60653-
60660 (Sept. 25, 2020).
    AHRI and Joint Advocates agreed with DOE's crosswalk methodology 
and supported DOE's conclusion that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 energy 
efficiency levels generally increase efficiency compared to current DOE 
Federal standards levels. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 2; Joint Advocates, No. 6 
at p. 2). AHRI noted that the AHRI members and DOE staff and 
consultants met extensively in 2018 to develop the crosswalk analysis. 
(AHRI, No. 2 at p. 2) DOE did not receive any other comments regarding 
the crosswalk analysis or the preliminary results.
    For this NOPR, DOE relies on the crosswalk analysis and preliminary 
results as presented in the September 2020 NODA/RFI in which DOE 
identifies 48 equipment classes for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
efficiency levels are more stringent than current DOE efficiency levels 
(expressed in NSenCOP), six equipment classes for which the ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency levels are equal to the current DOE 
efficiency levels, and 66 classes of CRACs that are not currently 
subject to DOE's standards but for which standards are specified in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., horizontal-flow and ceiling-mounted 
classes).

IV. Methodology for Estimates of Potential Energy Savings From ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 Levels

    In the September 2020 NODA/RFI DOE performed an analysis to 
determine the energy-savings potential of amending Federal standards to 
the amended ASHRAE levels for CRACs for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
specifies amended energy efficiency levels more stringent than the 
corresponding Federal energy conservation standards, as required under 
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 85 FR 60642, 60663 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE's 
energy savings analysis was limited to equipment classes for which a 
market exists and for which sufficient data were available.
    For the equipment classes where ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies 
more-stringent levels than the

[[Page 12827]]

corresponding Federal energy conservation standard, DOE calculated the 
potential energy savings to the Nation associated with adopting ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 as the difference between a no-new-standards case 
projection (i.e., without amended standards) and the ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2019 standards-case projection (i.e., with adoption of ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 levels).
    The national energy savings (NES) refers to cumulative lifetime 
energy savings for equipment purchased in a 30-year period that differs 
by equipment (i.e., the compliance date differs by equipment class 
(i.e., capacity) depending upon whether DOE is acting under the ASHRAE 
trigger or the 6-year-lookback (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). In the 
standards case, equipment that is more efficient gradually replaces 
less-efficient equipment over time. This affects the calculation of the 
potential energy savings, which are a function of the total number of 
units in use and their efficiencies. Savings depend on annual shipments 
and equipment lifetime. Inputs to the energy savings analysis are 
presented in the following sections.

A. Annual Energy Use

    The purpose of the energy use analysis is to assess the energy 
savings potential of different equipment efficiencies in the building 
types that utilize the equipment. The Federal standard and ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 levels are expressed in terms of an efficiency 
metric. For each equipment class, the description of how DOE developed 
estimates of annual energy consumption at the Federal baseline 
efficiency level and the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level can be found 
in section III.A.1 of the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60664-
60666 (Sept. 25, 2020). In this NOPR, DOE briefly summarizes that 
analysis and responds to stakeholder comments. The annual unit energy 
consumption (UEC) estimates are displayed in Table IV-1 of this NOPR 
and form the basis of the national energy savings estimates discussed 
in section IV.E of this document.
1. Equipment Classes and Analytical Scope
    In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE conducted an energy savings 
analysis for the 42 CRAC classes that currently have both DOE standards 
and more-stringent standards under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019. 85 FR 
60642, 60664 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE was unable to identify market data 
that would allow for disaggregating results for the six equipment 
classes of air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers that have ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 levels more stringent than current Federal 
standards. Furthermore, although ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 included 
levels for the 66 horizontal flow and ceiling-mounted equipment classes 
which currently are not subject to Federal standards, DOE was unable to 
identify market data that could be used to establish a market baseline 
for these classes in order to estimate energy savings at the time the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI was published. 85 FR 60642, 60663-60664 (Sept. 
25, 2020). DOE did not receive any efficiency data in response to the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI, and is unaware of any publicly available data. 
Therefore, DOE was unable to develop a market baseline and estimate 
energy savings for the horizontal flow and ceiling mounted equipment 
classes for this NOPR. The UEC estimates (provided in Table IV-1) were 
only developed for equipment classes for which DOE could develop a 
market baseline; therefore, they do not include the horizontal flow and 
ceiling-mounted classes.
Efficiency Levels
    DOE analyzed the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 levels for CRAC equipment classes that currently 
have a federal standard and have an ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 standard 
more stringent than the current Federal standard. For each equipment 
class, energy savings are measured relative to the baseline (i.e., the 
current Federal standard for that class). 85 FR 60642, 60664 (Sept. 25, 
2020).
2. Analysis Method and Annual Energy Use Results
    In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, to derive UECs for the equipment 
classes analyzed in this document, DOE started with the UECs based on 
the current DOE standards for downflow equipment classes as analyzed in 
the May 2012 final rule. DOE assumed that these UECs correspond to the 
NSenCOP that was derived through the crosswalk analysis (i.e., ``Cross-
walked Current Federal Standard'' column in Table III-4). DOE 
determined the UEC for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 level by dividing 
the baseline NSenCOP level by the NSenCOP for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 level and multiplied the resulting percentage by the baseline UEC. 
85 FR 60642, 60664 (Sept. 25, 2020).
    In the May 2012 final rule, DOE assumed that energy savings 
estimates derived for downflow equipment classes would be 
representative of upflow equipment classes, which differed by a fixed 
0.11 SCOP. 77 FR 28928, 28954 (May 16, 2012). Because of the fixed 0.11 
SCOP difference between upflow and downflow CRAC units in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2013, DOE determined that the per-unit energy savings 
benefits for corresponding CRACs at higher efficiency levels could be 
represented using the 15 downflow equipment classes. Id. However, in 
this NOPR's analysis, the efficiency levels for the upflow non-ducted 
equipment classes do not differ from the downflow equipment class by a 
fixed amount. For the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE assumed that the 
fractional increase/decrease in NSenCOP between upflow and downflow 
units corresponds to a proportional decrease/increase in the baseline 
UEC within a given equipment class grouping of condenser system and 
capacity. 85 FR 60642, 60665 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE sought comment on 
its energy-use analysis methodology in the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
    AHRI stated that they continue to support DOE's proposed approach 
to determine the UEC of upflow units using the fractional increase or 
decrease in NSenCOP relative to the baseline downflow unit in a given 
equipment class grouping of condenser system and capacity. (AHRI, No. 2 
at p. 3) Joint Advocates stated that they support DOE's conclusion that 
the UEC values for the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels can be 
calculated based on the ratio of the baseline NSenCOP level and the 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 NSenCOP level. (Joint Advocates, No. 6 at p. 
2) Based on the discussion above and consideration of the comments 
received, DOE has maintained its methodology for estimating UEC.
    CA IOUs requested that DOE publish the efficiency curves used to 
calculate performance of CRACs at temperatures other than AHRI test 
conditions and provide background on how the curves were created. (CA 
IOUs, No. 5 at p. 3) The CA IOUs also requested that DOE publish the 
methodology employed to determine the effect of fluid economizers in 
the energy analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 3)
    DOE notes that the UECs were derived from the analysis performed in 
the May 2012 final rule and the temperature bin analysis used to derive 
those UECs was published in Appendix 4B of the May 2012 final rule 
technical support document.\15\ The methodology to determine the effect 
of fluid economizers, can be found in Chapter 4

[[Page 12828]]

of the May 2012 final rule technical support document.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0021.
    \16\ www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BT-STD-0029-0021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Table IV-1 shows UEC estimates for the equipment classes triggered 
by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., equipment classes for which the 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 energy efficiency level is more stringent 
than the current applicable Federal standard).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.021


[[Page 12829]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.022


[[Page 12830]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.023

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

B. Shipments Analysis

    DOE uses shipment projections by equipment class to calculate the 
national impacts of standards on energy consumption, as well as net 
present value and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments 
projections typically are based on available historical data broken out 
by equipment classes. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate 
model that captures recent trends in the market.
    In the analysis presented in the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE 
performed a ``bottom-up'' calculation to estimate CRAC shipments based 
on the cooling demand required from CRAC-cooled data centers. 84 FR 
48006, 48027-48030 (Sept. 11, 2019). In response to the September 2019 
NODA/RFI, DOE received a confidential data submission from AHRI which 
provided DOE with a CRAC shipments time series from 2012-2018 and 
market shares broken out by the 30 Federal equipment classes. 
Accordingly, in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE calibrated the stock 
of CRACs in the 2012 Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption Survey 
(CBECS 2012) \17\ to an amount that would be equal to the number of 
2012 shipments multiplied by the average lifetime of a CRAC (i.e., 15 
years). Additional detail on the shipment and stock methodology can be 
found in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60666-60668 (Sept. 
25, 2020). DOE requested comments on this revised methodology in the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 FR 60642, 60668 (Sept. 25, 2020). AHRI 
commented that in the absence of better information, AHRI supports 
DOE's modified analysis using CBECS 2012. AHRI stated that the 2018 
edition of CBECS (CBECS 2018) will better map equipment to end-use 
categories and that CBECS 2018 is expected to be published in November 
of this year. They commented that if DOE was able to use data from 
CBECS 2018, AHRI recommends modifying the analysis to include this 
updated information. AHRI also commented that there have been 
significant advances in the data center industry within the past decade 
and as a snapshot, the 2012 CBECS does not capture the industry 
shifting from enterprise data rooms in commercial buildings and data 
centers to the current strategy of edge computing on site, with data 
centers focused on co-location servers and cloud computing support. 
AHRI suggested that DOE review material published by organizations that 
study data center growth such as Gartner and the Uptime Institute. 
(AHRI No. 2 at p. 3) Trane suggested that using CBECS 2012 data might 
lead to underestimating the fast-moving CRAC market. They suggested 
using data from research and advisory companies that have updated 
definitions and attributes of data centers to 2020 and beyond. (Trane, 
No. 8 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration, 2012 CBECS Survey Data (Last accessed March 9, 2020) 
(Available at: www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/ 2012/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to AHRI's comment on using CBECS 2018 data, DOE notes 
that the full data set from CBECS 2018 is not expected to be available 
until mid-2022.\18\ Furthermore, in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, CBECS 
2012 was used to develop a stock of CRACs that would match the 
shipments provided by AHRI in 2012, so the main driver of shipments 
analysis was the shipments time series and not CBECS 2012. To the 
extent that updated CBECS data becomes available, DOE will consider 
such data in the evaluation of a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE did not update the analysis based on third party research from 
entities such as Uptime or Gartner because it was able to use the

[[Page 12831]]

confidential national shipments data from AHRI to develop the shipments 
and stock model. Much of the third-party research is on the broader 
data center industry and not specifically CRACs, therefore DOE 
determined that the CRAC shipments data from AHRI was the best source 
for conducting the shipments analysis.
    The CA IOUs sought clarification on the methodology to estimate 
data centers, particularly the following two statements: (1) In this 
NODA/RFI, DOE assumed that any building with a data center, regardless 
of the building's main cooling system, would use a CRAC, in order to 
account for the use of CRACs in edge computing centers and to align 
with the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 definition of a ``computer room'' and (2) 
all data centers without central chillers were assumed to have CRACs. 
(CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3)
    The CA IOUs also suggested that to help estimate the number of data 
centers using CRACs as compared to chilled water units, DOE should 
consider requesting shipment data from manufacturers for direct 
expansion (DX) CRACs and chilled water computer room air handlers. 
Alternatively, the CA IOUs suggested DOE could consider the data used 
in the California 2022 Title 24 Nonresidential Computer Room Efficiency 
CASE report which shows that \1/3\ of computer room cooling uses 
chilled water. (CA IOUs, No. 5, p. 3) (Id.)
    In response to the comment by the CA IOUs asking for clarification 
on the methodology to estimate data centers, DOE notes that the second 
statement is a typographical error in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. 85 
FR 60642, 60668 (Sept. 25, 2020). The first statement reflects the 
methodology used to develop a stock of equipment for the September 2020 
NODA/RFI, using CBECS 2012 to estimate the stock of CRACs to match the 
confidential shipments data provided by AHRI for the year 2012. 85 FR 
60642, 60667 (Sept. 25, 2020). The second statement should read ``all 
data centers were assumed to have CRACs.'' The reference to excluding 
CRACs in buildings with chilled water systems was based on the 
methodology DOE used in the September 2019 NODA/RFI. 84 FR 48006, 48027 
(Sept. 11, 2019). Subsequently, DOE updated its approach based on 
stakeholder comments and a confidential data submission of CRAC 
shipments received in response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI. The 
updated approach was included in the September 2020 NODA/RFI despite 
the typographical error. 85 FR 60642, 60667 (Sept. 25, 2020). In this 
NOPR, DOE is using the same analysis as the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
    Regarding the suggestion for additional shipments data requests and 
the use of the California 2022 Title 24 Nonresidential Computer Room 
Efficiency CASE report, DOE notes that it relied on national shipments 
data for CRACs from 2012 to 2018 from AHRI and that was used to update 
the shipments analysis in the September 2020 NODA/RFI.
    In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE modeled oversizing in CRAC 
units with an oversize factor of 1.2, reduced from 1.3 in the September 
2019 NODA/RFI based on stakeholder comments. 85 FR 60642, 60668 (Sept. 
25, 2020). DOE requested comment on the methodology for estimating 
server power consumption and for any information or data on 
expectations of future server stock and energy use in small data 
centers.
    In response, AHRI stated that they support DOE's proposal to reduce 
oversizing from a factor of 1.3 to 1.2; however, they contended that 
data center equipment was sized correctly but that the actual installed 
equipment includes redundant units. AHRI asserted that it is essential 
to understand that cooling equipment is sized to accommodate the 
maximum Information Technology (IT) load for the space, and that this 
load may not be present at the initial start-up of the data center but 
grows quickly as more IT load is added (AHRI, No. 2, p. 4).
    DOE notes that while oversizing is intended for future growth, the 
speed at which that growth occurs can vary. Also, in response to the 
September 2019 NODA/RFI, the CA IOUs provided evidence of oversizing in 
the range of 20 to 30 percent. (CA IOUs, EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-0006 at 
p. 3) Therefore, DOE reduced its oversizing factor but did not remove 
it altogether.
    In the analysis conducted in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE used 
the confidential shipments data provided by AHRI to calibrate its 
shipment model to produce a revised breakdown by equipment class. DOE 
then used a stock turnover model to project shipments over the 30-year 
shipments analysis period. The stock turnover model was broken into 
three cooling capacities (<65,000 Btu/h, >=65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 
Btu/h, and >=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h) and stock projections 
for each cooling capacity grew at a constant rate through the 30-year 
analysis period. 85 FR 60642, 60668-60669 (Sept. 25, 2020). Total 
shipments are projected to grow slightly over the analysis period as 
shown in Table IV-2 of this document.

                                         Table IV-2--Projected Shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                >=65,000 Btu/h   >=240,000 Btu/h
                                                 <65,000 Btu/h   and <240,000   and <760,000 Btu/      Total
                                                                     Btu/h              h            shipments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2020 Shipments................................           3,208           2,132            3,190            8,530
2052 Shipments................................           2,634           3,650            3,178            9,462
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The AHRI market share data provided to DOE in response to the 
September 2019 NODA/RFI were broken out by the 30 currently defined 
Federal equipment classes. DOE assumed upflow market share split evenly 
between the upflow ducted and upflow non-ducted equipment classes. DOE 
did not have any market share data on horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, 
and air-cooled with fluid economizer CRAC equipment classes; therefore, 
DOE was unable to disaggregate savings for these classes in the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI.
    In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE requested shipments data on 
horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, and air-cooled with fluid economizer 
CRAC equipment classes. AHRI commented that they were in the process of 
collecting shipments data on horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, and air-
cooled with fluid economizer CRAC equipment classes, and that if the 
data met AHRI data collection requirements it would be submitted to 
DOE. (AHRI, No. 2 at p. 3)
    DOE received data from AHRI that provided the percentage of total 
CRAC shipments by equipment class for horizontal-flow, ceiling-mounted, 
and floor mounted air-cooled with fluid economizer CRACs. However, the 
data provided did not include the available

[[Page 12832]]

efficiency levels (in NSenCOP) of CRACs for sale within each equipment 
class, which would enable DOE to derive a market baseline for these 
equipment classes. DOE was unable to otherwise obtain such efficiency 
data. Without a market baseline, DOE is unable to estimate the 
potential energy savings from more efficient equipment. As such, the 
energy saving analysis does not include horizontal-flow, ceiling-
mounted, or air-cooled with fluid economizer CRACs.

C. No-New-Standards-Case Efficiency Distribution

    The no-new-standards case efficiency distribution is used to 
establish the market share of each efficiency level in the case where 
there is no new or amended standard. DOE is unaware of available market 
data that reports CRAC efficiency in terms of NSenCOP that can be used 
to determine the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution. In the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE requested efficiency data for CRACs in 
terms of NSenCOP that can be used to estimate the no-new-standards case 
efficiency distribution. 85 FR 60642, 60669-60670 (Sept. 25, 2020). DOE 
did not receive efficiency data in terms of NSenCOP and DOE is not 
aware of such data being available. Therefore, DOE has maintained the 
efficiency distribution used in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, which 
relied on DOE's Compliance Certification Database for CRACs which 
reports efficiency in terms of SCOP. DOE applied the crosswalk 
methodology discussed in section III.C. of this NOPR to translate each 
model's reported SCOP into NSenCOP.
    DOE estimated the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution for 
each CRAC equipment class using model counts from DOE's Compliance 
Certification Database. DOE calculated the fraction of models that are 
above the current Federal baseline and below the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019 level and assigned this to the Federal baseline. All models that 
are at or above that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are assigned to the 
ASHRAE level. The no-new-standard case distribution for CRACs are 
presented in Table IV-3.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.024


[[Page 12833]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.025


[[Page 12834]]


BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

D. Other Analytical Inputs

1. Equipment Lifetime
    DOE defines ``equipment lifetime'' as the age at which a unit is 
retired from service. For the September 2019 NODA/RFI, DOE used a 15-
year lifetime for all CRAC equipment classes based on the lifetime used 
in the May 2012 final rule. 84 FR 48006, 48030 (Sept. 11, 2019) (citing 
the May 2012 final rule at 77 FR 28928, 28958 (May 16, 2012)). In 
response to the September 2019 NODA/RFI, AHRI and Trane agreed that 15 
years was a reasonable average lifetime. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-
0007 at p. 7; Trane, EERE-2017-BT-STD-0017-0005 at p. 2) DOE maintained 
the 15-year average lifetime in the September 2020 NODA/RFI and 
received no comments on this issue. DOE continued to rely on a 15-year 
equipment lifetime for this NOPR.
2. Compliance Dates and Analysis Period
    If DOE were to prescribe energy conservation standards at the 
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA provides 
that the compliance date shall be on or after a date that is two or 
three years (depending on the equipment type or size) after the 
effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency requirement 
in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) If ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 does not specify an effective date, then the compliance 
date specified by statute would be dependent upon the publication date 
of ASHRAE 90.1-2019.
    In this case, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 does not specify an 
effective date for CRAC levels, therefore the publication date of 
October 23, 2019, was used to determine the compliance dates for 
estimating the energy savings potential of adopting ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-levels.
    For equipment classes for which the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels are 
more stringent than the current Federal standards (i.e., classes for 
which DOE is triggered), if DOE were to prescribe standards more 
stringent than the efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
2019, EPCA dictates that the compliance date must be on or after a date 
which is four years after the date of publication of a final rule in 
the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For equipment classes 
for which DOE is acting under its 6-year lookback authority, if DOE 
were to adopt more-stringent standards, EPCA states that the compliance 
date for any such standard shall be after a date that is the later of 
the date three years after publication of the final rule establishing a 
new standard or the date six years after the effective date for the 
current standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)) As discussed in Section 
V of this NOPR, DOE is not proposing standards for CRACs that are more 
stringent than the levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019.
    For purposes of calculating the NES for the equipment in this 
evaluation, DOE used a 30-year analysis period starting with the 
assumed year of compliance listed in Table IV-4 for equipment analyzed 
in the September 2020 NODA/RFI. This is the standard analysis period of 
30 years that DOE typically uses in its NES analysis. For equipment 
classes with a compliance date in the last six months of the year, DOE 
starts its analysis period in the first full year after compliance. For 
example, if CRACs less than 65,000 Btu/h were to have a compliance date 
of October 23, 2021, the analysis period for calculating NES would 
begin in 2022 and extend to 2051.

  Table IV-4--Analyzed Compliance Dates of Amended Energy Conservation
                Standards for Triggered Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   Analyzed compliance
                                                   dates for efficiency
                Equipment class                      levels in ASHRAE
                                                    Standard 90.1-2019
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                     Computer Room Air Conditioners
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment with current NSCC <65,000 Btu/h......               10/23/2021
Equipment with current NSCC >=65,000 and                      10/23/2022
 <240,000 Btu/h................................
Equipment with current NSCC >=240,000 Btu/h and               10/23/2022
 <760,000 Btu/h................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the September 2020 NODA/RFI, AHRI noted that the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI mentioned different compliance dates for CRACs 
with NSCC less than 65,000 Btu/h and for CRACs with NSCC greater than 
65,000 Btu/h but less than 240,000 Btu/h, with CRACs with NSCC less 
than 65,000 Btu/h having a compliance effective date one year earlier. 
(AHRI, No.2 at p. 2) AHRI stated that they understood that this 
difference stems from EPCA requirements but urged DOE to harmonize 
compliance on the same date, i.e., October 23, 2022, stating that it 
would be unnecessarily confusing for manufacturers and other 
stakeholders to manage separate compliance dates. Id.
    The analysis presented in this NOPR relies on the minimum 
compliance dates provided under EPCA for the energy conservation 
standards as proposed. As discussed in section V.D, DOE considered the 
various applicable lead-times required by EPCA, and proposes that the 
compliance date for amended standards for all CRAC equipment classes 
would be 360 days after the publication date of the final rule adopting 
amended energy conservation standards.

E. Estimates of Potential Energy Savings

    DOE estimated the potential site, primary, and FFC energy savings 
in quads (i.e., 10\15\ Btu) for adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 
within each equipment class analyzed. The potential energy savings of 
adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels are measured relative to the 
current Federal standards. Table IV-5 shows the potential energy 
savings resulting from the analyses conducted for CRACs. The reported 
energy savings are cumulative over the period in which equipment 
shipped in the 30-year analysis continues to operate. The national 
energy savings estimates are identical to those provided in the 
September 2020 NODA/RFI. See 85 FR 60642, 60672 (Sep. 25, 2020).
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 12835]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.026


[[Page 12836]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.027


[[Page 12837]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.028

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C

V. Conclusions

A. Consideration of More-Stringent Efficiency Levels

    EPCA requires DOE to establish an amended uniform national standard 
for equipment classes at the minimum level specified in the amended 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 unless DOE determines, by rule published in the 
Federal Register, and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that 
adoption of a uniform national standard more stringent than the amended 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for the equipment class would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)-
(II)) In the September 2020 NODA/RFI, DOE requested data and 
information that could help determine whether standards levels more 
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would 
result in significant additional energy savings for classes for which 
DOE was triggered. DOE also requested data and information that could 
help determine whether standards levels more stringent than the levels 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 for CRACs would result in significant 
additional energy savings for classes for which DOE was not triggered 
(i.e., classes reviewed under the six-year look back provision). 85 FR 
60642, 60674-60675 (September 25, 2020).
    AHRI stated that while more stringent levels may result in 
additional energy savings, the added costs to the manufacturers and 
ultimately their customers would negate much of the savings. AHRI 
stated that they support the full adoption of the amended ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 levels for all classes of CRACs. (AHRI, No. 2 at pp. 4-5) 
Rheem also commented that they generally support the adoption of ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 for all classes of CRACs. (Rheem, No. 4 at p. 1)
    Joint Advocates and CA IOUs encouraged DOE to evaluate more-
stringent standards than the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels, and said 
that they disagreed with DOE's preliminary conclusion in the September 
2020 NODA/RFI that the test metric change created uncertainty that 
would prevent an adequate evaluation of more stringent standards. 
(Joint Advocates, No. 6 at pp. 3-4; CA IOUs, No. 5 at p. 2) These 
commenters asserted that only when economic analyses are complete can 
the determination be made as to whether the statutory ``clear and 
convincing evidence'' requirement has been met. Id. CA IOUs further 
encouraged DOE to evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether the standard 
of ``clear and convincing evidence'' of energy savings has been met for 
increasing stringency of standards when there is a metric change. (CA 
IOUs, No. 5 at p. 2) Additionally, CA IOUs presented the concern that 
if DOE were to generalize their position taken in the September 2020 
NODA/RFI to other product categories, some members of the ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 committee will be less likely to support updates to the 
test procedure if they believe that DOE will use the update as a reason 
to decline to conduct further analysis. Id.
    Joint Advocates commented that DOE's crosswalk analysis presented 
in the September 2020 NODA/RFI had already been vetted by stakeholders 
and would lead to reasonable accounting of potential energy savings. 
(Joint Advocates, No. 6 at p. 3) Joint Advocates also asserted that 
energy savings from adopting standards for CRACs more stringent than 
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels have the potential to be 
significant, given the annual energy consumption and range of potential 
efficiencies for CRACs. Id. The commenter further stated that it is not 
unprecedented for DOE to adopt amended standards at levels higher than 
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels based on a revised metric, referencing 
a prior standards rulemaking for air-cooled commercial unitary air 
conditioners (ACUACs), in which DOE adopted integrated energy 
efficiency ratio (IEER) standards at levels that were more stringent 
than the corresponding ASHRAE 90.1 levels, in a 2016 direct final rule 
(81 FR 2419). Id at p. 4.
    In response to AHRI's comment that more stringent levels would add 
costs to manufacturers and customers that would negate much of the 
savings, DOE notes that a full consideration of more stringent levels, 
if undertaken, would assess manufacturer, consumer, and national 
impacts.
    In response to comments from Joint Advocates and CA IOUs, DOE notes 
that it makes determinations pursuant to the ASHRAE trigger (and the 
six-year look back review) by evaluating the information and data 
available specific to the equipment under review. In this NOPR, DOE is 
not making a general determination that the clear and convincing 
evidence threshold cannot be met in instances in which there is a 
metric change. The preliminary position taken in the September 2020 
NODA/RFI and in this NOPR on whether the clear and convincing evidence 
requirement for showing that more stringent standards would result in 
significant additional energy savings is specific to CRACs. As 
suggested by CA IOUs, DOE makes this determination on a case-by-case 
basis. As to the concern that the preliminary determination put forward 
in this NOPR may cause some members of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
committee to be less likely to support updates to industry test 
procedures, DOE notes that EPCA requires DOE to review periodically the 
test procedures for covered equipment, and make amendments to the 
extent justified. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1))
    As discussed in the September 2020 NODA/RFI, an estimation of 
energy savings potentials of energy efficiency levels more stringent 
than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels would require developing 
efficiency data for the entire CRAC market in terms of the NSenCOP 
metric. 85 FR 60642, 60673 (Sept 25, 2020). Because there are minimal 
market efficiency data currently available in terms of NSenCOP, this 
would require a crosswalk analysis much broader than the analysis used 
to evaluate ASHARE 90.1-2019 levels. 85 FR 60642, 60674

[[Page 12838]]

(Sept 25, 2020). The crosswalk analysis presented in this NOPR 
(analyzing ASHRAE 90.1-2019 levels) required only that DOE translate 
the efficiency levels between the metrics at the baseline levels, and 
not that DOE translate all efficiency levels currently represented in 
the market (i.e., high efficiency levels). To obtain NSenCOP market 
data for purposes of analysis of standard levels more stringent than 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, DOE would be required to translate the 
individual SCOP ratings to NSenCOP ratings for all CRAC models 
certified in DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) 
Database. As the range of model efficiencies increases, so does the 
number of different technologies used to achieve such efficiencies. 
With this increase in variation, there is an increase in the potential 
for variation in the crosswalk results from the actual performance 
under the new metric of the analyzed models. As noted, there is limited 
market data regarding the performance of CRACs as represented according 
to the updated metric, and there is not a comparable industry analysis 
(i.e., translating ratings to the updated metric for all models on the 
market) for comparison. 85 FR 60642, 60674 (Sept 25, 2020).
    Because of the lack of market data and the test metric change, and 
DOE is tentatively unable to determine via clear and convincing 
evidence that a more stringent standard level would result in 
significant additional conservation of energy and is technologically 
feasible and economically justified. DOE has tentatively decided not to 
conduct further analysis for this particular rulemaking because DOE 
lacks the data to assess potential energy conservation. In this 
specific instance, DOE disagrees with comments from CA IOUs and Joint 
Advocates that the statutory clear and convincing evidence criterion 
can only be assessed after full economic analyses have been conducted. 
EPCA requires that DOE determine, supported by clear and convincing 
evidence, that adoption of a uniform national standard more stringent 
than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for CRAC 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); 
emphasis added) The inability to make a determination, supported by 
clear and convincing evidence, with regard to any one of the statutory 
criteria prohibits DOE from adopting more stringent standards 
regardless of determinations as to the other criteria. DOE has 
tentatively determined that at this time there is sufficient lack of 
data specific to CRACs (including but not limited to market efficiency 
data in terms of the new efficiency metric) to preclude clear and 
convincing evidence of significant additional energy savings from CRAC 
efficiency levels more stringent than ASHRAE 90.1-2019 levels.
    The past ACUAC rulemaking (that Joint Advocates cited as precedent) 
was not analogous to the present situation for CRACs, because at the 
time that ACUAC rulemaking began, the IEER metric was already in use by 
the ACUAC industry. See 81 FR 2419, 2441 (Jan. 15, 2014).\19\ 
Specifically, the vast majority of ACUAC models on the market were 
already rated for IEER (in addition to EER, which was the federally 
regulated metric at the time), and these IEER market data for ACUACs 
were available in the AHRI Directory at the time.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ DOE noted that AHRI Standard 340/360-2007 already included 
methods and procedures for testing and rating equipment with the 
IEER metric. ASHRAE, through its Standard 90.1, includes 
requirements based on the part-load performance metric, IEER. These 
IEER requirements were first established in Addenda to the 2008 
Supplement to Standard 90.1- 2007, and were required for compliance 
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1 on January 1, 2010. Id.
    \20\ As part of a NODA/RFI for energy conservation standards for 
ACUACs published on February 1, 2013 (78 FR 7296), DOE made 
available a document that provides the methodology and results of an 
investigation of EER and IEER market data for ACUACs. See Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast, during development of this NOPR, there were minimal 
available NSenCOP market data. Specifically, DOE identified NSenCOP 
market data for less than 3 percent of the CRAC models certified in 
DOE's Certification Compliance Database. DOE requested efficiency data 
in terms of NSenCOP in the September 2020 NODA/RFI but received no such 
data. DOE presumes that this is because CRAC manufacturers are not yet 
using the new test metric (NSenCOP) to rate equipment, unlike in the 
discussed ACUAC rulemaking.
    After considering the stakeholder comments, and the lack of 
sufficient NSenCOP market data available following the September 2020 
NODA/RFI, DOE maintains its preliminary decision not to conduct 
additional analysis of more stringent standards for this rulemaking. 
The lack of market and performance data in terms of the new metric 
limits the analysis of energy savings that would result from efficiency 
levels more stringent than the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 levels 
for this equipment. Given the limits of any energy use analysis 
resulting from the lack of data, DOE has tentatively concluded that it 
lacks clear and convincing evidence that more stringent standards would 
result in a significant additional amount of energy savings as required 
for DOE to establish more-stringent standards.
    DOE has tentatively determined that due to the lack of market and 
performance data for the CRAC market as a whole in terms of NSenCOP, it 
is unable to estimate potential energy savings from more stringent 
standards that meets the clear and convincing evidence threshold 
required by statute to justify standards more stringent than the 
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 efficiency levels for CRACs.

B. Review Under Six-Year Lookback Provision

    As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each 
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE may only adopt more stringent standards 
pursuant to the six-year look-back review if the Secretary determines, 
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the adoption more 
stringent standards 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)) The 
analysis under the look-back provision incorporates the same standards 
and factors as the analysis for whether DOE should adopt a more 
stringent standard than an amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 standard. Id. 
Accordingly, DOE is here evaluating the six CRAC equipment classes for 
which ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 did not increase the stringency of the 
standards.
    Similar to the triggered classes discussed in section V.A of this 
NOPR, there are limited NSenCOP data for CRACs within each of these six 
classes and there is not a comparable industry analysis (i.e., 
translating ratings to the updated metric for all models on the market) 
for comparison. While the crosswalk analysis required only that DOE 
translate the efficiency levels at the baseline levels, the analysis 
needed to evaluate whether amended standards more stringent than ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 would result in significant energy savings and be 
technologically feasible and economically justified under the clear and 
convincing threshold would require more than baseline data--it would 
require NSenCOP data across all efficiency levels on the market.

[[Page 12839]]

    Therefore, in line with the same initial reasoning presented in 
DOE's evaluation of more stringent standards for those classes of CRAC 
for which ASHRAE updated the industry standards, DOE initially 
determines that the clear and convincing evidence threshold is not met 
for these six classes. As such, DOE did not conduct an energy savings 
analysis of standard levels more stringent than the current Federal 
standard levels for the classes of CRAC not triggered by ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 (i.e., the six classes of CRAC for which ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2019 does not specify more stringent minimum efficiency 
levels).

C. Definition for Ducted Condenser

    As indicated, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 includes separate equipment 
classes for ceiling-mounted CRACs with ducted condensers. The current 
definitions at 10 CFR 431.92 do not include a definition of ``ducted 
condenser''. Because DOE is proposing to adopt efficiency standards for 
these ceiling-mounted CRAC equipment classes with ``ducted condenser'', 
DOE is proposing to define the following definition for ``ducted 
condenser'' at 10 CFR 431.92, which is consistent with the definition 
specified in section 3.7.1 of AHRI 1360-202X Draft.
    Ducted Condenser means a configuration of computer room air 
conditioner for which the condenser or condensing unit that 
manufacturer's installation instructions indicate is intended to 
exhaust condenser air through a duct(s).

D. Proposed Energy Conservation Standards

    DOE proposes amended energy conservation standards for CRACs by 
adopting the efficiency levels specified for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2019. The proposed standards, which are expressed in NSenCOP, are 
shown in Table V-1 and Table V-2 of this document. These proposed 
standards, if adopted, would apply to all CRACs listed in Table V-1 and 
Table V-2 of this document. Table I-2 manufactured in, or imported 
into, the United States starting on the compliance date as discussed in 
the following paragraphs.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

[[Page 12840]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.029


[[Page 12841]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.030


[[Page 12842]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.031

BILLING CODE 6450-01-C
    As noted, in instances in which DOE is amending an energy 
conservation standard for CRAC in response to updates to ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1,

[[Page 12843]]

EPCA specifies certain compliance lead times based on equipment 
capacity. If DOE were to prescribe energy conservation standards at the 
efficiency levels contained in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA 
states that any such standard shall become effective on or after a date 
that is two or three years (depending on the equipment type or size) 
after the effective date of the applicable minimum energy efficiency 
requirement in the amended ASHRAE standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) 
In the present case, were DOE to adopt amended standards for ``small'' 
CRACs (i.e., CRACs with a capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h) at the 
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA provides that the 
compliance date must be on or after a date which is two years after the 
effective date of level specified in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
(i.e., October 23, 2021). Were DOE to adopt amended standards for 
``large'' and ``very large'' CRACs (i.e., CRACs with a capacity equal 
to or greater than 65,000 Btu/h) at the levels specified in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, EPCA provides that the compliance date must be on or 
after a date which is three years after the effective date of the level 
specified in the updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., October 23, 2022).
    If DOE were to prescribe standards more stringent than the 
efficiency levels contained in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, EPCA dictates 
that any such standard will become effective for equipment manufactured 
on or after a date which is four years after the date of publication of 
a final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)) For 
equipment classes for which DOE is acting under its 6-year lookback 
authority, if DOE were to adopt more-stringent standards, EPCA states 
that any such standard shall apply to equipment manufactured after a 
date that is the latter of the date three years after publication of 
the final rule establishing such standard or six years after the 
effective date for the current standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv))
    Moreover, the proposed energy conservation standards are based on a 
new metric (i.e., NSenCOP) and DOE has proposed to amend the test 
procedure to rely on NSenCOP in the February 2022 CRAC TP NOPR. 87 FR 
6948. Were DOE to adopt the proposed test procedure, beginning 360 days 
following the final test procedure rule, manufacturers would be 
prohibited from making representations respecting the energy 
consumption of CRACs, unless such equipment has been tested in 
accordance with such test procedure and such representation fairly 
discloses the results of such testing. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))
    DOE has considered these various applicable lead times relevant 
under EPCA to standards (i.e., October 23, 2021, for ``small'' CRACs 
and October 23, 2022 for ``large'' and ``very large'' CRACs) and the 
one-year lead time relevant to a test procedure update addressing 
NSenCOP. In order to align the compliance dates across equipment 
classes and account for an updated test procedure, should one be 
finalized, DOE proposes that the compliance date for amended standards 
for all CRAC equipment classes would be 360 days after the publication 
date of the final rule adopting amended energy conservation standards.

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

    Section 1(b)(1) of Executive Order (``E.O.'') 12866, ``Regulatory 
Planning and Review,'' 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), requires each agency 
to identify the problem that it intends to address, including, where 
applicable, the failures of private markets or public institutions that 
warrant new agency action, as well as to assess the significance of 
that problem. The problems that the proposed standards set forth in 
this NOPR are intended to address are as follows:
    (1) Insufficient information and the high costs of gathering and 
analyzing relevant information leads some consumers to miss 
opportunities to make cost-effective investments in energy efficiency.
    (2) In some cases, the benefits of more-efficient equipment are not 
realized due to misaligned incentives between purchasers and users. An 
example of such a case is when the equipment purchase decision is made 
by a building contractor or building owner who does not pay the energy 
costs.
    (3) There are external benefits resulting from improved energy 
efficiency of appliances and equipment that are not captured by the 
users of such products. These benefits include externalities related to 
public health, environmental protection, and national energy security 
that are not reflected in energy prices, such as reduced emissions of 
air pollutants and greenhouse gases that impact human health and global 
warming.
    The Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
determined that this regulatory action is not a significant regulatory 
action under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866. Accordingly, DOE 
has not prepared a regulatory impact analysis for this proposed rule, 
and OIRA in the OMB has not reviewed this proposed rule.
    DOE has also reviewed this proposed regulation pursuant to E.O. 
13563, issued on January 18, 2011. 76 FR 3281 (Jan. 21, 2011). E.O. 
13563 is supplemental to and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
E.O. 12866. To the extent permitted by law, agencies are required by 
E.O. 13563 to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 
determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that 
some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public.
    DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the 
best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, OIRA has 
emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future 
compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or 
anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, 
this NOPR is consistent with these principles.

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

[[Page 12844]]

substantial number of small entities. As required by E.O. 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 (www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel). DOE reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions 
of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures 
published on February 19, 2003.
    The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this energy 
conservation standards rulemaking.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE minimum efficiency 
standards for CRACs as is required under EPCA's ASHRAE trigger 
requirement and the six-year lookback provision. DOE must update the 
Federal minimum efficiency standards to be consistent with levels 
published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines, supported by 
clear and convincing evidence, that adoption of a more stringent level 
would produce significant additional conservation of energy and would 
be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii) DOE must also review and determine whether to amend 
standards of each class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
every 6 years. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    EPCA directs that if ASHRAE amends ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must 
adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency level, unless DOE 
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that adoption 
of a more stringent level would produce significant additional 
conservation of energy and would be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii) Under EPCA, DOE 
must also review energy efficiency standards for CRACs every six years 
and either: (1) Issue a notice of determination that the standards do 
not need to be amended as adoption of a more stringent level is not 
supported by clear and convincing evidence; or (2) issue a notice of 
proposed rulemaking including new proposed standards based on certain 
criteria and procedures in subparagraph (B) (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)).
3. Description on Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    For manufacturers of CRACs, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as 
``small businesses'' for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the 
SBA's small business size standards to determine whether any small 
entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. See 13 CFR 
part 121. The equipment covered by this proposed rule are classified 
under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) code 
333415,\22\ ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and 
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.'' In 
13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer 
for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ The business size standards are listed by NAICS code and 
industry description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (Last accessed July 26th, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE used publicly available information to identify potential small 
businesses that manufacture equipment covered this this rulemaking. DOE 
identified ten manufacturers of equipment covered by this rulemaking. 
Of the ten, nine manufacturers are original equipment manufacturers 
(OEM). DOE screened out companies that do not meet the definition of a 
``small business'' or are foreign-owned and operated. DOE used 
subscription-based business information tools to determine head count 
and revenue of the small businesses. Of these nine OEMs, DOE identified 
three companies that are small, domestic OEMs.
    Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on the number of small manufacturers 
producing covered CRACs.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    As noted in the section 2 of the Review under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act, DOE must adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE 
efficiency level unless DOE determines, supported by clear and 
convincing evidence, that adoption of a more stringent standard would 
produce significant additional conservation of energy and would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Because DOE proposes no such determination, this 
NOPR proposes to adopt amended standards at the new ASHRAE efficiency 
level rather than impose more stringent standards. This is required by 
EPCA, but is also less burdensome for small manufacturers than a more 
stringent standard.
    In reviewing all commercially available models in DOE's Compliance 
Certification Database, the three small manufacturers account for 13 
percent of industry model offerings. For each of the three small 
manufacturers, approximately 90 percent of current models would meet 
the proposed levels. The small manufacturers would need to either 
discontinue or redesign non-compliant models. DOE recognizes that small 
manufacturers may need to spread redesign costs over lower shipment 
volumes than the industry-at-large. However, adoption of standards at 
least as stringent as the ASHRAE levels is required under EPCA; 
furthermore, adopting standards above ASHRAE levels (DOE's only other 
option under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) would lead to an even greater 
portion of models requiring redesign.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the current 
market accounted for by small manufacturers. DOE also requests comment 
on its understanding of the efficiency of the equipment offered by such 
manufacturers.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with this rule.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    As EPCA requires DOE to either adopt the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
levels or to propose higher standards, DOE lacks discretion to mitigate 
impacts to small businesses from the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 levels. In 
this rulemaking, DOE is proposing to adopt the ASHRAE 90.1-2019 levels.
    Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other 
means. Section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 
U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule 
issued under EPCA in order to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or 
unfair distribution of burdens'' that may be imposed on that 
manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 
CFR part 1003 for additional detail.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    Manufacturers of CRACs must certify to DOE that their products 
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In certifying 
compliance, manufacturers must test their products

[[Page 12845]]

according to the DOE test procedures for CRACs, 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 
CRACs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429) 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

    DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the 
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA) and DOE's NEPA 
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include 
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings that establish energy 
conservation standards for consumer products or industrial equipment. 
10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix B5.1. DOE anticipates that this 
rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion B5.1 because it is a 
rulemaking that establishes energy conservation standards for consumer 
products or industrial equipment, none of the exceptions identified in 
categorical exclusion B5.1(b) apply, no extraordinary circumstances 
exist that require further environmental analysis, and it 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 rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    E.O. 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 rule 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. 6297) 
Therefore, no further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

    With respect to the review of existing regulations and the 
promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 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 E.O. 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 proposed rule meets the 
relevant standards of E.O. 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, section 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 energy.gov/sites/prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf.
    This proposed rule does not contain a Federal intergovernmental 
mandate, nor is it expected to require expenditures of $100 million or 
more in any one year 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 rule 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.

[[Page 12846]]

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

    Pursuant to E.O. 12630, ``Governmental Actions and Interference 
with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 
1988), DOE has determined that this proposed rule 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 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). 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 www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has 
reviewed this NOPR 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

    E.O. 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.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that this regulatory action, which 
proposes amended energy conservation standards for CRACs, is not a 
significant energy action because the proposed standards are not likely 
to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or 
use of energy, nor has it been designated as such by the Administrator 
at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects on this proposed rule.

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 determine will have, or does have, a clear 
and substantial impact on important public policies or private sector 
decisions.'' 70 FR 2664, 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.\23\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ The 2007 ``Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking Peer 
Review Report'' is available at the following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energy-conservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-review-report-0.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

VII. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting 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: www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their 
systems are compatible with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

    Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this 
document, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that 
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an 
oral presentation at the webinar. Such persons may submit to 
[email protected]. Persons who wish to speak 
should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, 
Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes 
the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they 
wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone 
number where they can be reached.
    Persons requesting to speak should briefly describe the nature of 
their interest in this rulemaking and provide a telephone number for 
contact. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to 
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before 
the webinar. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot 
supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those 
persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building 
Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral 
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

    DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar and may 
also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will 
not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will 
conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 
court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a 
transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of 
presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of 
the

[[Page 12847]]

webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary 
information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters 
regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar and until the end 
of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments 
on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking.
    The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE 
will present a general overview of the topics addressed in this 
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, 
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a 
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the 
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other 
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
    At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit 
participants to clarify their statements briefly. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of 
participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed 
rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar will accept additional 
comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The 
presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or 
modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper 
conduct of the webinar.
    A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which 
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of 
this NOPR. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript 
from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

    DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this 
proposed rule before or after the public meeting, but 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 using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section 
at the beginning of this document.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your 
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable 
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to 
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first 
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, 
and any documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (CBI). Comments submitted through 
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through 
the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. 
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business 
Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. 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, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not 
secured, that are written in English, and that are free of any defects 
or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form 
of encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic 
signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on the number of small manufacturers 
producing covered CRACs.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the current 
market accounted for by small manufacturers. DOE also requests comment 
on its understanding of the efficiency of the equipment offered by such 
manufacturers.

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

[[Page 12848]]

List of Subjects in 10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation test procedures, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on February 
22, 2022, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on February 23, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons set forth in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend 
part 431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 of the Code of 
Federal Regulations, as set forth below:

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
1. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 6291-6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Section 431.92 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, the 
definition for ``Ducted Condenser'' to read as follows:


Sec.  431.92   Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and 
heat pumps.

* * * * *
    Ducted Condenser means a configuration of computer room air 
conditioner for which the condenser or condensing unit that 
manufacturer's installation instructions indicate is intended to 
exhaust condenser air through a duct(s).
* * * * *
0
3. Section 431.97 is amended by:
0
a. In paragraph (f), redesignating Table 13 as Table 15; and
0
b. Revising paragraph (e).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  431.97   Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.

* * * * *
    (e)(1) Each computer room air conditioner with a net sensible 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after 
October 29, 2012, and before [date 360 days after the publication date 
of the final rule], and each computer room air conditioner with a net 
sensible cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h 
manufactured on or after October 29, 2013, and before [date 360 days 
after the publication date of the final rule], must meet the applicable 
minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 12 of 
this section.
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.032

    (2) Each computer room air conditioner manufactured on or after 
[date 360 days after the publication date of the final rule], must meet 
the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 
Table 13 and Table 14 of this section.

[[Page 12849]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.033


[[Page 12850]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.034


[[Page 12851]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP07MR22.035

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2022-04151 Filed 3-4-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-C