12802 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 sixyear-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: 

2019ASHRAE2020STD0008@

ee.doe.gov. 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 energy.standards@usdoj.gov 

on or before the date specified in the 

DATES section. Please indicate in the 

‘‘Subject’’ line of your email the title 

and Docket Number of this proposed 

rulemaking. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 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: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: 

Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment, review other public 

comments and the docket, or participate 

in the webinar, contact the Appliance 

and Equipment Standards Program staff 

at (202) 287–1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Rule 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemaking for 

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 °F to 85 °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 GlycolCooled CRACs 

5. Calculating Overall Changes in 

Measured Efficiency and Capacity From 

Test Procedure Changes 

(a) Calculation of Crosswalked NSenCOP 

Levels 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12803 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

2All 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). 

3Additionally, 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. 

(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 C1 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)). 

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. 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12804 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4For 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. 

5Btu/h refers to ‘‘British thermal units per hour.’’ 

6The 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. 

DOE normally performs multiple indepth 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 leadtimes considered to determine this 

compliance date. 

TABLE I–1—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR FLOOR-MOUNTED CRACS

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 4

Minimum NSenCOP 

efficiency 

Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum NSenCOP 

efficiency 

Downflow Upflow 

ducted 

Upflow 

non-ducted 

Horizontal 

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 

Btu/h.

2.58 6 2.55 ≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.04 2.55 

≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 

Btu/h.

2.36 2.33 ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

1.89 2.47 

Air-Cooled with 

Fluid Economizer.

<80,000 Btu/h ............................

≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 

Btu/h.

2.70 

2.58 

2.67 

6 2.55 

<65,000 Btu/h ............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

6 2.09 

6 1.99 

2.65 

2.55 

≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 

Btu/h.

2.36 2.33 ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

1.81 2.47 

Water-Cooled ... <80,000 Btu/h ............................

≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 

Btu/h.

2.82 

2.73 

2.79 

6 2.70 

<65,000 Btu/h ............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.43 

2.32 

2.79 

2.68 

≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 

Btu/h.

2.67 2.64 ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

2.20 2.60 

Water-Cooled 

with Fluid 

Economizer.

<80,000 Btu/h ............................

≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 

Btu/h.

2.77 

2.68 

2.74 

6 2.65 

<65,000 Btu/h ............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.35 

2.24 

2.71 

2.60 

≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 

Btu/h.

2.61 2.58 ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

2.12 2.54 

Glycol-Cooled .. <80,000 Btu/h ............................

≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 

Btu/h.

2.56 

2.24 

2.53 

2.21 

<65,000 Btu/h ............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.08 

1.90 

2.48 

2.18 

≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 

Btu/h.

2.21 2.18 ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

1.81 2.18 

Glycol-Cooled 

with Fluid 

Economizer.

<80,000 Btu/h ............................

≥80,000 Btu/h and <295,000 

Btu/h.

2.51 

2.19 

2.48 

2.16 

<65,000 Btu/h ............................

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 

Btu/h.

2.00 

1.82 

2.44 

2.10 

≥295,000 Btu/h and <930,000 

Btu/h.

2.15 2.12 ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 

Btu/h.

1.73 2.10 

TABLE I–2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CEILING-MOUNTED CRACS

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum NSenCOP efficiency 

Ducted Non-ducted 

Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge Condenser ........... <29,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.05 2.08 

≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ................................ 2.02 2.05 

≥65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 1.92 1.94 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12805 

7The 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)). 

TABLE I–2—PROPOSED ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR CEILING-MOUNTED CRACS—Continued 

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum NSenCOP efficiency 

Ducted Non-ducted 

Air-Cooled with Free Air Discharge Condenser and 

Fluid Economizer.

<29,000 Btu/h ...............................................................

≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ................................

2.01 

1.97 

2.04 

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 Economizer.<29,000 Btu/h ...............................................................

≥29,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ................................

1.82 

1.78 

1.85 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12806 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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)) 

final rule to establish the more stringent 

standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) 

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)) 

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 airconditioning 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12807 

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) 

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

Equipment type Net sensible cooling capacity 

Minimum SCOP efficiency 

Downflow Upflow 

Air-Cooled ..................................................................... <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.20 2.09 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.10 1.99 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 1.90 1.79 

Water-Cooled ................................................................ <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.60 2.49 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.50 2.39 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.40 2.29 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ........................ <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.55 2.44 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.45 2.34 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.35 2.24 

Glycol-Cooled ............................................................... <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.50 2.39 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.15 2.04 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.10 1.99 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid Economizer ....................... <65,000 Btu/h ............................................................... 2.45 2.34 

≥65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h .............................. 2.10 1.99 

≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ............................ 2.05 1.94 

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 glycolcooled 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 ceilingmounted 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12808 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10The 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). 

Federal standards in 10 CFR 431.97 for 

air-cooled equipment classes. 

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

Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense 

Council, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.

Joint Commenters ......................... Efficiency Organizations. 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ............................. AHRI .............................................. Trade Association. 

California Investor Owned Utilities .......................................................... CA IOUs ........................................ 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. 

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 ceilingmounted 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12809 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.003</GPH>

Table Tll-1: Energy Efficiency Levels for CRACs in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 

and the Corresponding Federal Energy Conservation Standards 

Energy DOE Efficiency Federal Triggered by ASHRAE Standard Levels in 

90.1-2019 Equipment Current Federal ASHRAE Energy ASHRAE 

Class1 Equipment Class1 Standard Conservation Standard 

90.1- Standards2 90.1-2019 

20192 Amendment? 

Air-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/h, Air-Cooled, <65,000 2.70 2.20 SCOP Yes Downflow Btu/h, Downflow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, NIA 2.65 NIA Yes3 

Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled, <80,000 Btu/h, Air-Cooled, <65,000 2.67 2.09 SCOP Yes Upflow Ducted Btu/h, Upflow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled, <65,000 Btu/h, Air-Cooled, <65,000 2.16 2.09 SCOP Yes Upflow Non-Ducted Btu/h, Upflow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled, 2:80,000 and Air-Cooled, 2:65,000 2.58 

<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow and <240,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.10 SCOP Yes 

Downflow 

Air-Cooled, 2:65,000 and 2.55 <240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal- NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes3 

flow 

Air-Cooled, 2:80,000 and Air-Cooled, 2:65,000 2.55 <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow and <240,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 1.99 SCOP No4 

Ducted Upflow 

Air-Cooled, 2:65,000 and Air-Cooled, 2:65,000 2.04 <240,000 Btulh, Upfiow and <240,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 1.99 SCOP Yes 

Non-Ducted Upflow 

Air-Cooled, 2:295,000 Air-Cooled, 2:240,000 2.36 

Btu/h, Downflow Btu/hand <760,000 NSenCOP 1.90 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Downflow 

Air-Cooled, 2:240,000 NIA 2.47 NIA Yes3 

Btu/h, Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled, 2:295,000 Air-Cooled, 2:240,000 2.33 

Btu/h, Upflow Ducted Btu/hand <760,000 NSenCOP 1.79 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Upflow 

Air-Cooled, 2:240,000 Air-Cooled, 2:240,000 1.89 Btu/hand <760,000 1.79 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted Btu/h. Unflow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, <65,000 2.70 economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, 2.20 SCOP Yes5 

Downflow Btu/h, Downflow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled with fluid 2.65 economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes3 

Horizontal-flow 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, <65,000 2.67 economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, 2.09 SCOP Yes5 

Upflow Ducted Btu/h, Upflow NSenCOP 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, <65,000 2.09 economizer, <65,000 Btulh, 2.09 SCOP No4 

Upflow Non-Ducted Btu/h, Upflow NSenCOP 
12810 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.004</GPH>

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, ~5,000 2.58 economizer, 2':80,000 and and <240,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.10 SCOP Yes5 

<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow Downflow 

Air-Cooled with fluid 

economizer, 2':65,000 and NIA 2.55 NIA Ycs3 

<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal- NScnCOP 

flow 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, ~5,000 economizer, 2':80,000 and and <240,000 Btu/h, 2.55 1.99 SCOP No4 

<295,000 Btu/h, Upflow Upflow NSenCOP 

Ducted 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, 2':65,000 economizer, 2':65,000 and and <240,000 Btu/h, 1.99 1.99 SCOP No4 

<240,000 Btu/h, Upflow Upflow NSenCOP 

Non-Ducted 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, 2':240,000 2.36 economizer, 2':295,000 Btu/hand <760,000 NSenCOP 1.90 SCOP Yes5 

Btu/h. Downflow Btu/h. Downflow 

Air-Cooled wiU1 fluid 2.47 economizer, 2':240,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes3 

Blulh, Horizontal-flow 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, 2':240,000 2.33 economizer, 2':295,000 Btu/hand <760,000 NSenCOP 1.79 SCOP Yes5 

Btu/h. Upflow Ducted Btu/h. Upflow 

Air-Cooled with fluid Air-Cooled, 2':240,000 1.81 economizer, 2':240,000 Btu/hand <760,000 NSenCOP 1.79 SCOP Yes5 

Btu/h. Uoflow Non-ducted Btu/h. Uoflow 

Water-Cooled, <80,000 Water-Cooled, 2.82 <65,000 Btu/h, 2.60 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Downflow Downflow NSenCOP 

Water-Cooled, <65,000 NIA 2.79 NIA Yes3 

Btu/h, Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Water-Cooled, <80,000 Water-Cooled, 2.79 

Btu/h, Upflow Ducted <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.49 SCOP Yes 

Uoflow 

Water-Cooled, <65,000 Water-Cooled, 2.43 

Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.49 SCOP Yes 

Upflow 

Water-Cooled, 2':80,000 and Water-Cooled, 2.73 

<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow 2':65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 2.50 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Downflow 

Water-Cooled, 2':65,000 and 2.68 <240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal- NIA NScnCOP NIA Ycs3 

flow 

Water-Cooled, 2':80,000 and Water-Cooled, 2.70 <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow 2':65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 2.39 SCOP No4 

Ducted Btu/h, Uoflow 

Water-Cooled, 2':65,000 and Water-Cooled, 2.32 <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow 2':65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 2.39 SCOP Yes 

Non-ducted Btu/h, Upflow 

Water-Cooled, 

Water-Cooled, :C::295,000 2':240,000 Btu/hand 2.67 2.40 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Downflow <760,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 

Downflow 

Water-Cooled, :C::240,000 NIA 2.60 NIA Yes3 

Btu/h, Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Water-Cooled, :C::295,000 Water-Cooled, 2.64 2.29 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Upflow Ducted 2':240,000 Btu/hand NSenCOP 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12811 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.005</GPH>

- --

<760,000 Btu/h, 

Upflow 

Water-Cooled, 

Water-Cooled, ~240,000 ~240,000 Btu/hand 2.20 2.29 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted <760,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 

Uoflow 

Water-Cooled with fluid W atcr-Coolcd with 

economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, fluid economizer, 2.77 2.55 SCOP Yes <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP Downflow Downilow 

Water-Cooled with fluid 2.71 economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes3 

Horizontal-flow 

Water-Cooled with fluid Water-Cooled with 

economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, fluid economizer, 2.74 2.44 SCOP Yes 

Upflow Ducted <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 

Uoflow 

Water-Cooled with fluid Water-Cooled with 

economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, fluid economizer, 2.35 2.44 SCOP Yes <65,000 Btu/h, NScnCOP Upflow Non-ducted Uoflow 

Water-Cooled with fluid Water-Cooled with 

economizer, ~80,000 and fluid economizer, 2.68 2.45 SCOP Yes ~5,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP <295,000 Btu/h, Downflow Bti1/h Downflow 

Water-Cooled with fluid 

economizer, ~65,000 and NIA 2.60 NIA Yes3 

<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal- NSenCOP 

flow 

Water-Cooled with fluid Water-Cooled with 

economizer, ~80,000 and fluid economizer, 2.65 2.34 SCOP No4 

<295,000 Btu/h, Upflow ~5,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 

Ducted Btu/h, Uoflow 

Water-Cooled with fluid Water-Cooled with 

economizer, ~65,000 and fluid economizer, 2.24 2.34 SCOP Yes <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow ~5,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 

Non-ducted Btu/h. Uoflow 

Water-Cooled with 

Water-Cooled with fluid fluid economizer, 2.61 economizer, ~95,000 ~240,000 Btu/hand NSenCOP 2.35 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Downflow <760,000 Btu/h, 

Downflow 

Water-Cooled with fluid 2.54 economizer, ~240,000 NIA NIA Yes3 

Btu/h. Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Water-Cooled with 

Water-Cooled with fluid fluid economizer, 2.58 economizer, ~295,000 ~240,000 Btulh and NScnCOP 2.24 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Upflow Ducted <760,000 Btu/h, 

Upflow 

Water-Cooled with 

Water-Cooled with fluid fluid economizer, 2.12 economizer, ~240,000 ~240,000 Btu/hand NSenCOP 2.24SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted <760,000 Btu/h, 

Uoflow 

Glycol-Cooled, <80,000 Glycol-Cooled, 2.56 

Btu/h, Downilow <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.50 SCOP Yes 

Downflow 
12812 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.006</GPH>

Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 NIA 2.48 NIA Yes3 

Btu/h, Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Glycol-Cooled, <80,000 Glycol-Cooled, 2.53 <65,000 Btu/h, 2.39 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Upflow Ducted Upflow Ducted NSenCOP 

Glycol-Cooled, <65,000 Glycol-Cooled, 2.08 

Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.39 SCOP Yes 

Upflow Non-ducted 

Glycol-Cooled, :::80,000 Glycol-Cooled, 2.24 and <295,000 Btu/h, :::65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 2.15 SCOP Yes 

Downflow Btu/h. Downflow 

Glycol-Cooled, :::65,000 2.18 and <240,000 Btu/h, NIA NSenCOP NIA Ycs3 

Horizontal-flow 

Glycol-Cooled, :::80,000 Glycol-Cooled, 2.21 and <295,000 Btu/h, :::65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 2.04 SCOP Yes 

Upflow Ducted Btu/h, Upflow 

Glycol-Cooled, :::65,000 Glycol-Cooled, 1.90 and <240,000 Btu/h, :::65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 2.04 SCOP Yes 

Unnow Non-ducted Btulh, Unnow 

Glycol-Cooled, 

Glycol-Cooled, :::295,000 2:240,000 Btu/hand 2.21 2.10 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Downflow <760,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 

Downfiow 

Glycol-Cooled, :::240,000 NIA 2.18 NIA Yes3 

Btu/h, Horizontal-flow NSenCOP 

Glycol-Cooled, 

Glycol-Cooled, :::295,000 2:240,000 Btu/hand 2.18 1.99 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Upflow Ducted <760,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 

Unflow Ducted 

Glycol-Cooled, 

Glycol-Cooled, :::240,000 2:240,000 Btu/hand 1.81 1.99 SCOP Yes Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted <760,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 

Upflow Non-ducted 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid Glycol-Cooled with 

fluid economizer, 2.51 economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.45 SCOP Yes 

Down-flow Downflow 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid 2.44 economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes3 

Horizontal-flow 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid Glycol-Cooled with 

fluid economizer, 2.48 economizer, <80,000 Btu/h, <65,000 Btu/h, NSenCOP 2.34 SCOP Yes 

Upflow Ducted Upflow Ducted 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid Glycol-Cooled with 

fluid economizer, 2.00 economizer, <65,000 Btu/h, <65,000 Btulh, NSenCOP 2.34 SCOP Yes 

Upflow Non-ducted Upflow Non-ducted 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid Glycol-Cooled with 

economizer, :::80,000 and fluid economizer, 2.19 2.10 SCOP Yes 

<295,000 Btu/h, Downflow ~65,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 

Btu/h, Downflow 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid 

economizer, ~5,000 and NIA 2.10 NIA Ycs3 

<240,000 Btu/h, Horizontal- NSenCOP 

flow 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12813 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.007</GPH>

Glycol-Cooled with fluid Glycol-Cooled with 

economizer, ~80,000 and fluid economizer, 2.16 1.99 SCOP Yes <295,000 Btu/h, Upflow ~5,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 

Ducted Btu/h, Uoflow 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid Glycol-Cooled with 

economizer, ~65,000 and fluid economizer, 1.82 1.99 SCOP Yes <240,000 Btu/h, Upflow ~5,000 and <240,000 NSenCOP 

Non-ducted Btu/h, Uoflow 

Glycol-Cooled with 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid fluid economizer, 2.15 economizer, ~295,000 ~240,000 Btu/h. and NSenCOP 2.05 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Downflow <760,000 Btu/h, 

Downflow 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid 2.10 economizer, ~240,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes3 

Btu/h, Horizontal-flow 

Glycol-Cooled with 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid fluid economizer, 2.12 economizer, ~295,000 ~240,000 Btu/h. and NSenCOP 1.94 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Upflow Ducted <760,000 Btu/h, 

Uoflow Ducted 

Glycol-Cooled with 

Glycol-Cooled with fluid fluid economizer, 1.73 economizer, ~240,000 ~240,000 Btu/h. and NSenCOP 1.94 SCOP Yes 

Btu/h, Upflow Non-ducted <760,000 Btu/h, 

Uoflow Non-ducted 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air NIA 2.05 NIA Yes6 

discharge condenser, NSenCOP 

Ducted, <29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 2.02 discharge condenser, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

Ducted, ~9,000 Btu/hand 

<65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air NIA 1.92 NIA Yes6 

discharge condenser, NSenCOP 

Ducted. >65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air NIA 2.08 NIA Yes6 

discharge condenser, Non- NSenCOP 

ducted. <29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 2.05 discharge condenser, Non- NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

ducted, ~29,000 Btu/h. and 

<65,000 Btulh 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air NIA 1.94 NIA Yes6 

discharge condenser, Non- NSenCOP 

ducted, >65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 2.01 discharge condenser with NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

fluid economizer, Ducted, 

<29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Air- 1.97 cooled with free air NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

discharge condenser with 
12814 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.008</GPH>

- -

fluid economizer, Ducted, 

2:29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 1.87 discharge condenser with NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

fluid economizer, Ducted, 

>65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 2.04 discharge condenser with NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

fluid economizer, Nonducted <29.000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 

discharge condenser with NIA 2.00 NIA Yes6 

fluid economizer, Non- NSenCOP 

ducted, 2:29,000 Btu/hand 

<65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with free air 1.89 discharge condenser with NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

fluid cconomi7.cr, Nonducted, >65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted NIA 1.86 NIA Yes6 

condenser, Ducted, <29,000 NSenCOP 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted NIA 1.83 NIA Yes6 

condenser, Ducted, 2:29,000 NSenCOP 

Btu/hand <65.000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted NIA 1.73 NIA Yes6 

condenser, Ducted, ~65,000 NSenCOP 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted NIA 1.89 NIA Yes6 

condenser, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

<29,000 Btulh 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 1.86 condenser, Non-ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Ycs6 

2:29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted NIA 1.75 NIA Yes6 

condenser, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

>65.000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 1.82 condenser with fluid NIA NIA Yes6 

economizer, Ducted, NSenCOP 

<29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 

condenser with fluid NIA 1.78 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Ducted, NSenCOP 

2:29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12815 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.009</GPH>

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 1.68 condenser with fluid NIA NIA Yes6 

economizer, Ducted, NSenCOP 

>65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 1.85 condenser with fluid NIA NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

<29 000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 

condenser with fluid NIA 1.81 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

;;;:29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Aircooled with ducted 1.70 condenser with fluid NIA NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

>65,000 Btulh 

Ceiling-mounted, Water- 2.38 cooled, Ducted, <29,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Water- 2.28 cooled, Ducted, ;;;:29,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

Btu/h and <65 000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Water- 2.18 cooled, Ducted, ~5,000 NIA NScnCOP NIA Ycs6 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Water- 2.41 cooled, Non-ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

<29 000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Watercooled, Non-ducted, NIA 2.31 NIA Yes6 

;;;:29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 NSenCOP 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Water- 2.20 cooled, Non-ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

>65,000 Btulh 

Ceiling-mounted, Watercooled with fluid NIA 2.33 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Ducted, NSenCOP 

<29 000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Watercooled with fluid 2.23 economizer, Ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

;;;:29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Watercooled with fluid NIA 2.13 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Ducted, NSenCOP 

>65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Watercooled with fluid NIA 2.36 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

<29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Water- 2.26 cooled with fluid NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, 
12816 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.010</GPH>

~29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Watercooled with fluid NIA 2.16 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

>65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycol- 1.97 cooled, Ducted, <29,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycol- 1.93 cooled, Ducted, ~29,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

Btu/hand <65,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycol- 1.78 cooled, Ducted, 2'.65,000 NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycol- 2.00 cooled, Non-ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

<29 000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled, Non-ducted, NIA 1.98 NIA Yes6 

~29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 NSenCOP 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycol- 1.81 cooled, Non-ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

>65,000 Btu/11 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled with fluid NIA 1.92 NIA Yes6 

economi7.er, Ducted, NSenCOP 

<29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled with fluid 1.88 economizer, Ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

~29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled with fluid NIA 1.73 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Ducted, NSenCOP 

>65 000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled with fluid NIA 1.95 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

<29,000 Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled with fluid 1.93 economizer, Non-ducted, NIA NSenCOP NIA Yes6 

~29,000 Btu/hand <65,000 

Btu/h 

Ceiling-mounted, Glycolcooled with fluid NIA 1.76 NIA Yes6 

economizer, Non-ducted, NSenCOP 

~65,000 Btu/h 

1 Note that equipment classes specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 do not necessarily correspond to 

the equipment classes defined in DOE' s regulations. Capacity ranges in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 are 

specified in terms ofNSCC, as measured according to AHRI 1360-2017 (which, as discussed, would 

produce the same results for the crosswalked classes as AHRI 1360-202X Ord.ft). Capacity rnnges in 

current Federal equipment classes arc specified in terms ofNSCC, as measured according to 

ANSI/ ASHRAE 127-2007. As discussed in section 111.C, for certain equipment classes AHRI 1360-2017 

(and AHRI 1360-202X Draft) results in increased NSCC measurements as compared to the NSCC 

measured in accordance with ANSI/ ASHRAE 127-2007. Therefore, some CRACs would switch classes 

(i.e., move into a higher capacity equipment class) if the equipment class boundaries are not changed 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12817 

11ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 includes 

efficiency levels for horizontal-flow and ceilingmounted classes of CRACs. DOE does not currently 

prescribe standards for horizontal-flow or ceilingmounted classes, so these classes were not included 

in the crosswalk analysis. 

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. 

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 nonducted 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 nonducted 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 aircooled 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.011</GPH>

accordingly. Consequently, DOE performed a "capacity crosswalk" analysis to translate the capacity 

boundaries for certain equipment classes. 

2 For CRACs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 adopted efficiency levels in terms ofNSenCOP based on test 

procedures in AHRl 1360-2017, while DOE's current standards are in terms of SCOP based on the test 

procedures in ANSI/ ASHRAE 127-2007. DOE performed a crosswalk analysis to compare the stringency 

of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 efficiency levels with the current Federal standards. See section III.C 

of this NOPR for further discussion on the crosswalk analysis performed for CRACs. 

3 Horizontal-flow CRACs are new equipment classes included in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 and 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (and not subject to current Federal standards), but DOE does not have any 

data to indicate the market share of horizontal-flow units. In the absence of data regarding market share 

and efficiency distribution, DOE is unable to estimate potential savings for horizontal-flow equipment 

classes. 

4 The crosswalk analysis indicates that there is no difference in stringency of efficiency levels for this class 

between ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and the current Federal standard. 

5 Air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers are new equipment classes included in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1-2019 and are currently subject to the Federal standard for air-cooled CRACs. DOE does not have data 

regarding market share for air-cooled CRACs with fluid economizers. Although DOE is unable to 

disaggregate the estimated potential savings for these equipment classes, energy savings for these 

equipment classes are included in the savings presented for air-cooled CRACs. 

6 Ceiling-mounted CRACs are new equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 (and not subject to 

current Federal standards), and DOE does not have any data to indicate the market share of ceilingmounted units. In the absence of data regarding market share and efficiency distribution, DOE is unable to 

estimate potential savings for ceiling-mounted equipment classes. 
12818 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

12 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is 

available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms. 

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 categories Current DOE test procedure 

(ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007) 

AHRI 1360–202X Draft 

Return air dry-bulb temperature (RAT) Upflow ducted and downflow 75 °F dry-bulb temperature 85 °F dry-bulb temperature. 

Entering water temperature (EWT) ...... Water-cooled ........................ 86 °F 83 °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 kBtu/h.

0.4 in H2O. 

≥295 kBtu/h and 

<760 kBtu/h.

0.5 in H2O. 

Adder for heat rejection fan and pump 

power (add to total power consumption).

Water-cooled and glycolcooled.No added power consumption for 

heat rejection fan and pump 

5 percent of NSCC for water-cooled 

CRACs. 

 7.5 percent of NSCC for glycolcooled 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 antibacksliding 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 nondisclosure 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. 

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 °F to 85 °F 

ANSI/ASHRAE 127–2007, which is 

referenced by DOE’s current test 

procedure, specifies a return air dryVerDate Sep<11>2014 18:05 Mar 04, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\07MRP2.SGM 07MRP2

khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12819 

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). 

bulb temperature (RAT) of 75 °F for 

testing all CRACs. AHRI 1360–202X 

Draft specifies a RAT of 85 °F for upflow 

ducted and downflow CRACs, but 

specifies an RAT for upflow non-ducted 

units of 75 °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 °F 

than at 75 °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. 

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 °F to 95 °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 °F for watercooled CRACs, while AHRI 1360–202X 

Draft specifies an entering water 

temperature of 83 °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 publiclyavailable 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 upflowducted 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12820 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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

Net sensible cooling capacity range 

(kBtu/h) * 

ESP requirements 

in DOE’s current 

test procedure 

(ANSI/ASHRAE 

127–2007) 

(in H2O) 

ESP requirements 

in AHRI 1360–202X 

draft 

(in H2O) 

Approx. average 

percentage 

increase in SCOP 

Approx. average 

percentage 

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 watercooled 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: 

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.012</GPH> EP07MR22.013</GPH>

SCOP 

SCOPi = 1 + (x * SCOP) 

Equation 1 

Equation2 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12821 

14At 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 °F/67 °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 °F/67 °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 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. 

As mentioned, ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 and AHRI 1360–202X Draft 

include updated equipment class 

capacity boundaries for only upflowducted 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. 

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 upflowducted 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.014</GPH> EP07MR22.015</GPH>

NSenCOP1 

NSenCOP = 1 + (x4 * NSenCOP1) 

Boundary1 =Boundary* (1 + y1) * (1 + y2 ) * (1 + y3) 

Equation3 

Equation 4 
12822 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.016</GPH>

Table 111-4: Crosswalk Results 

Cross- CrossCouden Current Current Test walked walked ASHRAE 

Airflow Federal Procedure Current Standard Crosswalk 

ser Configura NSCC Standar Changes NSCC Federal 90.1-2019 Compariso System Range Range 

Type tion (kBtu/h) d Affecting (kBtu/h Standard NSenCO n 

(SCOP) Efficiency* ) (NSenCO P Level 

P) 

Air- Downflow <65 2.20 <80 2.62 2.70 More 

cooled Stringent 

Air- Downflow 2:65 and 2.10 2:80 and 2.50 2.58 More 

cooled <240 <295 Stringent 

Air- 2:240 and 2:295 More Downflow 1.90 and 2.26 2.36 cooled <760 <930 Stringent 

Aircooled 

with Downflow <65 2.20 Return air <80 2.62 2.70 More 

fluid dry-bulb Stringent 

economi temperature 

zer 

Aircooled 

with Downflow 2:65 and 2.10 2:80 and 2.50 2.58 More 

fluid <240 <295 Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Air- 2:240 and 2:295 More cooled Downflow 1.90 and 2.26 2.36 

with <760 <930 Stringent 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12823 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.017</GPH>

fluid 

economi 

zer 

Water- Downflow <65 2.60 <80 2.73 2.82 More 

cooled Stringent 

Water- Downflow ~65 and 2.50 ~80 and 2.63 2.73 More 

cooled <240 <295 Stringent 

Water- ~240 and Return air ~295 More Downflow 2.40 and 2.54 2.67 cooled <760 dry-bulb <930 Stringent 

Water- temperature 

cooled Condenser with Downflow <65 2.55 entering <80 2.68 2.77 More 

fluid water Stringent 

economi temperature zer 

Water- Add cooled allowance with Downflow ~65 and 2.45 for heat ~80 and 2.59 2.68 More 

fluid <240 rejection <295 Stringent 

economi components zer to total 

Waterpower input cooled 

with ~240 and ~295 More Downflow 2.35 and 2.50 2.61 fluid <760 <930 Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Glycol- Downflow <65 2.50 <80 2.43 2.56 More 

cooled Stringent 

Glycol- Downflow ~65 and 2.15 ~80 and 2.15 2.24 More 

cooled <240 <295 Stringent 

Glycol- ~240 and ~295 More Down-flow 2.10 and 2.11 2.21 cooled <760 <930 Stringent 

Glycolcooled 

with Downflow <65 2.45 Add <80 2.39 2.51 More 

fluid allowance Stringent 

economi for heat 

zer rejection 

Glycol- components 

cooled to total 

with Downilow ~65 and 2.10 power input ~80 and 2.11 2.19 More 

fluid <240 <295 Slringenl 

economi 

zer 

Glycolcooled ~295 with Downflow ~240 and 2.05 and 2.06 2.15 More 

fluid <760 <930 Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Air- Upflow <65 2.09 Return air <80 2.65 2.67 More 

cooled Ducted dry-bulb Stringent 

Air- Upflow ~65 and 1.99 temperature ~80 and 2.55 2.55 Equivalent cooled Ducted <240 <295 

Air- Upflow :::,:240 and ESP :::,:295 More 

cooled Dueled <760 1.79 requirement and 2.26 2.33 Slringenl s <930 
12824 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.018</GPH>

Aircooled 

with Upflow <65 2.09 <80 2.65 2.67 More 

fluid Ducted Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Aircooled 

with Upflow ~65 and 1.99 ~80 and 2.55 2.55 Equivalent fluid Ducted <240 <295 

economi 

zer 

Aircooled ~295 with Upflow ~240 and 1.79 and 2.26 2.33 More 

fluid Ducted <760 <930 Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Water- Upflow <65 2.49 <80 2.77 2.79 More 

cooled Ducted Strinirent 

Water- Upflow ~65 and 2.39 Return air ~80 and 2.70 2.70 Equivalent cooled Ducted <240 <295 dry-bulb ~295 Water- Upflow ~240 and 2.29 temperature and 2.56 2.64 More 

cooled Ducted <760 <930 Stringent 

Water- Condenser 

cooled entering 

with Upflow water More 

fluid Ducted <65 2.44 temperature <80 2.72 2.74 Stringent 

economi ESP zer requirement Watercooled s 

with Upflow ~65 and 2.34 Add ~80 and 2.65 2.65 Equivalent fluid Ducted <240 <295 

economi allowance 

for heat zer rejection Watercooled components 

to total ~295 with Upflow ~240 and 2.24 power input and 2.51 2.58 More 

fluid Ducted <760 <930 Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Glycol- Upflow <65 2.39 <80 2.47 2.53 More 

cooled Ducted Return air Stringent 

Glycol- Upflow ~65 and 2.04 dry-bulb ~80 and 2.19 2.21 More 

cooled Ducted <240 temperature <295 Stringent 

Glycol- Upflow ~240 and ~295 More 1.99 ESP and 2.11 2.18 cooled Ducted <760 requirement <930 Stringent 

Glycol- s 

cooled 

with Upflow <65 2.34 Add <80 2.43 2.48 More 

fluid Ducted allowance Stringent 

economi for heat 

zer rejection 

Glycol- components 

cooled Upflow c::65 and 1.99 

to total c::80 and 2.14 2.16 More 

with Ducted <240 power input <295 Stringent 

fluid 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12825 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.019</GPH>

economi 

zer 

Glycolcooled ~295 with Upflow ~240 and 1.94 and 2.07 2.12 More 

fluid Ducted <760 <930 Stringent 

economi 

zer 

Air- Upflow More 

cooled Non- <65 2.09 <65 2.09 2.16 Stringent Ducted 

Air- Upflow ~65 and ~65 and More 

cooled Non- <240 1.99 <240 1.99 2.04 Stringent Ducted 

Air- Upflow ~240 and ~240 More 

cooled Non- <760 1.79 and 1.79 1.89 Stringent Ducted <760 

Aircooled Upflow with 

fluid Non- <65 2.09 No changes <65 2.09 2.09 Equivalent 

economi Ducted 

zer 

Aircooled Upflow with ~65 and ~65 and 

fluid Non- <240 1.99 <240 1.99 1.99 Equivalent 

economi Ducted 

zer 

Aircooled Upflow ~240 with ~240 and More 

fluid Non- <760 1.79 and 1.79 1.81 Stringent 

economi Ducted <760 

zer 

Water- Upflow More 

cooled Non- <65 2.49 <65 2.25 2.43 Stringent Ducted 

Water- Upflow ~65 and ~65 and More 

cooled Non- <240 2.39 <240 2.17 2.32 Stringent Ducted 

Water- Upflow ~240 and Condenser ~240 More 

cooled Non- <760 2.29 entering and 2.09 2.20 Stringent Ducted water <760 

Water- temperature 

cooled Upflow with More 

fluid Non- <65 2.44 Add <65 2.21 2.35 Stringent 

economi Ducted allowance 

zer for heat 

Water- rejection 

cooled components 

with Upflow ~65 and to total ~65 and More 

fluid Non- <240 2.34 power input <240 2.13 2.24 Stringent 

economi Ducted 

zer 

Water- Upflow ~240 cooled ~240 and More 

with Non- <760 2.24 and 2.05 2.12 Stringent 

fluid Dueled <760 
12826 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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., horizontalflow 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.020</GPH>

economi 

zer 

Glycol- Upflow More Non- <65 2.39 <65 2.03 2.08 cooled Ducted Stringent 

Glycol- Upflow 2:65 and 2:65 and More Non- 2.04 1.77 1.90 cooled Ducted <240 <240 Stringent 

Glycol- Upflow 2:240 and 2:240 More Non- 1.99 and 1.73 1.81 cooled Ducted <760 <760 Stringent 

Glycolcooled Upflow Add 

with allowance More 

fluid Non- <65 2.34 for heat <65 1.99 2.00 Stringent 

economi Ducted rejection 

zer components 

Glycol- to total 

cooled Upflow power input 

with 2:65 and 2:65 and More 

fluid Non- <240 1.99 <240 1.73 1.82 Stringent 

economi Ducted 

zer 

Glycolcooled Upflow 2:240 with 2:240 and More 

fluid Non- <760 1.94 and 1.69 1.73 Stringent 

economi Ducted <760 

zer 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12827 

15www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BTSTD-0029-0021. 

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-yearlookback (see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(D)). 

In the standards case, equipment that is 

more efficient gradually replaces lessefficient 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 aircooled 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 ceilingmounted 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12828 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

16www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2011-BTSTD-0029-0021. 

of the May 2012 final rule technical 

support document.16

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.021</GPH>

Table IV-1: National UEC Estimates (kWh/year) for CRAC Systems1 

Current Net Current Federal ASHRAE Standard 

Condenser Airflow Standard 90.1-2019 

System Type Configuration Sensible Cooling 

Capacity UEC UEC NSenCOP <kwh) NSenCOP fkwh) 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.62 27,411 2.70 26,599 

~65,000 Btu/hand 2.50 102,762 2.58 99,575 Downflow <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.26 246,011 2.36 235,587 

Air-cooled Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.65 27,100 2.67 26,897 

Upflow, ducted ~240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.26 247,104 2.33 238,620 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.09 34,362 2.16 33,248 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12829 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.022</GPH>

2:65,000 Btu/hand 1.99 129,097 2.04 125,933 <240,000 Btu/h Upflow, non- 2:240,000 Btu/h ducted 

and <760,000 1.79 310,606 1.89 294,172 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.73 24,726 2.82 23,850 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 2.63 92,123 2.73 88,749 Downflow <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.54 208,727 2.67 198,564 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.77 24,280 2.79 24,106 

Water-cooled Upilow, ducted 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.56 207,096 2.64 200,821 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.25 29,891 2.43 27,677 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 2.17 112,169 2.32 104,433 Upflow, non- <240,000 Btu/h 

ducted 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.09 254,888 2.20 240,985 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.68 15,443 2.77 14,885 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 2.59 57,537 2.68 55,390 Downflow <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.50 129,787 2.61 123,819 

Btu/h 

Water-cooled <65,000 Btu/h 2.72 15,159 2.74 15,048 

with fluid Upflow, ducted 2:240,000 Btu/h 

economizer and <760,000 2.51 128,753 2.58 125,259 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.21 18,657 2.35 17,546 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 2.13 70,022 2.24 66,271 Upflow, non- <240,000 Btu/h 

ducted 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.05 158,416 2.12 152,438 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.43 24,671 2.56 23,419 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 2.15 101,844 2.24 97,297 Downflow <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.11 227,098 2.21 215,794 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.47 24,272 2.53 23,696 

Glycol-cooled 2:65,000 Btu/hand 

<240,000 Btu/h 2.19 99,975 2.21 98,618 

Upflow, ducted 

2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.11 226,021 2.18 218,764 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.03 29,679 2.08 28,823 Upflow, non- 2:65,000 Btu/hand ducted 1.77 123,833 1.90 114,708 <240,000 Btu/h 
12830 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

17U.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/). 18See www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/. 

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 CRACcooled 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) 

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 mid2022.18 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. 

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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.023</GPH>

~240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 1.73 275,668 1.81 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.39 19,813 2.51 

~65,000 Btu/hand 2.11 81,668 2.19 

Downflow <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.06 182,034 2.15 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.43 19,567 2.48 

Glycol-cooled ~65,000 Btu/hand 2.14 80,142 2.16 

with fluid Upflow, ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

economizer ~240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 2.07 182,034 2.12 

Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 1.99 23,796 2.00 

~65,000 Btu/hand 1.73 99,135 1.82 Upflow, non- <240,000 Btu/h 

ducted ~240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 1.69 221,888 1.73 

Btu/h 

1 The air-cooled, upflow ducted, > 65,000 Btu/hand< 240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, > 

65,000 Btu/hand< 240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, > 65,000 Btu/h 

and< 240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in the table as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 

levels for these classes are equivalent to the current Federal standard. 

263,483 

18,866 

78,312 

174,414 

19,094 

79,400 

176,882 

23,677 

94,232 

216,757 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12831 

confidential national shipments data 

from AHRI to develop the shipments 

and stock model. Much of the thirdparty 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 

≥65,000 Btu/h 

and <240,000 

Btu/h 

≥240,000 Btu/h 

and <760,000 

Btu/h 

Total 

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 horizontalflow, 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 horizontalflow, 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12832 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, ceilingmounted, 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-newstandards 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 nonew-standard case distribution for 

CRACs are presented in Table IV–3. 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.024</GPH>

Table IV-3: No-New-Standards Case Efficiency Distribution for CRACs1 

ASHRAE 

Federal STANDA 

Condenser Airflow Current Net Baseline RD 90.1-

System Configuration Sensible Cooling Market 2019 

Type Capacity Share Level 

Market 

Share 

<65,000 Btu/h 2% 98% 

Downflow 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 

<240,000 Btu/h 22% 78% 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 20% 80% <760,000 Btu/h 

Upflow, <65,000 Btu/h 0% 100% 

Air-cooled 2:240,000 Btu/hand ducted <760,000 Btu/h 4% 96% 

<65,000 Btu/h 4% 96% 

Upflow, non- 2:65,000 Btu/hand 11% 89% 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 23% 77% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 11% 89% 

Downflow 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 15% 85% <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 24% 76% <760,000 Btu/h 

Water- <65,000 Btu/h 0% 100% 

Upflow, 

cooled ducted 2:240,000 Btu/hand 13% 87% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 11% 89% 

Upflow, non- 2:65,000 Btu/hand 21% 79% 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 27% 73% <760,000 Btu/h 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12833 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.025</GPH>

<65,000 Btu/h 2% 98% 

Downflow 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 

<240,000 Btu/h 13% 87% 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 38% 62% 

Water- <760,000 Btu/h 

cooled with Upflow, <65,000 Btu/h 2% 98% 

fluid ducted 2:240,000 Btu/hand 13% 87% 

economizer <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 8% 92% 

Upflow, non- 2:65,000 Btu/hand 16% 84% 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 20% 80% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 57% 43% 

Downflow 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 

<240,000 Btu/h 31% 69% 

2:240,000 Btu/h and 36% 64% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 20% 80% 

Glycol- Upflow, 2:65,000 Btu/hand 6% 94% 

cooled ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 30% 70% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 20% 80% 

Upflow, non- 2:65,000 Btu/hand 38% 62% 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 30% 70% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 57% 43% 

Downflow 

2:65,000 Btu/hand 31% 69% <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 31% 69% <760,000 Btu/h 

Glycol- <65,000 Btu/h 10% 90% 

cooled with Upflow, 2:65,000 Btu/hand 8% 92% 

fluid ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

economizer 2:240,000 Btu/hand 33% 67% <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2% 98% 

Upflow, non- 2:65,000 Btu/hand 30% 70% 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

2:240,000 Btu/hand 27% 73% <760,000 Btu/h 

1 The air-cooled, upflow ducted, > 65,000 Btu/hand< 240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, > 

65,000 Btu/hand< 240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, > 65,000 Btu/h 

and< 240,000 Btu/hequipment classes are not included in the table as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 

for these equipment classes is equivalent to the current Federal standard. 
12834 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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

Equipment class 

Analyzed compliance 

dates for efficiency 

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 <240,000 Btu/h ............................................................................................. 10/23/2022 

Equipment with current NSCC ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ................................................................................. 10/23/2022 

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., 1015 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12835 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.026</GPH>

Table IV-5: Potential Energy Savings of Adopting ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 

forCRACs1 

ASHRAE 

Current Net Site Primary Condenser Airflow Efficiency Sensible Cooling Savings Savings System Type Configuration Level 

Capacity NSenCOP Quads quads 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.70 0.0000 0.0000 

Downflow 

~65,000 Btu/hand 

<240,000 Btu/h 2.58 O.OOll 0.0029 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.36 0.0071 0.0185 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.67 0.0000 0.0000 

Air-cooled Upflow, ducted ~240,000 Btu/hand 

<760,000 Btu/h 2.33 0.0001 0.0003 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.16 0.0000 0.0001 

Upflow, non- ~65,000 Btu/hand 2.04 0.0003 0.0007 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 1.89 0.0014 0.0037 <760,000 Btu/h 

Water-cooled Downflow <65,000 Btu/h 2.82 0.0000 0.0000 

FFC 

Savings 

quads 

0.0000 

0.0030 

0.0193 

0.0000 

0.0003 

0.0001 

0.0008 

0.0039 

0.0000 
12836 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.027</GPH>

~65,000 Btu/hand 2.n 0.0001 0.0001 0.0001 <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.67 0.0003 0.0007 0.0008 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.79 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Upflow, ducted ~240,000 Btu/hand 2.64 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.43 0.0001 0.0004 0.0004 

Upflow, non- ~65,000 Btu/hand 2.32 0.0002 0.0005 0.0006 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.20 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.77 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Downflow 

~65,000 Btu/hand 2.68 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.61 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 <760,000 Btu/h 

Water-cooled <65,000 Btu/h 2.74 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

with fluid Upflow, ducted ~240,000 Btu/hand 

economizer <760,000 Btu/h 2.58 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.35 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Upflow, non- ~65,000 Btu/hand 2.24 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.12 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.56 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Downflow 

~65,000 Btu/hand 2.24 0.0001 0.0002 0.0002 <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.21 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.53 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Glycol-cooled U pflow, ducted 

~65,000 Btu/hand 

<240,000 Btu/h 2.21 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.18 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.08 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

Upflow, non- ~65,000 Btu/hand 1.90 0.0001 0.0003 0.0003 

ducted <240,000 Btu/h 

~240,000 Btu/hand 1.81 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.51 0.0000 0.0001 0.0001 

Downflow 

~65,000 Btu/hand 

<240.000 Btu/h 2.19 0.0003 0.0007 0.0007 

~240,000 Btu/hand 2.15 0.0009 0.0022 0.0023 

Glycol-cooled <760.000 Btu/h 

with fluid <65,000 Btu/h 2.48 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

economi,:er ~65,000 Btu/hand 

Upflow, ducted <240,000 Btu/h 2.16 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 

~240.000 Btu/hand 2.12 0.0002 0.0004 0.0004 <760,000 Btu/h 

<65.000 Btu/h 2.00 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12837 

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 morestringent 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 caseby-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-bycase 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.028</GPH>

2:65,000 Btu/hand 1.82 0.0003 0.0007 

Upflow, non- <240,000 Btu/h 

ducted 2:240,000 Btu/hand 

<760,000 Btu/h 1.73 0.0001 0.0003 

1 The air-cooled, upflow ducted, > 65,000 Btu/hand< 240,000 Btu/h; water-cooled, upflow ducted, > 

65,000 Btu/hand< 240,000 Btu/h; and water-cooled with fluid economizer, upflow ducted, > 65,000 Btu/h 

and< 240,000 Btu/h equipment classes are not included in the table as the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 

level for these equipment classes is equivalent to the current Federal standard. 

0.0008 

0.0003 
12838 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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. 

20As 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. 

(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

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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12840 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.029</GPH>

Table V-1: Proposed Standards for Floor-Mounted CRACs 

Minimum NSenCOP Minimum NSenCOP 

Equipment Net sensible efficiency Net sensible efficiency 

cooling cooling Upflow type capacity21 Downflow Upflow capacity Horizontal 

ducted non- flow ducted 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h 2.16 2.65 

2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

and <295,000 2.58 2.55 and <240,000 2.04 2.55 

Air-Cooled Btu/h Btu/h 

2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <930,000 2.36 2.33 and <760,000 1.89 2.47 

Btu/h Btu/h 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h 2.09 2.65 

2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Air-Cooled with and <295,000 2.58 2.55 and <240,000 1.99 2.55 

Fluid Btu/h Btu/h 

Economizer 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <930,000 2.36 2.33 and <760,000 1.81 2.47 

Btu/h Btu/h 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.82 2.79 <65,000 Btu/h 2.43 2.79 

2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

and <295,000 2.73 2.70 and <240,000 2.32 2.68 

Water-Cooled Btu/h Btu/h 

2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <930,000 2.67 2.64 and <760,000 2.20 2.60 

Btu/h Btu/h 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.77 2.74 <65,000 Btu/h 2.35 2.71 

2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Water-Cooled and <295,000 2.68 2.65 and <240,000 2.24 2.60 

with a Fluid Btu/h Btu/h 

Economizer 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <930,000 2.61 2.58 and <760,000 2.12 2.54 

Btu/h Btu/h 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.56 2.53 <65,000 Btu/h 2.08 2.48 

2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

and <295,000 2.24 2.21 and <240,000 1.90 2.18 

Glycol-Cooled Btu/h Btu/h 

2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <930,000 2.21 2.18 and <760,000 1.81 2.18 

Btu/h Btu/h 

Glycol-Cooled <80,000 Btu/h 2.51 2.48 <65,000 Btu/h 2.00 2.44 

with a Fluid 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Economizer and <295,000 2.19 2.16 and <240,000 1.82 2.10 

Btu/h Btu/h 

21 DOE has used 930,000 Btu/has the adjusted upper capacity limit for downflow and upflow ducted 

CRACs in the analysis presented in this notice (see Section TTT.C). The 930,000 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. 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12841 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.030</GPH>

2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

and <930,000 2.15 2.12 and <760,000 1.73 2.10 

Btu/h Btu/h 
12842 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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, 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.031</GPH>

Table V-2: Proposed Standards for Ceiling-Mounted CRACs 

Minimum NSenCOP 

Net sensible cooling efficiency 

Equipment type capacity 

Ducted NonDucted 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.05 2.08 

Air-Cooled with Free Air 229,000 Btu/hand 2.02 2.05 Discharge Condenser <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 1.92 1.94 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.01 2.04 

Air-Cooled with Free Air 229,000 Btu/hand Discharge Condenser and 1.97 2.00 

Fluid Economizer <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 1.87 1.89 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.86 1.89 

Air-Cooled with Ducted 229,000 Btu/hand 1.83 1.86 Condenser <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 1.73 1.75 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.82 1.85 

Air-Cooled with Fluid 229,000 Btu/hand Economizer and Ducted 1.78 1.81 

Condenser <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 1.68 1.70 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.38 2.41 

Water-Cooled 229,000 Btu/hand 2.28 2.31 <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 2.18 2.20 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.33 2.36 

Water-Cooled with Fluid 229,000 Btu/hand 2.23 2.26 Economizer <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 2.13 2.16 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.97 2.00 

Glycol-Cooled 229,000 Btu/hand 1.93 1.98 <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 1.78 1.81 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.92 1.95 

Glycol-Cooled with Fluid 229,000 Btu/hand 1.88 1.93 Economizer <65,000 Btu/h 

265,000 Btu/h 1.73 1.76 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12844 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22The business size standards are listed by 

NAICS code and industry description and are 

available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--tablesize-standards (Last accessed July 26th, 2021). 

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. 

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 subscriptionbased 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 noncompliant 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12846 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

23The 2007 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards 

Rulemaking Peer Review Report’’ is available at the 

following website: energy.gov/eere/buildings/ 

downloads/energy-conservation-standardsrulemaking-peer-review-report-0. 

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. 

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/publicmeetings-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 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 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 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2
12848 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 431 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 

2461 note. 

■ 2. Section 431.92 is amended by 

adding, in alphabetical order, the 

definition for ‘‘Ducted Condenser’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 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). 

* * * * * 

■ 3. Section 431.97 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (f), redesignating Table 

13 as Table 15; and 

■ b. Revising paragraph (e). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 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 

(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. 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.032</GPH>

TABLE 12 TO §431.97-MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR COMPUTER ROOM AIR 

CONDITIONERS 

Equipment type 

Minimum SCOP 

Net sensible cooling capacity Efficiency 

Downflow Upflow 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.20 2.09 

Air-Cooled 2:65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99 

2:240,000 Btu/hand <760,000 Btu/h 1.90 1.79 

<65,000 Btu/h 2.60 2.49 

Water-Cooled 2:65,000 Btu/hand <240,000 Btu/h 2.50 2.39 

2:240,000 Btu/hand <760,000 Btu/h 2.40 2.29 

Water-Cooled with a Fluid <65,000 Btu/h 2.55 2.44 

2:65,000 Btu/hand <240,000 Btu/h 2.45 2.34 Economizer 2:240,000 Btu/hand <760,000 Btu/h 2.35 2.24 

<65 000 Btu/h 2.50 2.39 

Glycol-Cooled 2:65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.15 2.04 

2:240,000 Btu/hand <760,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99 

Glycol-Cooled with a Fluid <65,000 Btu/h 2.45 2.34 

>65,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h 2.10 1.99 Economizer >240,000 Btu/hand <760,000 Btu/h 2.05 1.94 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12849 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.033</GPH>

TABLE 13 TO §431.97-UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR FLOORMOUNTED COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS 

Downflow and Upflow Ducted Upflow Non-Ducted and Horizontal 

Flow 

Equipment Minimum NSenCOP Minimum NSenCOP 

Net sensible efficiency Net sensible efficiency Type cooling cooling Upflow 

capacity Downflow Upflow capacity Horizontal 

ducted non- flow ducted 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h 2.16 2.65 

Computer Room 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Air and <295,000 2.58 2.55 and <240,000 2.04 2.55 

Conditioners, Btu/h Btu/h 

Floor-Mounted, 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

Air-Cooled and <930,000 2.36 2.33 and <760,000 1.89 2.47 

Btu/h Btu/h 

Computer Room <80,000 Btu/h 2.70 2.67 <65,000 Btu/h 2.09 2.65 

Air 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Conditioners, and <295,000 2.58 2.55 and <240,000 1.99 2.55 

Floor-Mounted, Btu/h Btu/h 

Air-Cooled with 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

Fluid and <930,000 2.36 2.33 and <760,000 1.81 2.47 

Economizer Btu/h Btu/h 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.82 2.79 <65,000 Btu/h 2.43 2.79 

Computer Room 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Air and <295,000 2.73 2.70 and <240,000 2.32 2.68 

Conditioners, Btu/h Btu/h 

Floor-Mounted, 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

Water-Cooled and <930,000 2.67 2.64 and <760,000 2.20 2.60 

Btu/h Btu/h 

Computer Room <80,000 Btu/h 2.77 2.74 <65,000 Btu/h 2.35 2.71 

Air 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Conditioners, and <295,000 2.68 2.65 and <240,000 2.24 2.60 

Floor-Mounted, Btu/h Btu/h 

W atcr-Coolcd 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

with a Fluid and <930,000 2.61 2.58 and <760,000 2.12 2.54 

Economizer Btu/h Btu/h 

<80,000 Btu/h 2.56 2.53 <65,000 Btu/h 2.08 2.48 

Computer Room 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Air and <295,000 2.24 2.21 and <240,000 1.90 2.18 

Conditioners, Btu/h Btu/h 

Floor-Mounted, 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

Glycol-Cooled and <930,000 2.21 2.18 and <760,000 1.81 2.18 

Btu/h Btu/h 

Computer Room <80,000 Btu/h 2.51 2.48 <65,000 Btu/h 2.00 2.44 

Air Conditioner, 2:80,000 Btu/h 2:65,000 Btu/h 

Floor-Mounted, and <295,000 2.19 2.16 and <240,000 1.82 2.10 

Glycol-Cooled Btu/h Btu/h 

with a Fluid 2:295,000 Btu/h 2:240,000 Btu/h 

Economizer and <930,000 2.15 2.12 and <760,000 1.73 2.10 

Btu/h Btu/h 
12850 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.034</GPH>

TABLE 14 TO §431.97-MINIMuM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR CEILING-MOUNTED 

COMPUTER ROOM AIR CONDITIONERS 

Minimum NSenCOP 

Net sensible efficiency 

Equipment type cooling capacity Non- Ducted Ducted 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.05 2.08 

Air-Cooled with Free Air ~9,000 Btu/hand 2.02 2.05 Discharge Condenser <65,000 Btu/h 

~65,000 Btu/h 1.92 1.94 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.01 2.04 

Air-Cooled with Free Air ~9,000 Btu/hand Discharge Condenser and Fluid 1.97 2 

Economizer <65,000 Btu/h 

~5,000 Btu/h 1.87 1.89 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.86 1.89 

Air-Cooled with Ducted ~9,000 Btu/hand 1.83 1.86 Condenser <65,000 Btu/h 

~5,000 Btu/h 1.73 1.75 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.82 1.85 

Air-Cooled with Fluid ~9,000 Btu/hand Economizer and Ducted 1.78 1.81 

Condenser <65,000 Btu/h 

~5,000 Btu/h 1.68 1.7 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.38 2.41 

Water-Cooled ~9,000 Btu/hand 2.28 2.31 <65,000 Btu/h 

~5,000 Btu/h 2.18 2.2 

<29,000 Btu/h 2.33 2.36 

Water-Cooled with Fluid ~9,000 Btu/hand 2.23 2.26 Economizer <65,000 Btu/h 

~5,000 Btu/h 2.13 2.16 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.97 2 

Glycol-Cooled ~29,000 Btu/hand 1.93 1.98 <65,000 Btu/h 

~5,000 Btu/h 1.78 1.81 

<29,000 Btu/h 1.92 1.95 

Glycol-Cooled with Fluid 

Economizer ~29,000 Btu/hand 1.88 1.93 <65,000 Btu/h 
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 44 / Monday, March 7, 2022 / Proposed Rules 12851 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–04151 Filed 3–4–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–C 


khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS2EP07MR22.035</GPH>

2:65, 000 Btu/h 1.73 1.76