[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 101 (Wednesday, May 25, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 31743-31754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2022-10911]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 101 / Wednesday, May 25, 2022 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 31743]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015]
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures and Energy
Conservation Standards for Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat
Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is considering
potential amendments to the test procedures for air-cooled commercial
package air conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, evaporatively-cooled commercial
package air conditioners, and water-cooled commercial package air
conditioners. DOE is also considering whether to amend the current
energy conservation standards for air-cooled commercial package air
conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than
or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. Through this request for information
(``RFI''), DOE seeks data and information regarding issues pertinent to
whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply
with the requirement that the test procedure produces results that
measure energy use during a representative average use cycle for the
equipment without being unduly burdensome to conduct, or reduce testing
burden. DOE also welcomes written comments from the public on any
subject within the scope of this document (including those topics not
specifically raised), as well as the submission of data and other
relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 24, 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov,under docket
number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015, by any of the
following methods:
(1) Email: [email protected]. Include the
docket number EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015 in the subject line of the message.
(2) Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
(3) Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies. Include docket number
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the
docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some
documents listed in the index, such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585.
Telephone: (202) 586-8145. Email: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment, or review other
public comments and the docket contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Background
1. Test Procedure
2. Standards
C. Standards Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Test Procedure
1. External Static Pressure Levels
2. Heating Mode
3. Potential Revisions to IEER Metric
4. Power Consumption of Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs
B. Energy Conservation Standards
1. Alternative Refrigerants
2. Shipments
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
Commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment is
included in the list of ``covered equipment'' for which DOE is
authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) This equipment includes
air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners with a rated cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 British thermal units per hour
(``Btu/h'') (``ACUACs''), air-cooled commercial unitary heat pumps with
a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h
(``ACUHPs''), evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners
(``ECUACs''), and water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners
(``WCUACs''), which are
[[Page 31744]]
all the subject of this RFI.\1\ (ACUACs, ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs are
referred to collectively as ``CUACs and CUHPs'' in this document). The
current DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs are codified in Table 1
at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (``CFR'') part 431,
subpart F, section 96. See 10 CFR 431.96. The current Federal energy
conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs are established at 10 CFR
431.97(b). The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish
and amend test procedures and energy conservation standards for CUACs
and CUHPs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE's
considerations of test procedures and standards for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ While ACUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h are included in the broader category of CUACs, they are not
addressed in this RFI. The test procedure and standards for those
smaller capacity ACUACs are being addressed in separate rulemakings.
See Docket Nos. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0031 and EERE-2022-BT-STD-0008,
respectively. All references to CUACs and CUHPs made in this
document exclude these lower capacity ACUACs.
Additionally, double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps (i.e.,
double-duct systems) are included in the broader category of ACUACs.
While the test procedure for double-duct systems is addressed in
this document, the standards for them are not. DOE will address
standards for double-duct systems in a future rulemaking.
Accordingly, all references to standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs
appearing in this document exclude double-duct systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\2\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \3\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, Sec. 441(a), 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. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) Commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment includes CUACs and CUHPs, which are
the subject of this NOPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use 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
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.
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 for particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6316(b)(2)(D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets forth the general criteria and
procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test
procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedure
prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to
produce test results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or
estimated operating cost of covered equipment during a representative
average use cycle and requires that test procedures not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
EPCA requires that the test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs be those
generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures
developed or recognized by the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') or by the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as
referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings
Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (``ASHRAE Standard 90.1''). (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended,
DOE must update its test procedure to be consistent with the amended
industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in
the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence,
that the amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test
burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(C))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CUACs and
CUHPs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1))
In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register, and afford interested persons an
opportunity (of not less than 45 days' duration) to present oral and
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42
U.S.C 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not
appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test
procedures. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1))
In EPCA, as amended by the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (``EPAct'')
(Pub. L. 102-486), Congress initially set mandatory energy conservation
standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment. (106 Stat. 2776, 2810-2814) Specifically,
the statute set standards for small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, packaged terminal air
conditioners (``PTACs'') and packaged terminal heat pumps (``PTHPs''),
warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. Id.
In initially establishing Federal energy conservation standards, the
EPAct amendments to EPCA prescribed standards at levels that generally
corresponded to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, as in effect on
October 24, 1992 (i.e., the 1989 edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1), for
each type of covered equipment listed.
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for
each type of covered equipment listed, each time ASHRAE amends Standard
90.1 with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When
triggered in this manner, DOE must undertake and
[[Page 31745]]
publish an analysis of the energy savings potential of amended energy
efficiency standards, and amend the Federal standards to establish a
uniform national standard at the minimum level specified in the amended
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and
convincing evidence to support a determination that a more-stringent
standard level as a national standard would produce significant
additional energy savings and be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii)) If DOE
decides to adopt as a national standard the minimum efficiency levels
specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such
standard not later than 18 months after publication of the amended
industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE
determines, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that a more-
stringent uniform national standard would result in significant
additional conservation of energy and is technologically feasible and
economically justified, then DOE must establish such more-stringent
uniform national standard not later than 30 months after publication of
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B))
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). In other words, 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 the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher
standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74
FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012).
However, DOE notes that Congress adopted amendments to these provisions
related to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment under the American Energy
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18,
2012)) (``AEMTCA''). In relevant part, DOE is prompted to act whenever
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to ``the standard levels
or design requirements applicable under that standard'' to any of the
enumerated types of commercial air conditioning, heating, or water
heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i))
EPCA does not detail the exact type of amendment that serves as a
triggering event. However, DOE has considered whether its obligation is
triggered in the context of whether the specific ASHRAE Standard 90.1
requirement on which the most current Federal requirement is based is
amended (i.e., the regulatory metric or design requirement). For
example, if an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changed the metric for
the standard on which the Federal requirement was based, DOE would
perform a crosswalk analysis to determine whether the amended metric
under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 resulted in an energy efficiency level that
was more stringent than the current DOE standard. Conversely, if an
amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 were to add an additional metric by
which a class of equipment is to be evaluated, but did not amend the
requirement that is in terms of the metric on which the Federal
requirement was based, DOE would not consider its obligation triggered.
In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute,
EPCA also provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the potential for
amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
Specifically, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under AEMTCA, DOE is
required to conduct an evaluation of each class of covered equipment in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``every 6 years'' to determine whether the
applicable energy conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must publish either a notice of proposed
rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose amended standards or a notification of
determination that existing standards do not need to be amended. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) In proposing new standards under the 6- year
review, DOE must undertake the same considerations as if it were
adopting a standard that is more stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) This is a separate
statutory review obligation, as differentiated from the obligation
triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment. While the statute
continues to defer to ASHRAE's lead on covered equipment subject to
Standard 90.1, it does allow for a comprehensive review of all such
equipment and the potential for adopting more-stringent standards,
where supported by the requisite clear and convincing evidence. That
is, DOE interprets ASHRAE's not amending Standard 90.1 with respect to
a product or equipment type as ASHRAE's determination that the standard
applicable to that product or equipment type is already at an
appropriate level of stringency, and DOE will not amend that standard
unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a more stringent
level is justified. As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing
the changes to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, EPCA directs DOE to publish in the
Federal Register for public comment an analysis of the energy savings
potential of amended standards within 180 days after ASHRAE Standard
90.1 is amended with respect to any of the covered equipment specified
under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
B. Background
1. Test Procedure
DOE's existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs appears at 10 CFR
431.96 (``Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency
of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps''). The test procedure
for ACUACs and ACUHPs specified in 10 CFR 431.96 references appendix A
to subpart F of part 431, ``Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of
Energy Consumption of Air-Cooled Small (>=65,000 Btu/h), Large, and
Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment''
(``appendix A''). Appendix A references certain sections of ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011, and updated by
addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 2011 (``ANSI/AHRI
340/360-2007''); ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ``Methods of Testing for
Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009''); and specifies other test
procedure requirements related to minimum external static pressure
(``ESP''), optional break-in period, refrigerant charging, setting
indoor airflow, condenser head pressure controls, tolerance on capacity
at part-load test points, and condenser air inlet temperature for part-
load tests. The DOE
[[Page 31746]]
test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity of
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/ h specified in 10 CFR 431.96
incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 (excluding Section 6.3
of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and including paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10
CFR 431.96). The DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated
cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h incorporates by reference
ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008, ``2008 Standard for Performance Rating
of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,''
approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011, and updated by addendum 1 in June
2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012 (``ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008'').
On October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016,
which included updates to the test procedure references for CUACs and
CUHPs (excluding ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h) to reference AHRI Standard 340/360-2015, ``2015
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2015''). On
July 25, 2017, DOE published an RFI (``July 2017 TP RFI'') to collect
information and data to consider amendments to DOE's test procedures
for certain categories of commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs. 82 FR 34427. As part of
the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE identified several aspects of the currently
applicable Federal test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs that might
warrant modifications, in particular: Incorporation by reference of the
most recent version of the relevant industry standard(s); efficiency
metrics and calculations; and clarification of test methods. 82 FR
34427, 34439-34448. DOE also requested comment on any additional topics
that may inform DOE's decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking,
including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the
procedures' accuracies. 82 FR 34427, 34448.
On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which
updated the AHRI Standard 340/360 reference to the 2019 edition, ``2019
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 340/360-2019''). On
January 25, 2022, AHRI approved an updated version of its test method
for CUACs and CUHPs, with the publication of AHRI Standard 340/360-
2022, ``2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI
340/360-2022'').
For ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE 90.1-2016 references ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008. After
the publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, AHRI published AHRI Standard
210/240-2017, ``2017 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment,'' (``AHRI 210/240-
2017''). ASHRAE 90.1-2019 references AHRI 210/240-2017 as the test
procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs. After the publication of AHRI 210/240-
2017, AHRI released two updates to the industry standard: (1) AHRI
Standard 210/240-2017 with Addendum 1, ``2017 Standard for Performance
Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment,''
(``AHRI 210/240-2017 with Addendum 1''), which was published in April
2019; and (2) AHRI Standard 210/240-2023, ``2023 Standard for
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump
Equipment,'' (``AHRI 210/240-2023''), which was published in May 2020.
Notably, ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h were removed from the scope of AHRI 210/240-2023. ECUACs
and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h were
instead included in the scope of AHRI 340/360-2022.
The updates in AHRI 340/360-2022, AHRI 210/240-2023, as well as
comments received in the interim that relate to the CUAC and CUHP test
procedure have prompted DOE to publish this RFI to investigate
additional aspects of the CUAC and CUHP test procedure. Upon further
evaluation, DOE has identified several issues that would benefit from
further comment. DOE discusses these topics in section II.A of this
document.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ In this RFI, DOE only summarizes comments received in
response to the July 2017 TP RFI that relate to the topics of
interest within this document. All other comments, which relate to
different topics, will be summarized in a subsequent document that
follows this RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Standards
In a direct final rule published on January 15, 2016, (``January
2016 direct final rule''), DOE adopted amended standards for ACUACs,
and ACUHPs. 81 FR 2420. For ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE adopted two tiers of
amended standards with staggered compliance dates and changed the
regulated cooling metric from energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') to
integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'').\5\ 81 FR 2420, 2531-
2532. The first tier of amended standards--with a compliance date of
January 1, 2018--are equivalent to the IEER minimum efficiency levels
for ACUACs and ACUHPs in ASHRAE 90.1-2016. The second tier of amended
standards--with a compliance date of January 1, 2023--are more
stringent than the levels in ASHRAE 90.1-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The EER metric only accounts for the efficiency of the
equipment operating at full load. The IEER metric factors in the
efficiency of operating at part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and
25 percent of capacity, as well as the efficiency at full load. This
is accomplished by weighting the full-load and part-load
efficiencies with the average amount of time operating at each
loading point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser
temperatures (i.e., reduced outdoor ambient temperatures) for part-
load operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The current energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs are
codified in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97.
Since publication of the January 2016 direct final rule, ASHRAE
published an updated version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (``ASHRAE 90.1-
2019''), which updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs to align with those adopted by DOE in the January 2016 direct
final rule (i.e., specifying two tiers of minimum levels for ACUACs and
ACUHPs, with a 2023 compliance date for the second tier).
As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the standards for
ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE published an RFI on May 12, 2020 (``May 2020 ECS
RFI'') to request data and information pursuant to its 6-year-lookback
review. 85 FR 27941. The May 2020 ECS RFI sought information to help
DOE inform its decisions, consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
DOE received multiple comments from stakeholders in response to the May
2020 ECS RFI that prompted DOE to publish this RFI to investigate
additional aspects of the ACUAC and ACUHP standards. Upon further
evaluation, DOE has identified several issues that would benefit from
further comment. DOE discusses these topics (including any comments
received in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that are related to these
topics) in section II.B of this document. DOE also received comments in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that relate to the CUAC and CUHP test
procedure, which are addressed in section in section II.A of this
document.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ In this RFI, DOE only summarizes comments received in
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI that relate to the topics of
interest within this RFI. All other comments received, which relate
to different topics, will be summarized and addressed in a
subsequent document that follows this RFI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 31747]]
C. Standards Rulemaking Process
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)) In making a determination of whether standards
for such equipment need to be amended, DOE must follow specific
statutory criteria. DOE must evaluate whether amended Federal standards
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A))
The significance of energy savings offered by a new or amended
energy conservation standard cannot be determined without knowledge of
the specific circumstances surrounding a given rulemaking.\7\ For
example, the United States has now rejoined the Paris Agreement on
February 19, 2021. As part of that agreement, the United States has
committed to reducing greenhouse gas (``GHG'') emissions in order to
limit the rise in mean global temperature.\8\ As such, energy savings
that reduce GHG emission have taken on greater importance.
Additionally, some covered products and equipment have most of their
energy consumption occur during periods of peak energy demand. The
impacts of these products on the energy infrastructure can be more
pronounced than products with relatively constant demand. In evaluating
the significance of energy savings, DOE considers differences in
primary energy and full-fuel cycle (``FFC'') effects for different
covered products and equipment when determining whether energy savings
are significant. Primary energy and FFC effects include the energy
consumed in electricity production (depending on load shape), in
distribution and transmission, and in extracting, processing, and
transporting primary fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum fuels),
and thus present a more complete picture of the impacts of energy
conservation standards. Accordingly, DOE evaluates the significance of
energy savings on a case-by-case basis. To determine whether a standard
is economically justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the
greatest extent practicable, the following seven factors:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Procedures, Interpretations, and Policies for Consideration
in New or Revised Energy Conservation Standards and Test Procedures
for Consumer Products and Commercial/Industrial Equipment, 86 FR
70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021).
\8\ See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 2021)
(``Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and Abroad'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the affected products;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the product compared to any increases in the initial cost, or
maintenance expenses;
(3) The total projected amount of energy and water (if applicable)
savings likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products
likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy and water conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals (No.
22-30087) granted the Federal government's emergency motion for stay
pending appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary injunction
issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv-1074-JDC-KK (W.D. La.). As a
result of the Fifth Circuit's order, the preliminary injunction is
no longer in effect, pending resolution of the Federal government's
appeal of that injunction or a further court order. Among other
things, the preliminary injunction enjoined the defendants in that
case from ``adopting, employing, treating as binding, or relying
upon'' the interim estimates of the social cost of greenhouse
gases--which were issued by the Interagency Working Group on the
Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on February 26, 2021--to monetize
the benefits of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence of
further intervening court orders, DOE will revert to its approach
prior to the injunction and present monetized benefits where
appropriate and permissible by law.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings............ Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Technological Feasibility............. Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. 1. Economic Impact on Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Manufacturers and Consumers. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. 2. Lifetime Operating Cost Markups for Product Price Determination.
Savings Compared to Increased Energy and Water Use Determination.
Cost for the Product. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
3. 3. Total Projected Energy Shipments Analysis.
Savings. National Impact Analysis.
4. 4. Impact on Utility or Screening Analysis.
Performance. Engineering Analysis.
5. 5. Impact of Any Lessening of Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Competition.
6. 6. Need for National Energy and Shipments Analysis.
Water Conservation. National Impact Analysis.
7. 7. Other Factors the Secretary Employment Impact Analysis.
Considers Relevant. Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.\9\
[[Page 31748]]
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for ACUACs
and ACUHPs.
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Test Procedure
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to determine whether, and if so how, amended
test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs would (1) more accurately or fully
comply with the requirements in EPCA that test procedures be reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy use during a
representative average use cycle, without being unduly burdensome to
conduct (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)); or (2) reduce testing burden.
1. External Static Pressure Levels
ESP requirements simulate the resistance that the indoor fan must
overcome from the air distribution system when installed in the field.
The indoor ESP requirements for CUACs and CUHPs in the current DOE test
procedure, through reference to AHRI 210/240-2008 and AHRI 340/360-
2007, are shown in Table II.1 of this document. These indoor ESP
requirements align with those in Table 7 of AHRI 340/360-2022, the most
up to date industry test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000
Btu/h were removed from the scope of the most recent version of AHRI
210/240, AHRI 210/240-2023, and were instead included in AHRI 340/
360-2022.
Table II.1--Indoor ESP Requirements for CUACs and CUHPs per AHRI 210/240-
2008 and AHRI 340/360-2007
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ESP (in
Rated cooling capacity (kBtu/h) H2O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
0 to 28.8 *................................................ 0.10
29 to 42.5 *............................................... 0.15
43 to 64.5 *............................................... 0.20
65 to 70................................................... 0.20
71 to 105.................................................. 0.25
106 to 134................................................. 0.30
135 to 210................................................. 0.35
211 to 280................................................. 0.40
281 to 350................................................. 0.45
351 to 400................................................. 0.55
401 to 500................................................. 0.65
501 and greater............................................ 0.75
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Only applicable for evaporatively and water-cooled units.
In 2015, the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (``ASRAC'') working group for commercial package air
conditioners (``Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group'')
agreed that the energy use analysis conducted for the January 2016
direct final rule should use higher ESPs than those specified in the
DOE test procedure to help better simulate field applications. 81 FR
2420, 2470. Specifically, the Commercial Package Air Conditioners
Working Group recommended ESPs of 0.75 and 1.25 in H2O,
which corresponded to the ESPs used in modified building simulations of
the cooling load. Id. The ESP values recommended by the Commercial
Package Air Conditioners Working Group did not vary with capacity. The
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group also developed a term
sheet of recommendations as part of the negotiated rulemaking that led
to the January 2016 direct final rule. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093) The
term sheet included recommendations for DOE to address in a future test
procedure rulemaking. Consistent with the Commercial Package Air
Conditioners Working Group's acknowledgement that higher ESPs would
better represent field applications, Recommendation #2 of the term
sheet recommended that DOE amend the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs
to better represent the total fan energy use by considering alternative
ESPs. (Id. at p. 2) Higher ESPs would result in higher fan power
measured during testing and would therefore result in fan energy use
comprising a larger fraction of total energy use measured during the
test.
In this RFI, DOE is further considering the Commercial Package Air
Conditioners Working Group's recommendation to incorporate higher ESPs
in the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs to better represent fan
energy use. There are several further indications that higher ESPs
might be more representative of field conditions. As described in the
following paragraphs, these include comments that DOE has received in
response to the July 2017 TP RFI and May 2020 ECS RFI, and ESP values
in the most recent version of AHRI 210/240.
In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE recognized that DOE had previously
received comment on the possibility that ESPs as measured in the field
may be higher than those found in the industry test standards. 82 FR
34427, 34440. DOE also requested comment on the typical field ESPs for
ECUACs and WCUACs, whether field-installed ESPs typically vary with
capacity, and whether the field applications of ECUACs and WCUACs are
different from ACUACs with regards to the typical ducting installed on
the system. Id.
In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE received comments from
several interested parties asserting that ESPs for ECUACs and WCUACs
are the same as those for ACUACs, because ESP is determined by building
and ducting types, and not the method for rejecting heat.\11\ Goodman
commented that ducting does not vary much among ECUACs, WCUACs, and
ACUACs, but that variable air volume (``VAV'') ductwork has different
ESPs than constant air volume and single-zone ductwork, and that ECUACs
are commonly installed with VAV ductwork.\12\ (Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0014 at p. 4) DOE also received comments from Carrier and
Goodman indicating that ESP increases
[[Page 31749]]
with capacity, because larger units serve larger areas, have longer
ducts, and have higher airflows. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at
p. 10; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 4)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 23; Appliance
Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American
Council for an Energy Efficiency Economy, Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council
(referred to collectively as ``Joint Advocates''), EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0009 at p. 5; California Investor-owned Utilities (``CA
IOUs''), EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3; Carrier Corporation
(``Carrier''), EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 10.
\12\ A VAV HVAC system controls the dry-bulb temperature within
a space by varying the volumetric flow of heated or cooled supply
air to the space. In contrast, a constant air volume HVAC system
always provides the same volumetric flow of air to the space.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE received several comments on representative ESP values in
response to the July 2017 TP RFI. AHRI and Carrier commented that
higher static pressures than prescribed in AHRI 340/360 may exist in
field installations due to poor practice of ductwork installation.
(AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 23; Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0006 at p. 9) Carrier indicated that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 includes
overall fan power allowances with ductwork pressure drops and other
system losses. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at pp. 9-10) Carrier
recommended that DOE conduct a field survey, stating that field ESP
values can vary from very low numbers with concentric ducts to values
up to 1.5 in H2O for smaller systems. (Id. at p. 9) Carrier
also indicated that field ESP values for VAV systems can range from 1
in H2O to 2.5 in H2O. (Id. at p. 10)
The Joint Advocates stated that the ESP requirements specified for
ACUACs and ACUHPs should be no lower than the two values of 0.75 and
1.25 in H2O that were used in the standards analysis
conducted for the January 2016 direct final rule. (Joint Advocates,
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0009 at p. 5) The CA IOUs suggested that DOE use
Title 24, Part 6 2016 Alternative Calculation Method (``ACM'')
Reference Manual as a resource for developing more field-representative
ESP requirements, because it contains static pressure set points that
were developed based on actual field conditions. (CA IOUs, EERE-2017-
BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3) DOE reviewed the standard design supply fan
static pressures specified on page 5-123 of the Title 24, Part 6 2016
ACM Reference Manual, and the specified values appear to be total
static pressure (i.e., the sum of ESP and internal static pressure),
although it is not explicitly clear. Further, the values do not appear
to be specific to CUACs and CUHPs; rather they apply to various kinds
of commercial heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (``HVAC'')
equipment. The values range from 2.5 in H2O to 4.5 in
H2O, increasing with airflow rate, the number of HVAC
zones,\13\ and the number of stories in a building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ An HVAC zone is a space or group of spaces, within a
building with heating, cooling, and ventilating requirements, that
are sufficiently similar so that desired conditions (e.g.,
temperature) can be maintained throughout using a single sensor
(e.g., thermostat or temperature sensor).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE received comments on ESP in response to the May
2020 ECS RFI. Verified stated that the ESPs in AHRI 340/360 are too
low, and they referenced a research report in which they tested air
conditioners with ESPs more representative of field conditions.
(Verified, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0011 at p. 5) That report indicated
that typical field ESPs are 0.5 in H2O for a CUAC with a
capacity of 36,000 Btu/h and 1.2 in H2O for a CUAC with a
capacity of 90,000 Btu/h.\14\ The CA IOUs reiterated their
recommendation that DOE increase the ESP requirements for CUACs and
CUHPs, and provided ESP data from two survey studies they conducted.
(CA IOUs, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0020 at pp. 3-4) Table II.2 contains
the ESP values and number of units for each survey study, sorted by
cooling capacity. The test, adjust, balance study used field data from
a commissioning agent, and the permit review study used permit
documents submitted to an online database. Both of these studies
indicate median ESPs considerably higher than the ESPs required in AHRI
340/360-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Page 40 of R. Mowris, E. Jones, R. Eshom, K. Carlson, P.
Jacobs, J. Hill. 2016. Laboratory Test Results of Commercial
Packaged HVAC Maintenance Faults. Prepared for the California Public
Utilities Commission. Prepared by Robert Mowris & Associates, Inc.
Available at: www.calmac.org/publications/RMA_Laboratory_Test_Report_2012-15_v3.pdf. The report refers to air
conditioner sizes using tons of refrigeration, where 1 ton of
refrigeration is equivalent to 12,000 Btu/h.
Table II.2--ESP Survey Results From CA IOUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Test, adjust, balance study Permit review study
---------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling capacity (Btu/hr) Number of Median ESP (in Number of Median ESP (in
CUACs H2O) CUACs H2O)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
71,000 to 105,000............................... 26 0.84 59 0.75
106,000 to 134,000.............................. 10 1.16 14 0.88
135,000 to 210,000.............................. 20 1.705 33 0.80
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The discussion in the previous paragraphs has outlined the
indications suggesting that ESPs higher than those in AHRI 340/360-2022
might be more representative of CUAC operation. Comments from Carrier
indicate that ESPs for CUACs can be as high as 2.5 in H2O,
and survey results from CA IOUs suggest that representative ESPs for
units with capacities of 65,000 Btu/ h to 210,000 Btu/h might range
from 0.75 in H2O to 1.7 in H2O. Comments also
suggest that ESP varies with building and duct type, but not with the
heat rejection mechanism of CUACs, and that ESP might increase with
capacity. DOE is considering revisions to the ESP requirements for
testing CUACs and CUHPs. While the data on field ESPs that have been
provided to DOE are informative, DOE is seeking further comments and
data on field ESPs that would inform potential revisions to ESP
requirements in the DOE test procedure.
Issue 1: DOE seeks further field data on the ESPs of CUACs and
CUHPs with capacities of 65,000 Btu/h to 210,000 Btu/h. DOE is also
seeking comment as to the most representative ESP values for these
capacities, and whether the ESP values previously mentioned in
stakeholder comments would be more representative.
Issue 2: DOE seeks field data on the ESPs of CUACs and CUHPs with
sizes greater than 210,000 Btu/h (for which commenters have not yet
included ESP data in their comments).
As discussed, the current DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs
with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h references ANSI/AHRI
210/240-2008. Table 11 of ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 specifies ESP
requirements that depend on capacity and range from 0.10 to 0.20 in
H2O for units with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h. These ESP requirements align with those specified for ECUACs and
WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h in Table 7 of
AHRI 340/360-2022. However, AHRI 210/240-2023 specifies higher ESP
requirements for three-phase ACUACs with a cooling capacity of less
[[Page 31750]]
than 65,000 Btu/h. Specifically, Table 10 of AHRI 210/240-2023
specifies an ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O for conventional
units.\15\ These ESP requirements in AHRI 210/240-2023 align with those
specified in DOE's updated test procedure for central air conditioners
and heat pumps (``CAC/HPs'') at table 4 of appendix M1 to subpart B of
10 CFR part 430 (``appendix M1'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Table 10 of AHRI 210/240-2023 indicates that conventional
units are central air conditioners and heat pumps other than the
following categories: Ceiling-mount and wall-mount blower-coil
systems, mobile home blower-coil systems, low-static blower-coil
systems, mid-static blower-coil systems, small-duct high-velocity,
and space-constrained product.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE's
preliminary analysis shows that these units may typically be installed
above dropped ceilings in commercial buildings. For ECUACs with a
cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE's preliminary analysis
shows that these units are primarily marketed for residential
applications, which suggests that it may be appropriate to align the
ESP requirements for ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000
Btu/ h with those specified for CAC/HPs in appendix M1 (i.e., 0.5 in
H2O for conventional units). Therefore, DOE is considering
whether it is appropriate for the same ESP requirements to be applied
for both WCUACs and ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000
Btu/h.
Issue 3: DOE seeks comment and field data on ESPs for ECUACs and
WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, and whether
the ESPs typically differ between ECUACs and WCUACs. For both ECUACs
and WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE
specifically requests feedback on whether representative ESPs would be
0.5 in H2O (from AHRI 210/240-2023), the range of 0.10 to 0.20 in H2O
(from AHRI 340/360-2022), or alternate values.
2. Heating Mode
For heating mode tests of CUHPs, Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022
includes ``Standard Rating Conditions'' for both a ``High Temperature
Steady-state Test for Heating'' and a ``Low Temperature Steady-state
Test for Heating'' (conducted at 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F outdoor air
dry-bulb temperatures, respectively). The relevant conditions for COP
testing in the current DOE test procedure are high temperature standard
rating conditions (i.e., 47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature).
The DOE test procedure does not require CUHPs to be tested at the low
temperature standard rating conditions and does not account for
performance at conditions lower than 47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb
temperature. DOE is considering whether incorporating heating
performance at temperatures lower than 47 [deg]F would improve the
representativeness of the DOE test procedure for CUHPs by reflecting a
wider range of operating conditions. As part of this examination, DOE
is further considering how such performance would differ between CUHPs
with different types of supplementary heat (e.g., electric resistance
heat and furnaces) and the climate regions in which CUHPs are typically
installed.
Issue 4: DOE requests data on the shipments of CUHPs by region. In
particular, DOE is interested in determining whether CUHPs are
predominantly installed in specific regions of the U.S.
Issue 5: DOE requests data on the distribution of supplementary
heating types (e.g., furnace, electric resistance, and none) shipped
with CUHPs, and if that distribution has changed over time or is
expected to change in the future.
Issue 6: DOE seeks comment and data as to the lowest outdoor
temperatures at which CUHPs typically operate in mechanical heating
mode (i.e., what are typical compressor cut-out temperatures for CUHPs)
and the extent to which the cut-out temperatures vary depending on the
type of supplementary heating installed with the CUHP (e.g., electric
resistance heat or furnace).
3. Potential Revisions to IEER Metric
a. Fan Operation in Modes Other Than Mechanical Cooling
The weighting factors for the IEER metric account for the hours of
operation when mechanical cooling \16\ is active; this includes
mechanical-only cooling and integrated economizer/mechanical cooling
operation \17\ in climate zones that require economizers to be
installed. The IEER metric does not account for economizer-only
cooling. The current DOE test procedure also requires that for units
that are unable to reduce their capacity at least as low as one of the
part load rating points, the EER for that rating point is calculated
using a cyclic degradation coefficient. The cyclic degradation equation
accounts for supply fan operation continuously running when the
compressor is cycling on and off to meet the required load and assumes
that the supply fan continues to run at the same speed as it would at
the lowest stage of compression.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ ``Mechanical cooling'' and ``mechanical heating'' refer to
a CUAC and CUHP using the refrigeration cycle to cool or heat the
indoor space, and do not refer to other forms of unit operation
(e.g., economizing, ventilation, or supplemental heating).
\17\ Integrated economizer/mechanical cooling operation occurs
when the use of economizing provides additional cooling but is not
sufficient to meet the cooling load, and simultaneous use of
mechanical cooling is also needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group term sheet
included recommendation #2, which recommended that DOE initiate a
rulemaking with a primary focus of better representing total fan energy
use in the field to better represent the total fan energy use,
including consideration of fan operation for operating modes other than
mechanical cooling and heating. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093 at p. 2)
Similarly, the ASRAC Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers Working
Group \18\ (``CIFB Working Group'') term sheet included recommendation
#3, which identified a need for DOE's test procedures and related
efficiency metrics for CUACs and CUHPs to more fully account for the
energy consumption of supply and condenser fans embedded in regulated
commercial air-conditioning equipment. (EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at
pp. 3-4) The CIFB Working Group recommended that in the next round of
test procedure rulemakings, DOE should consider revising efficiency
metrics that include energy use of supply and condenser fans to include
the energy consumption during all relevant operating modes (e.g.,
auxiliary heating mode, ventilation mode, and part-load operation).
(Id.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ In 2015, DOE initiated the CIFB Working Group to engage in
a negotiated rulemaking effort on the scope, test procedure, and
standards for fans and blowers. 80 FR 17359 (April 1, 2015). The
CIFB Working Group developed recommendations regarding the energy
conservation standards, test procedures, and efficiency metrics for
commercial and industrial fans and blowers in a term sheet (EERE-
2013-BT-STD-0006-0179).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and data on
the operation of CUAC and CUHP supply fans when there is no demand for
heating and cooling, as well as the impact of ancillary functions
(e.g., primary heating, auxiliary heating, and economizers) on the use
and operation of the supply fan. 82 FR 34427, 34440. DOE received
comments in response to this request in the July 2017 TP RFI and also
received comments on this topic in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
Multiple commenters expressed support for DOE to adopt a test
procedure for total fan energy consumption per recommendation #2 of the
Commercial Package Air
[[Page 31751]]
Conditioners Working Group term sheet. Several commenters recommended
evaluating energy use during operating modes other than mechanical
cooling and heating (e.g., economizing, ventilation, and supplemental
heating), including the frequency in which units operate in modes other
than mechanical cooling or heating, in an effort to improve the
representativeness of the test procedure. Commenters also indicated
that additional data on field installation and use would likely be
needed for further consideration of fan use in CUACs and CUHPs beyond
that captured in the current DOE test procedure.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at pp. 22-23; Joint
Advocates, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0009 at pp. 1 and 5; Appliance
Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy
Efficiency Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural Resources
Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships
(collectively referred to as ``Joint Commenters''), EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0042-0023 at pp. 2-3; CA IOUs EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3
and EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0020 at pp. 2-4; Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0006 at p. 9; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at pp. 3-4;
Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at pp. 2-3; Northwest Energy
Efficiency Alliance (``NEEA''), EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at pp. 2-
3; Verified Inc., EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0022 at pp. 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carrier stated that ASHRAE 90.1 and IECC require a minimum of two-
speed fan operation so that the fan runs at low speed during
ventilation and some of the economizer operation. (Carrier, EERE-2017-
BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 9) Carrier stated that fan power is typically
reduced by around 70 percent, as it varies to the cube of the fan
speed. (Id.) AHRI and Lennox stated that dual- or multi-speed fans are
used to reduce energy consumption by operating at low speed during
periods of ventilation or air circulation. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0011 at pp. 22-23; Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at pp. 2-3)
Based on the comments received, DOE recognizes a need to further
investigate fan operation during ventilation or air circulation/
filtration and economizing. Specifically, while comments received
indicate the prevalence of multi-speed fans that reduce fan speed in
these operating modes, the commenters did not indicate how the fan
speed in these operating modes typically compares to fan speed when
operating at the lowest stage of compressor cooling.
Issue 7: DOE seeks feedback on whether the supply airflow or fan
power for both variable air volume and staged air volume fans at the
lowest stage of compression is typically the same supply airflow or fan
power that would be seen during periods of ventilation, air
circulation, and economizer-only cooling. If not, DOE seeks feedback on
how the airflow or fan power during ventilation, air circulation, and
economizer-only cooling modes typically compares to those at the lowest
stage of compression.
DOE also recognizes a need to further investigate prevalence and
operating hours of economizers. Section 6.5.1 of ASHRAE 90.1-2019
specifies the use of economizers for cooling systems with a cooling
capacity greater than or equal to 54,000 Btu/h in all climate zones
within the U.S. except for climate zone 1A, which consists of southern
Florida, Hawaii, Guam, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.\20\
However, at the time IEER was developed in 2007, ASHRAE 90.1 did not
specify the use of economizers in climate zones 1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A (see
ASHRAE 90.1-2007). Climate zones 2A, 3A, and 4A represent 52 percent of
new commercial building construction according to a June 2020 report by
Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (``June 2020 PNNL report'') that
developed updated weighting factors for new construction buildings.\21\
Additionally, Carrier stated in response to the July 2017 TP RFI that
80 to 90 percent of CUAC units are built with economizers. (Carrier,
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 9) Given the large increase in
commercial buildings for which ASHRAE Standard 90.1 specifies the use
of economizers, DOE is interested in current data about economizers and
ACUACs and CUHPs. DOE is also considering revisions to how economizer
operating hours are accounted for in the IEER metric, particularly as
DOE considers inclusion of operating hours corresponding to economizer-
only cooling.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ ASHRAE 90.1-2019 does not require economizers in cooling
systems for which the rated efficiency exceeds the minimum cooling
efficiency by more than the corresponding factor specified in Table
6.5.1-2 of ASHRAE 90.1-2019, which specifies different factors for
each climate zone.
\21\ Lei, X., J.B. Butzbaugh, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, and M.I.
Rosenberg. 2020. Development of National New Construction Weighting
Factors for the Commercial Building Prototype Analyses (2003-2018).
PNNL-29787, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 8: DOE requests data on the fraction of CUACs and CUHPs
installed with economizers for each climate zone.
Issue 9: DOE requests data on the typical annual operating hours of
economizer-only cooling (i.e., no mechanical cooling) by building type
and climate zone.
Issue 10: DOE requests comments or data on the method that was used
to determine operating hours in each cooling mode (i.e., mechanical
cooling only mode, integrated economizing mode, and economizer-only
cooling mode) during development of the current IEER metric. DOE is
particularly interested in any aspects of that method that would be
important to incorporate when revising the IEER metric.
b. Building Types
DOE understands that the current IEER metric was developed using
the cooling loads for three building types (offices, retail, and
schools), the shipment-weighted market shares for those three building
types, and weather data from 15 representative cities, which each
represented one of the 15 International Energy Conservation Code
(``IECC'') climates zones in the United States. These data were used to
develop weighting factors at four different load conditions (100, 75,
50, and 25 percent) to represent the average load profile of an ACUAC
or CUHP in the U.S. While DOE understands that offices, retail, and
schools are large markets for ACUACs and CUHPs, there are other
building types that have large volumes of ACUAC and CUHP installations.
The DOE commercial reference buildings \22\ and the ASHRAE building
prototypes \23\ assign a packaged rooftop air conditioner as the
default HVAC equipment to the prototypes for full-service restaurants,
quick-service restaurants, and non-refrigerated warehouses. The updated
weighting factors for new construction building prototypes in the June
2020 PNNL report \24\ show that full-service restaurants, quick-service
restaurants, and non-refrigerated warehouses \25\ represent over 14
percent of new construction buildings. Therefore, DOE is considering
revisions to the IEER metric to include additional building types
beyond offices, retail, and schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ Available at www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/commercial-reference-buildings.
\23\ Available at www.energycodes.gov/prototype-building-models.
\24\ Lei, X., J.B. Butzbaugh, Y. Chen, J. Zhang, and M.I.
Rosenberg. 2020. Development of National New Construction Weighting
Factors for the Commercial Building Prototype Analyses (2003-2018).
PNNL-29787, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
\25\ DOE notes that a typical warehouse has three zones and not
all are conditioned by a CUAC or CUHP, only the fine storage area
(i.e., area for storing fine art, antiques, and other items that are
temperature-sensitive). The bulk storage area is not air-
conditioned. The warehouse office is small enough that it would use
a smaller capacity unit than a CUAC or CUHP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 11: DOE requests the shipment-weighted market share by
building type for CUACs and CUHPs.
Issue 12: DOE requests comment or data on the supporting basis and
method used to determine hourly cooling loads (for each building type
[[Page 31752]]
and by building location) in developing the current IEER metric. DOE is
particularly interested in any aspects of that method that would be
important to incorporate if it should decide to revise the IEER metric.
4. Power Consumption of Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs
WCUACs are typically installed in the field with separate heat
rejection components that reject heat from the water loop to outdoor
ambient air, but these separate heat rejection components are not
included in testing of WCUACs. These heat rejection components
typically consist of a circulating water pump (or pumps) and a cooling
tower. To account for the power that would be consumed by these
components in field installations, Section 6.1.1.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022
specifies that WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h
shall add 10.0 W to the total power of the unit for every 1,000 Btu/h
of cooling capacity.
The industry test procedure for dedicated outdoor air systems
(``DOASes'')--AHRI 920-2020, ``2020 Standard for Performance Rating of
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units''--includes a
different method to account for the additional power consumption of
water pumps, with a pump power adder referred to as the ``water pump
effect'' being added to the calculated total unit power. Specifically,
Section 6.1.6 of AHRI 920-2020 specifies that the water pump effect is
calculated with an equation dependent on the water flow rate and liquid
pressure drop across the heat exchanger, including a term that assumes
a liquid ESP of 20 feet of water column. DOE is considering whether the
AHRI 920-2020 approach would also be representative for WCUACs.
Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on the representativeness of the AHRI
920-2020 approach to account for power consumption of external heat
rejection components in WCUACs, as compared to the approach in AHRI
340/360-2022.
Water-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps rely on pumps to
circulate the water that transfers heat to or from refrigerant in the
water-to-refrigerant coil. Most water-cooled units rely on external
circulating water pumps; however, some water-cooled units in other
equipment categories (e.g., water-source heat pumps and DOASes) have
integral pumps included within the unit that provide this function. For
such units with integral pumps, test provisions are warranted to
specify how to test with the integral pump--e.g., provisions specifying
the liquid ESP at which to operate the integral pump. AHRI 340/360-2022
does not contain provisions specific to testing WCUACs with integral
pumps. In contrast, DOE recently proposed to require that water-source
DOASes with integral pumps be tested with a liquid ESP of 20 ft of
water column (consistent with the liquid ESP assumed in the
aforementioned water pump effect calculation specified in AHRI 920-2020
for DOASes). 86 FR 36018, 36060. DOE is not aware of any WCUACs on the
market that contain integral pumps, but if such units exist, then
additional test provisions may be warranted.
Issue 14: DOE seeks comment on the prevalence of WCUACs with
integral pumps. If such units exist, DOE seeks comment on what liquid
ESP would be representative for testing.
B. Energy Conservation Standards
In the following sections, DOE has identified several issues on
which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs may be warranted.
DOE is considering amended energy conservation standards for ACUACs
and ACUHPs (excluding double-duct systems). In the May 2020 ECS RFI,
DOE sought comment regarding the various analyses that DOE routinely
uses to analyze more stringent standards. 85 FR 27941. DOE received
feedback from interested parties in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI
indicating that it was premature to consider amended standards before
the 2023 compliance date for the second tier of amended standards
adopted in the January 2016 direct final rule.\26\ At the present time,
DOE recognizes that the ACUAC and ACUHP market is much closer to the
2023 compliance date than the market observed at the time of the May
2020 ECS RFI. Therefore, DOE welcomes any additional feedback in
response to the questions posed in the May 2020 ECS RFI that may have
changed since the publication of the May 2020 ECS RFI, particularly to
the extent that ACUAC and ACUHP markets and technologies have changed
in the last two years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 3; Trane, EERE-2019-
BT-STD-0042-0016 at p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, DOE is seeking specific feedback on alternative
refrigerants (as raised by interested parties) and shipments in the
following subsections.
1. Alternative Refrigerants
In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE presented the technology options
screened out in the January 2016 direct final rule, which included
alternative refrigerants, and requested comment generally on whether
these technology options would continue to be screened out. 85 FR
27941, 27947. Several stakeholders provided feedback on the topic of
alternative refrigerants.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ AHRI, EERE-2010-BT-STD-0042-0014 at pp. 2, 4-7; Joint
Commenters, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0023 at pp. 3-4; CA IOUs, EERE-
2019-BT-STD-0042-0020 at p. 5; Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013
at pp. 5, 7-8, 10; Goodman, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0017 at p. 3;
NEEA, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at p. 9; Trane, EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0042-0016 at pp. 4-5, 7, 10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI and Carrier recommended that DOE not consider alternative
refrigerants as a technology option on the bases of technological
feasibility and practicability to manufacture, install, and service.
(AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p. 5; Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0042-0013 at p. 7) The Joint Commenters suggested that DOE consider
alternative refrigerants as a technology option for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
(Joint Commenters, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0023 at pp. 3-4) The Joint
Commenters referenced testing conducted by Oak Ridge National
Laboratory and Trane that found using R-452B as a replacement for R-
410A improves efficiency by 5 percent. (Id.) NEEA and Trane recommended
that DOE consider the effect of new low global warming potential
(``GWP'') refrigerants on efficiency, cost, design, and size of the
units. (NEEA, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0024 at p. 9; Trane, EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0042-0016 at p. 7)
Several commenters stated that the use of low-GWP refrigerants with
A2L categorization (i.e., mildly flammable) would require new
compressors, additional refrigerant detection sensors, enhanced leak
testing for coils, and would result in increased manufacturing and
channel distribution complexity. (AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at
p. 6; Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013 at p. 5; Goodman, EERE-2019-
BT-STD-0042-0017 at p. 3; Trane, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0016 at p. 5)
AHRI stated that the combined costs to add sensors, controls, and other
components for these new refrigerants and the costs of those
refrigerants will increase cost 10 to 15 percent over the minimum
designs for the 2018 standards. (AHRI, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0014 at p.
7)
DOE recognizes the transition away from the use of R-410A
refrigerant in ACUACs and ACUHPs and the multiple drivers of this
transition, including state \28\ and ongoing Environmental
[[Page 31753]]
Protection Agency (``EPA'') regulations.\29\ DOE understands that the
implementation of mildly flammable refrigerants at the quantities that
would be typically required for installation in commercial buildings
requires an allowance under state and local building codes. Further,
DOE is aware that multiple manufacturers of ACUACs and ACUHPs have
already announced plans to transition to a specific low-GWP refrigerant
for their ACUAC and ACUHP models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ For example, California has implemented regulations that
limit the use of high-GWP refrigerants. Beginning January 1, 2025,
California will prohibit the use of refrigerants with a GWP greater
than 750 in CUACs and CUHPs. See California Code of Regulations,
Title 17, Division 3, Chapter 1, Subchapter 10 Climate Change,
Article 4, Subarticle 5, section 95374(c).
\29\ EPA completed a rulemaking to phase down production and
consumption of hydrofluorocarbons (``HFCs'') through an allowance
allocation on October 5, 2021 (86 FR 55116) and set allowances for
2022 on October 7, 2021 (86 FR 55841). Additionally, EPA published a
notice of its intent to conduct a traditional (i.e., non-negotiated)
rulemaking on December 29, 2021, with regard to restricting, fully,
partially, or on a graduated schedule, the use of regulated
substances, which includes high-GWP refrigerants, in a sector or
subsector in which the regulated substance is used. 86 FR 74080.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE notes that the earliest possible compliance date for amended
standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs, barring any amendment of standards by
ASHRAE 90.1, would be January 1, 2029. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)
Given the timelines of both enacted and potential state and Federal
regulatory changes regarding the phasedown of high-GWP refrigerants,
DOE understands low-GWP refrigerants may be used in ACUACs and ACUHPs
in the U.S. by the time potential amended standards could take effect.
As such, to inform an engineering analysis to evaluate more stringent
standards, DOE is interested in the effects of the implementation of
low-GWP refrigerants on efficiency and cost of ACUACs and ACUHPs.
Issue 15: DOE requests data on the impact of low-GWP refrigerants
as replacements for R-410A on (1) the cooling and heating capacities
and compressor power of ACUACs and ACUHPs at various temperature
conditions, including, but not limited to, the temperatures currently
included in the IEER metric; and (2) the size and design of heat
exchangers and compressors used in ACUACs and ACUHPs.
Issue 16: DOE seeks any additional data and feedback on the cost of
implementing low-GWP refrigerants in ACUACs and ACUHPs beyond the
comments received in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI.
2. Shipments
DOE develops shipments forecasts of CUACs and CUHPs to calculate
the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards
on energy consumption, net present value, and future manufacturer cash
flows. DOE shipments projections are based on available historical data
broken out by equipment class and capacity. Current shipments estimates
allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the
market and inform the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution.
The national impact of a higher efficiency level is measured relative
to the distribution of efficiency levels in the no-new-standards case.
Therefore, the development of a no-new-standards case efficiency
distribution has a significant impact on the national energy savings
and new present value calculation in the national impact analysis. DOE
received shipments data for years 2014 and earlier as part of the
rulemaking for the January 2016 direct final rule, but DOE has no
shipments data for years 2015 to the present. A time series of
shipments is useful for projecting shipments accurately in the future
because historical shipments are important for predicting the future
market. A time series also enables DOE to better forecast trends in
shipments by efficiency level in the national impact analysis.
In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested shipments data for ACUACs
and ACUHPs but received none. 85 FR 27941, 27953. Given the importance
of shipments data and the no-new-standards case efficiency distribution
to the national impact analysis, DOE is again requesting current data
on shipments and efficiency for ACUACs and ACUHPs.
Issue 17: DOE requests current shipments data for ACUACs and ACUHPs
by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency level. If available, DOE
requests historical shipments data going back to 2015. If disaggregated
fractions of annual shipments are not available at the equipment class
level by equipment size and efficiency level, DOE requests more
aggregated fractions of annual shipments at the equipment category
level.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified in the DATES section of this document, comments and
information on matters addressed in this document and on other matters
relevant to DOE's consideration of amended test procedures for CUACs
and CUHPs and amended energy conservations standards for ACUACs and
ACUHPs (excluding double-duct systems). After the close of the comment
period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin
collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office 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 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. If this instruction is followed, 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.
[[Page 31754]]
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If
you do not want your personal contact information to be publicly
viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English and 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).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the
comment period in this process. Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and assist
DOE. Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive
future notices and information about this process or would like to
request a public meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on May 16,
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 May 17, 2022.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2022-10911 Filed 5-24-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P