This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

37001 

Vol. 86, No. 132 

Wednesday, July 14, 2021 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was re-designated Part A–1. 

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021, Public Law 116–260 

(Dec. 27, 2020). 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032] 

RIN 1904–AE07 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial 

Package Air Conditioners and WaterCooled Commercial Package Air 

Conditioners 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Final determination. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act (‘‘EPCA’’), as 

amended, prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including evaporatively-cooled 

commercial package air conditioners 

and water-cooled commercial package 

air conditioners (referred to as 

evaporatively-cooled commercial 

unitary air conditioners (‘‘ECUACs’’) 

and water-cooled commercial unitary 

air conditioners (‘‘WCUACs’’) in this 

document). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to 

periodically determine whether more 

stringent, amended standards would 

result in significant additional 

conservation of energy, be 

technologically feasible, and be 

economically justified. In this final 

determination, DOE has determined that 

more stringent standards for small 

(cooling capacity less than 135,000 Btu/ 

h), large (cooling capacity greater than 

or equal to 135,000 and less than 

240,000 Btu/h), and very large (cooling 

capacity greater than or equal to 240,000 

and less than 760,000 Btu/h) ECUACs 

and WCUACs would not result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy, and thus has determined that 

the standards for ECUACs and WCUACs 

do not need to be amended. 

DATES: The effective date of this final 

determination is July 14, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

rulemaking, which includes Federal 

Register notices, comments, and other 

supporting documents/materials, is 

available for review at https://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the https://

www.regulations.gov index. However, 

not all documents listed in the index 

may be publicly available, such as 

information that is exempt from public 

disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

https://www.regulations.gov/ 

docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0032. 

The docket web page contains 

instructions on how to access all 

documents, including public comments, 

in the docket. 

For further information on how to 

review the docket, contact the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by 

email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW., 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–7335. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Linda Field, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–3440. Email: 

Linda.Field@hq.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. Rulemaking History 

III. Discussion and Rationale 

A. General Comments 

B. Energy Efficiency Metric 

C. Market Analysis 

1. Shipments Estimates 

2. Model Counts 

3. Current Market Efficiency Distributions 

IV. Final Determination 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Information Quality 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Final Determination 

Title III, Part C1 of EPCA 2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317, as codified). This 

equipment includes ECUACs and 

WCUACs, the subject of this final 

determination. 

DOE is issuing this final 

determination pursuant to the EPCA 

requirement that not later than 6 years 

after issuance of any final rule 

establishing or amending an energy 

conservation standard for covered 

equipment, DOE must publish either a 

notice of determination that standards 

for the equipment do not need to be 

amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6316(a)(6)(C)(i)) 

For this final determination, DOE 

analyzed the ECUACs and WCUACs 

subject to the standards found at title 10 

of the Code of Federal Regulations 

(‘‘CFR’’) part 431. See 10 CFR 431.97. 

DOE first analyzed the potential for 

energy savings of more efficient 

ECUACs and WCUACs. Based on this 

analysis, as summarized in section IV of 

this document, DOE has determined 

that there is not clear and convincing 

evidence that amended standards would 

result in significant additional 

conservation of energy. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) Therefore, DOE has 

determined that the current standards 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37002 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

for ECUACs and WCUACs do not need 

to be amended. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this final determination, as 

well as some of the relevant historical 

background related to the establishment 

of standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), established the Energy 

Conservation Program for Certain 

Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a 

variety of provisions designed to 

improve energy efficiency. This 

includes the ECUACs and WCUACs that 

are the subject of this final 

determination. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)– 

(D)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA specifically include definitions 

(42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation 

standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test 

procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling 

provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the 

authority to require information and 

reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 

6316). 

Federal energy conservation 

requirements for covered equipment 

established under EPCA generally 

supersede state laws and regulations 

concerning energy conservation testing, 

labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE 

may, however, grant waivers of Federal 

preemption in limited instances for 

particular state laws or regulations, in 

accordance with the procedures and 

other provisions set forth under EPCA. 

(See 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D) applying 

the preemption waiver provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6297). 

EPCA contains mandatory energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) 

Specifically, the statute sets standards 

for small, large, and very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment, packaged 

terminal air conditioners (‘‘PTACs’’) and 

packaged terminal heat pumps 

(‘‘PTHPs’’), warm-air furnaces, packaged 

boilers, storage water heaters, 

instantaneous water heaters, and 

unfired hot water storage tanks. (Id.) In 

doing so, EPCA established Federal 

energy conservation standards that 

generally correspond to the levels in 

American Society of Heating, 

Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning 

Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 90.1, 

‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except 

Low-Rise Residential Buildings,’’ in 

effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989). ECUACs 

and WCUACs are covered under EPCA’s 

definition of commercial package air 

conditioning and heating equipment. 

(42 U.S.C. 6311(8)) EPCA established 

initial standards for ECUACs and 

WCUACs with cooling capacity less 

than 240,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) 

If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended 

with respect to the standard levels or 

design requirements applicable under 

that standard for certain commercial 

equipment, including ECUACs and 

WCUACs, not later than 180 days after 

the amendment of the standard, DOE 

must publish in the Federal Register for 

public comment an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) Within certain 

exceptions, DOE must adopt amended 

energy conservation standards at the 

new efficiency level in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines 

that there is clear and convincing 

evidence to support a determination 

that the adoption of a more stringent 

efficiency level as a uniform national 

standard would produce significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

To determine whether a standard is 

economically justified, EPCA requires 

that DOE determine whether the 

benefits of the standard exceed its 

burdens by considering, to the greatest 

extent practicable, the following seven 

factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the 

standard on the manufacturers and 

consumers of the affected products; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

the product compared to any increases 

in the initial cost, or maintenance 

expenses; 

(3) The total projected amount of 

energy and water (if applicable) savings 

likely to result directly from the 

standard; 

(4) Any lessening of the utility or the 

performance of the products likely to 

result from the standard; 

(5) The impact of any lessening of 

competition, as determined in writing 

by the Attorney General, that is likely to 

result from the standard; 

(6) The need for national energy and 

water conservation; and 

(7) Other factors the Secretary of 

Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) considers relevant. 

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

If DOE decides to adopt, as a uniform 

national standard, the efficiency levels 

specified in the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such 

standard not later than 18 months after 

publication of the amended industry 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) 

However, if DOE determines, supported 

by clear and convincing evidence, that 

a more stringent uniform national 

standard would result in significant 

additional conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified, then DOE must 

establish the more stringent standard 

not later than 30 months after 

publication of the amended ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i)) 

EPCA also requires that every six 

years DOE evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for certain 

commercial equipment, including 

ECUACs and WCUACs, and publish 

either a notice of determination that the 

standards do not need to be amended, 

or a NOPR that includes new proposed 

energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than three years after the issuance of a 

final determination to not amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notice of determination that standards 

for the product do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which the determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) Further, a 

determination that more stringent 

standards would (1) result in significant 

additional conservation of energy, (2) be 

technologically feasible and (3) 

economically justified must be 

supported by clear and convincing 

evidence. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A).) A determination 

that amended energy conservation 

standards are not needed must be based 

on the same considerations as if it were 

adopting a standard that is more 

stringent than an amendment to 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)) 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37003 

3The max-tech level represented the highest 

efficiency level of equipment available on the 

market at the time of the analysis. 

DOE is publishing this final 

determination pursuant to the six-year 

review required by EPCA, having 

determined that amended standards for 

ECUACs and WCUACs would not result 

in significant additional conservation of 

energy, be technologically feasible, and 

be economically justified. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

The current energy conservation 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs are 

located in Table 1 of 10 CFR 431.97. 

These standards and their compliance 

dates are presented in Table II.1 of this 

document. The current efficiency metric 

used for ECUACs and WCUACs is the 

energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’). 

TABLE II.1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED

COMMERCIAL PACKAGE AIR-CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT

Equipment type Cooling capacity (Btu/h) Heating type Minimum EER Compliance date 

Small Water-Cooled ................... <65,000 ...................................... All ............................................... 12.1 October 29, 2003. 

Small Water-Cooled ................... ≥65,000 and <135,000 ............... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.12.1 June 1, 2013. 

All Other Types of Heating ........ 11.9 June 1, 2013. 

Large Water-Cooled ................... ≥135,000 and <240,000 ............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.12.5 June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of Heating ........ 12.3 June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Water-Cooled ........... ≥240,000 and <760,000 ............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.12.4 June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of Heating ........ 12.2 June 1, 2014. 

Small Evaporatively-Cooled ....... <65,000 ...................................... All ............................................... 12.1 October 29, 2003. 

Small Evaporatively-Cooled ....... ≥65,000 and <135,000 ............... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.12.1 June 1, 2013. 

All Other Types of Heating ........ 11.9 June 1, 2013. 

Large Evaporatively-Cooled ....... ≥135,000 and <240,000 ............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.12.0 June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of Heating ........ 11.8 June 1, 2014. 

Very Large Evaporatively-Cooled ≥240,000 and <760,000 ............. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating.11.9 June 1, 2014. 

All Other Types of Heating ........ 11.7 June 1, 2014. 

2. Rulemaking History 

On October 29, 2010, ASHRAE 

updated ASHRAE Standard 90.1 with 

respect to small, large, and very large 

commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment (i.e., ASHRAE 

90.1–2010). With regard to ECUACs and 

WCUACs, ASHRAE 90.1–2010 updated 

efficiency levels for certain small (i.e., 

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/ 

h), large, and very large ECUACs and 

WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1–2010 also 

updated its referenced test procedures 

for this equipment. ASHRAE 90.1–2010 

did not amend the efficiency levels for 

certain small (i.e., cooling capacity less 

than 65,000 Btu/h) WCUACs and 

ECUACs but did amend the test 

procedure for this equipment. 

In a final rule published May 16, 

2012, DOE amended the standards for 

ECUACs and WCUACs by adopting EER 

levels for this equipment established in 

ASHRAE 90.1–2010. 77 FR 28928 (‘‘May 

2012 final rule’’). For certain small (i.e., 

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 

65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/ 

h), large, and very large WCUACs and 

ECUACs, DOE estimated the energy 

savings potential of standards at the 

max-tech 3 efficiency levels over those 

efficiency levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2010 

(i.e., energy savings estimates for maxtech levels do not include the energy 

savings from increasing the Federal 

standard at the time to the level found 

in ASHRAE 90.1–2010). 76 FR 25622, 

25644–25646 (May 5, 2011). Based on 

an analysis of two different shipment 

scenarios (shipments based on historical 

trends and constant shipments fixed to 

2009 shipment levels), DOE estimated 

that efficiency standards at the max-tech 

level would result in additional energy 

savings of between 0.0061 to 0.0102 

quads primary energy savings for the six 

classes of small, large, and very large 

WCUACs analyzed (76 FR 25622, 

25644–25645), representing 

approximately 4.9 percent to 5.5 percent 

of estimated WCUAC energy use during 

the analysis period. DOE estimated that 

efficiency standards at the max-tech 

level would result in additional energy 

savings of between 0.0013 to 0.0021 

quads primary energy for the two 

classes of very large ECUACs analyzed 

(76 FR 25622, 25646), representing 

approximately 3.7 percent to 3.9 percent 

of estimated ECUAC energy use during 

the analysis period. DOE did not 

examine certain small WCUACs and 

ECUACs (i.e., equipment less than 

65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity) because 

the levels in ASHRAE 90.1–2010 for 

such equipment were not amended. 76 

FR 25622, 25631. Additionally, DOE did 

not assess potential energy savings for 

ECUACs with cooling capacity greater 

than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h but less 

than 240,000 Btu/h because it did not 

find any equipment in this capacity 

range in the U.S. market. Id. 

Based on its analysis and the review 

of the market, DOE determined that it 

did not have ‘‘clear and convincing 

evidence’’ that significant additional 

conservation of energy would result 

from adoption of more stringent 

standard levels than those in ASHRAE 

90.1–2010 for ECUACs and WCUACs. 

77 FR 28928, 28979. DOE did not 

conduct an economic analysis of 

standards more stringent than the 

ASHRAE 90.1–2010 levels for ECUACs 

and WCUACs because of the conclusion 

that more stringent standards would 

result in minimal energy savings. Id. 

Since ASHRAE 90.1–2010 was 

published, ASHRAE 90.1 has undergone 

three revisions. On October 9, 2013, 

ASHRAE published ASHRAE 90.1– 

2013; on October 26, 2016, ASHRAE 

published ASHRAE 90.1–2016; and on 

October 24, 2019, ASHRAE published 

ASHRAE 90.1–2019. In none of these 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37004 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

4 The public webinar presentation and transcript 

can both be found at http://www.regulations.gov 

under docket number EERE–2017–BT–STD–0032. 

5The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket for this 

determination. (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–STD– 

0032, which is maintained at https://

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BTSTD-0032). The references are arranged as follows: 

(Commenter name, comment docket ID number, 

page of that document). 

publications did ASHRAE amend 

minimum EER levels for small, large, 

and very large WCUACs or ECUACs; 

therefore, DOE was not prompted to 

examine amended standards for this 

equipment under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A). As a result, the current 

federal standards for ECUACs and 

WCUACs are those set forth in the May 

2012 final rule and codified in Table 1 

of 10 CFR 431.97. 

On July 29, 2019, DOE published a 

request for information (‘‘RFI’’) to solicit 

information and data from interested 

parties to consider amendments to the 

DOE energy conservation standards for 

ECUACs and WCUACs. 84 FR 36480 

(‘‘July 2019 ECS RFI’’). 

On September 15, 2020 DOE 

published a notice of proposed 

determination (‘‘NOPD’’) with the 

tentative determination that energy 

conservation standards for ECUACs and 

WCUACs do not need to be amended 

(‘‘September 2020 NOPD’’). 85 FR 

57149. The comment period for this 

notice closed on November 30, 2020. On 

October 1, 2020, DOE held a public 

webinar 4 to discuss the analysis and 

results from the September 2020 NOPD. 

DOE received several comments from 

interested parties in response to the 

publication of the September 2020 

NOPD. Table II.2 lists the commenters, 

their abbreviated names used 

throughout this final determination, and 

organization type. Discussion of the 

relevant comments provided by these 

organizations and DOE’s responses are 

provided in the appropriate sections of 

this document. 

TABLE II.2—INTERESTED PARTIES THAT PROVIDED WRITTEN AND ORAL COMMENTS REGARDING THE SEPTEMBER 2020 

NOPD 

Name Abbreviation Commenter type 

United CoolAir ....................................................................................................................................... UCA .................... Manufacturer. 

Institute for Policy Integrity at NYU School of Law .............................................................................. IPI ....................... Academic Institution. 

California Investor Owned Utilities (Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and California Edison).CA IOUs ............. Utilities. 

Trane Technologies .............................................................................................................................. Trane .................. Manufacturer. 

Daikin .................................................................................................................................................... Daikin ................. Manufacturer. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment, quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.5

III. Discussion and Rationale 

DOE developed the conclusions in 

this notice after considering oral and 

written comments, data, and 

information from interested parties that 

represent a variety of interests. This 

section addresses the analyses DOE 

performed for this final determination 

regarding ECUACs and WCUACs. 

Separate subsections address each 

component of DOE’s analyses and 

responses to relevant comments 

received regarding the September 2020 

NOPD. 

A. General Comments 

In response to the September 2020 

NOPD, DOE received several general 

comments. CA IOUs supported DOE’s 

initial determination to maintain the 

current standards, stating that the 

market for this equipment is extremely 

small. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) UCA 

stated that if DOE is correct in its 

assumed decline of shipments, then 

there is no need for an increase in 

efficiency at this time. (UCA, No. 11 at 

p. 1) 

As discussed below, DOE has 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that amended 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs 

would result in significant additional 

energy savings and be technologically 

feasible and economically justified. 

DOE received comments from UCA 

and CA IOUs regarding the test 

procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs. 

(UCA, No. 11 at p. 1; CA IOUs, No. 13 

at p. 2) UCA stated that several third 

party test facilities are limited in the 

physical size and capacity limits they 

can test; therefore, they stated that 

certain UCA models cannot be tested at 

these facilities. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA 

IOUs encouraged DOE to expedite work 

on an updated test standard for all 

CUACs. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Specifically, CA IOUs commented that 

the Appliance Standards and 

Rulemaking Federal Advisory 

Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’), Commercial 

Package Air Conditioners and 

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 

Working Group unanimously agreed 

that a new test procedure for CUACs, 

which should include a more 

representative evaluation of indoor fan 

power consumption, should be 

completed no later than January 1, 2019. 

Id. 

The September 2020 NOPD sought 

comment on DOE’s determination of 

whether the energy conservation 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs 

should be amended. Consideration of 

amendments to the test procedures are 

not within the scope of this 

determination. DOE will consider 

comments received regarding ECUAC 

and WCUAC test procedures in the 

ongoing evaluation of the CUAC test 

procedure. See 82 FR 34427 (July 25, 

2017). 

B. Energy Efficiency Metric 

The current energy efficiency 

descriptor for the ECUAC and WCUAC 

Federal standards is EER. 10 CFR 

431.97. ASHRAE 90.1 has specified both 

EER and integrated energy efficiency 

ratio (‘‘IEER’’) minimum efficiency 

levels since 2010. 

The EER metric represents the 

efficiency of the equipment operating at 

full load. The IEER metric factors in the 

efficiency of operating at part loads of 

75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent 

of capacity as well as the efficiency at 

full load by weighting the full- and partload efficiencies based on the average 

amount of time operating at each load 

point. Additionally, IEER incorporates 

reduced condenser temperatures (i.e., 

reduced entering water temperature for 

WCUACs and reduced outdoor air drybulb and wet-bulb temperatures for 

ECUACs) to reflect the representative 

ambient conditions for part-load 

operation in the field. Table III.1 shows 

the IEER test conditions for ECUACs 

and WCUACs specified in AHRI 

Standard 340/360–2019, ‘‘Performance 

Rating of Commercial and Industrial 

Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37005 

6AHRI 340/360–2019 is the industry test 

procedure referenced in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for 

testing CUACs with cooling capacity greater than or 

equal to 65,000 Btu/h. 

7UCA pointed out a typographical error in Table 

III.6 in the September 2020 NOPD (see 85 FR 57149, 

57159), in which the entering air dry-bulb 

temperature should be a test condition for ECUACs 

and not WCUACs. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) This has 

been corrected in Table III.1 of this final 

determination. 

8The AHRI Directory for unitary large equipment 

can be found at https://www.ahridirectory.org/ 

Search/SearchHome. AHRI’s certification program 

does not currently include ECUACs of any cooling 

capacities or WCUACs with cooling capacity greater 

than 250,000 Btu/h. 

9 Data from the DOE CCMS database used in the 

September 2020 NOPD and this final determination 

was accessed on December 16, 2019. This database 

can be found at http://www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/. 

Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘AHRI 340/360– 

2019’’).6

TABLE III.1 IEER TEST CONDITIONS FOR WATER-COOLED AND EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED AIR CONDITIONERS FROM AHRI 

340/360–2019 

Percent load 

Water-cooled Evaporatively-cooled 

Entering water 

temperature (°F) 

Entering air dry-bulb 

temperature 7 (°F) 

Entering air wet-bulb 

temperature (°F) 

Makeup water temperature 

(°F) 

100 ..................................... 85.0 ................................... 95.0 ................................... 75.0 ................................... 85.0 

75 ....................................... 73.5 ................................... 81.5 ................................... 66.2 ................................... 81.5 

50 ....................................... 62.0 ................................... 68.0 ................................... 57.5 ................................... 68.0 

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

The following equation shows the 

weighting factors for each testing 

condition. 

IIIIIIII = (0.020 • A) + (0.617 • B) + 

(0.238 • C) + (0.125 • D) 

Where (see Table III.1 for condenser 

temperature for all four test points): 

A = EER, Btu/W•h, at 100 percent capacity 

at standard rating conditions 

B = EER, Btu/W•h, at 75 percent capacity and 

reduced condenser temperature 

C = EER, Btu/W•h, at 50 percent capacity and 

reduced condenser temperature 

D = EER, Btu/W•h, at 25 percent capacity and 

reduced condenser temperature. 

The intent of this weighted average 

across a range of condenser 

temperatures is to produce an IEER 

rating that is more representative of 

outdoor conditions that air conditioners 

face for much of the year, rather than 

just the peak temperature experienced 

in most climates for only a small 

minority of operating hours. 

In the September 2020 NOPD, DOE 

proposed to maintain standards for 

ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of EER 

because the current IEER metric may not 

be representative for ECUACs and 

WCUACs and compliance with IEER 

would impose additional testing and 

certification burden on a small market. 

85 FR 57149, 57161. DOE initially 

determined that for ECUACs, the 

weighting factors for IEER may not be 

representative of typical applications. 

ECUACs may be disproportionately 

marketed and sold in relatively hot and 

dry climates where there is a larger 

efficiency benefit to using evaporative 

condenser cooling. 85 FR 57149, 57160. 

The IEER equation assigns a weighting 

factor of just 2 percent for the full-load 

test point, so almost all of the IEER 

rating for ECUACs would reflect 

performance at outdoor air temperatures 

which is cooler than what would 

typically be experienced in the hot and 

dry climates where this equipment is 

installed. For ECUACs with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h DOE’s 

preliminary analysis suggested that 

these units are primarily marketed for 

residential applications, whereas the 

IEER metric was developed for 

commercial applications by analyzing 

air conditioner energy use in 

commercial buildings. Id. For WCUACs, 

it is not certain whether the IEER 

weighting factors appropriately reflect 

the average use of WCUACs given that 

IEER was developed based on an 

analysis of air-cooled CUACs 

(‘‘ACUACs’’). Id. 

Additionally, IEER requires at least 

four tests whereas EER requires a single 

test. Examining the models listed in the 

CCMS database, DOE found that many 

models did not have any online product 

literature demonstrating that they are 

rated with IEER, suggesting that many 

WCUAC and ECUAC models would 

need to be retested in order to comply 

with Federal IEER standards. 85 FR 

57149, 57161. 

In response to the September 2020 

NOPD, DOE received several comments 

in support of its proposal to maintain 

standards in terms of the EER metric. 

UCA supported DOE’s proposal to 

maintain the EER metric for WCUACs, 

stating that they disagreed with using 

IEER for certain WCUACs installed 

indoors within mechanical rooms 

because these units typically see 

constant water temperatures year-round. 

(UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) CA IOUs 

supported maintaining EER and not 

adopting IEER for ECUACs until the test 

procedure has been updated and DOE 

has evaluated the appropriate condenser 

entering air dry-bulb and wet-bulb 

temperatures for the climates in which 

ECUACs are typically installed. (CA 

IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2) 

Regarding WCUACs, CA IOUs stated 

that if DOE were to adopt IEER, DOE 

should complete the test procedure 

rulemaking first and consider aligning 

the temperature test points and 

weighting factors with those of watercooled variable refrigerant flow (‘‘VRF’’) 

equipment. (CA IOUs, No. 13 at p. 2; 

Public Webinar Transcript,4 No. 10 at p. 

21). 

For the reasons provided previously 

and presented in the September 2020 

NOPD, DOE is maintaining federal 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in 

terms of EER. 

DOE’s analysis in support of the final 

determination is based on an evaluation 

of ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of 

EER. 

C. Market Analysis 

DOE develops information in the 

market analysis that provides an overall 

picture of the market for the equipment 

concerned. For this final determination, 

DOE conducted a review of the current 

market for ECUACs and WCUACs, 

including equipment literature, the 

AHRI Directory of Certified Product 

Performance (‘‘AHRI Directory’’),8 and 

the DOE Compliance Certification 

Management System (‘‘CCMS’’) 

database.9 DOE also considered market 

data and stakeholder comments 

received in response to the July 2019 

ECS RFI and the September 2020 NOPD, 

the analysis performed in the previous 

standards rulemaking for ECUACs and 

WCUACs, and the energy savings 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37006 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

10 DOE uses data on manufacturing shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

11Pacific Gas and Electric Company; Emerging 

Technologies Program, Application Assessment 

Report # 0605. Evaluation of the Freus Residential 

Evaporative Condenser System in PG&E Service 

Territory. https://www.etcc-ca.com/sites/default/ 

files/OLD/images/stories/pdf/ETCC_Report_464.pdf 

accessed December 18, 2019. 

potential for amended standards 

determined in the May 2012 final rule. 

1. Shipments Estimates 

DOE uses projections of annual 

product shipments to calculate the 

national impacts of potential amended 

energy conservation standards on 

energy use.10 The shipments model 

takes an accounting approach in 

tracking market shares of each product 

class and the vintage of units in the 

stock. 

The analysis conducted for the 

September 2020 NOPD was based on the 

same model specification used for the 

May 2012 final rule and incorporated 

additional shipments data provided by 

AHRI in response to the July 2019 ECS 

RFI. 85 FR 57149, 57155–57156. Based 

on the shipments data, the DOE 

September 2020 NOPD analysis 

indicated declining future shipments for 

WCUACs and ECUACs with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 

Table III.2 presents the historical 

shipments for WCUACs from the May 

2012 final rule (1984–2009) along with 

historical shipments in the following 

years as provided by AHRI (2010–2018). 

As shown in Table III.2 for the small 

and large WCUACs, shipments starting 

in 2009 are lower than in prior years. 

The very large WCUAC shipments fell 

in the years immediately following 

2008, and while the shipments have 

rebounded, they did not rebound to the 

highest shipment levels seen previously. 

TABLE III.2—HISTORICAL SHIPMENTS DATA FOR WCUACS

Year * 

Small AC 

water-cooled 

(<64.9 kBtu/h) 

Small AC 

water-cooled 

(65 to 134.9 

kBtu/h) 

Large AC 

water-cooled 

(135 to 249 

kBtu/h) 

Very large AC 

water-cooled 

(≥250 kBtu/h) 

1989 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1437 793 1622 

1990 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1503 779 1211 

1991 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1107 621 908 

1992 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1068 537 720 

1993 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 985 520 668 

1994 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 922 504 815 

1995 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1121 493 805 

1996 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1217 652 1020 

1997 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 989 522 1216 

1998 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 795 623 1886 

1999 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 874 477 898 

2000 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 1478 1621 1170 

2001 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 606 409 762 

2002 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 502 355 1227 

2003 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 390 287 740 

2004 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 447 291 711 

2005 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 177 188 861 

2006 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 316 278 1231 

2007 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 359 317 1231 

2008 ................................................................................................................. ........................ 282 311 1390 

2009 ................................................................................................................. 91 152 182 585 

2010 ................................................................................................................. 119 139 186 531 

2011 ................................................................................................................. 84 209 180 609 

2012 ................................................................................................................. 95 230 137 624 

2013 ................................................................................................................. 59 198 164 751 

2014 ................................................................................................................. 54 216 114 829 

2015 ................................................................................................................. 52 137 147 770 

2016 ................................................................................................................. 44 105 154 946 

2017 ................................................................................................................. 45 62 128 985 

2018 ................................................................................................................. 39 106 108 844 

* Data for 1989–2009 from the May 2012 Final Rule. This data does not include WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h because this class was not included in that rulemaking. Data for 2009–2018 provided by AHRI in response to the July 2019 ECS RFI.

DOE developed two shipment 

projections for the September 2020 

NOPD analysis; one based on historical 

trends and one that held shipments 

constant at the 2018 shipment level 

(referred to as ‘‘2019 trend’’ and ‘‘2019 

constant’’, respectively). 85 FR 57149, 

57155–57156. The 2019 trend and 2019 

constant projections are compared to 

projections from the May 2012 final rule 

that were based on the historical trends 

and fixed at the level of the 2009 

shipments (referred to as ‘‘2012 trend’’ 

and ‘‘2012 constant’’, respectively). This 

comparison is shown in Table III.3 of 

this document. 

DOE was unable to identify shipments 

data for the ECUAC equipment classes 

and none were provided by the 

stakeholders. For the September 2020 

NOPD analysis, shipment projections 

were developed by scaling the WCUAC 

shipment projections using a ratio of 

unique model counts for each 

equipment class. 85 FR 57149, 57155. 

For the small (cooling capacity less than 

65,000 Btu/h) ECUAC class of products, 

the shipment projection was further 

adjusted by a factor of 0.5 to better 

reflect the approximate size of the 

market in the mid-2000s.11 Id. 

WCUACs are typically sold as part of 

a large project (i.e., a multi-tenant, 

multi-story office building). To account 

for shipments being a function of large 

office construction, DOE also developed 

a third projection for the very large 

WCUAC equipment class, using a 

regression analysis with historical data 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37007 

and projections of large office existing 

floor space and large office additions as 

the variables (referred to as ‘‘2019 

regression’’ in Table III.3). 85 FR 57149, 

57156. 

TABLE III.3—COMPARISON OF SHIPMENT PROJECTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUACS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS

2018 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 

Small WCUAC, <65,000 Btu/h 

2012 trend ........................................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

2012 constant (=2009) ..................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

2019 trend ........................................................................................................ 39 33 18 10 6 3 2 

2019 constant (=2018) ..................................................................................... 39 39 39 39 39 39 39 

Small WCUAC, ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h 

2012 trend ........................................................................................................ 93 76 46 28 17 10 6 

2012 constant (=2009) ..................................................................................... 152 152 152 152 152 152 152 

2019 trend ........................................................................................................ 106 87 52 32 19 11 7 

2019 constant (=2018) ..................................................................................... 106 106 106 106 106 106 106 

Large WCUAC, ≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h 

2012 trend ........................................................................................................ 132 117 87 64 47 35 26 

2012 constant (=2009) ..................................................................................... 182 182 182 182 182 182 182 

2019 trend ........................................................................................................ 108 110 78 55 39 28 20 

2019 constant (=2018) ..................................................................................... 108 108 108 108 108 108 108 

Very Large WCUAC, ≥240,000 and ≤760,000 Btu/h 

2012 trend ........................................................................................................ 953 944 923 903 882 861 840 

2012 constant (=2009) ..................................................................................... 585 585 585 585 585 585 585 

2019 trend ........................................................................................................ 844 777 721 664 608 551 495 

2019 constant (=2018) ..................................................................................... 844 844 844 844 844 844 844 

2019 regression ............................................................................................... 844 1000 929 927 865 844 828 

Small ECUAC, <65,000 Btu/h 

2012 trend ........................................................................................................ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

2012 constant (=2009) ..................................................................................... ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............ ............

2019 trend ........................................................................................................ 156 132 72 40 24 12 8 

2019 constant (=2018) ..................................................................................... 156 156 156 156 156 156 156 

Very Large ECUAC, ≥240,000 and ≤760,000 Btu/h 

2012 trend ........................................................................................................ 245 243 238 232 227 221 216 

2012 constant (=2009) ..................................................................................... 150 150 150 150 150 150 150 

2019 trend ........................................................................................................ 14 13 12 11 10 9 9 

2019 constant (=2018) ..................................................................................... 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 

2019 regression ............................................................................................... 14 17 16 16 14 14 14 

In the May 2012 final rule, DOE did 

not analyze small ECUACs and 

WCUACs with cooling capacity less 

than 65,000 Btu/h. 77 FR 28927, 28934– 

28937. For the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE 

identified a single manufacturer of 

ECUACs in this capacity range, and the 

models offered are single-phase 

equipment and appear to be 

predominantly marketed for residential 

applications in regions of the United 

States with hot and dry climates, 

suggesting that there are few if any 

shipments in other regions of the United 

States. 84 FR 36480, 36485. DOE 

identified only two distinct product 

lines of WCUACs with cooling capacity 

less than 65,000 Btu/h, and DOE’s 

examination of manufacturer literature 

for these WCUACs suggested that these 

models do not comprise a significant 

share of the market for air conditioners 

in residential or commercial 

applications. Id. 

The projected trends from the May 

2012 final rule and those based on the 

updated data both generally show 

declines in shipments for small (≥65,000 

and <135,000 Btu/h), large and very 

large WCUACs, and very large ECUACs. 

The shipment levels under the 2019 

constant projections are lower than the 

2012 constant projections for small 

(≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h) and large 

WCUACs and very large ECUACs. The 

2019 constant projections for very large 

WCUACs are higher than the 2012 

constant projections (but lower than the 

2012 trend projections). The 2019 

regression projections for very large 

WCUACs and ECUACs show a more 

stable level of shipments over the 

analysis period than the 2019 trend 

models, but are lower than the 2012 

trend projection. 

Given that DOE did not analyze 

ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling 

capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h for the 

May 2012 final rule, no comparisons to 

the current projections are possible. The 

current trended shipments projections 

for the small (cooling capacity less than 

65,000 Btu/h) equipment classes reach 

10 or fewer shipments by 2045. 

In response to the September 2020 

NOPD, UCA stated that the historical 

shipments data presented by DOE is not 

complete and asserted that the 

shipments data does not capture dozens 

of manufacturers that do not belong to 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

I I I I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I I I I I I I 

I I I I 

I I I I 
37008 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

12A hyphenated comment number indicates that 

the specific comment referenced is found in an 

attachment accompanying the comment submitted 

by the commenter. The number following the 

hyphen indicates which attachment is being 

referenced. 

13The count of unique models excludes basic 

models that appear to be duplicates—i.e., basic 

models sharing the same manufacturer and certified 

cooling capacity and EER ratings. For basic models 

that had multiple individual models certified with 

different capacities and different EER ratings, the 

individual models were considered to be unique 

models. 

AHRI and do not report their shipments 

to AHRI. UCA further stated that it sold 

40 units in the WCUAC <64.9 kBtu/h 

category in 2018, while the table shows 

only 39 total units shipped in that year. 

UCA suggested the number could be 10 

times higher and asserted similar 

discrepancies could apply across all 

categories. (UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) 

In the July 2019 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested data on shipments, and in 

response to the RFI, DOE received 

shipments data from AHRI. In the 

September 2020 NOPD, DOE presented 

the shipments information received to 

that point. In addition, DOE requested 

comments and data concerning the 

tentative determination and the 

underlying data and analyses. The 

previously discussed number of 

shipments provided by UCA (40 units) 

only applies for a single manufacturer 

for a single equipment class of WCUAC 

(<65,000 Btu/h) equipment for a single 

year. Because this was a single data 

point, DOE lacked sufficient context to 

incorporate it into the shipment analysis 

(e.g., how this data point compares to 

UCA’s shipments in previous years, 

how this compares to UCA’s shipments 

for other WCUAC capacity ranges). 

Without such context DOE could not 

incorporate this data point. For this 

Final Determination, DOE did not 

identify any other sources of shipments 

data beyond the AHRI data incorporated 

in the September 2020 NOPD analyses. 

UCA also disagreed with shipment 

trends showing a decline in WCUACs 

over the next 20-plus years, as it stated 

that there are thousands of WCUACs 

that will be replaced over the next 

decade in the very large WCUAC class. 

(UCA, No. 11 at p. 1) UCA also 

commented that its sales for its main 

equipment line has gone down 

substantially, and that the equipment 

capacities it now offers are more 

limited. (UCA, No. 11–112 at p. 1) For 

this final determination, the three 

shipment projections developed by DOE 

were based on the historic shipments 

data available and presented in the 

September 2020 NOPD, and as historical 

data they would include any 

replacement shipments that have taken 

place. As additional shipments data 

were not provided to support UCA’s 

assertion regarding replacement of 

WCUACs over the next decade, DOE did 

not modify the shipment projections. 

Trane commented that there was a 

major drop in unitary air conditioner 

shipments that also affected WCUACs 

and ECUACs during the great recession 

of 2008(?), so looking forward 15–20 

years, the market should also reflect that 

drop because there will not be units to 

replace. (Public Webinar Transcript, No. 

10 at p. 15) Daikin commented that the 

need for office space likely will be 

declining for the foreseeable future 

stating that it was informed by one 

office building client that the client will 

only need about 70 percent of its current 

square footage going forward. (Public 

Webinar Transcript, No. 10 at p. 11) 

As stated, DOE did not receive 

additional shipments data in response 

to the September 2020 NOPD. As such, 

DOE relied on the shipments data 

presented in the September 2020 NOPD 

for this final determination. Based on 

the existing shipments data, DOE 

developed a series of shipment 

projections to reflect uncertainty in the 

future of ECUAC and WCUAC 

shipments. As presented in the 

September 2020 NOPD, DOE developed 

three shipment projections (‘‘2019 

trend,’’ ‘‘2019 constant,’’ and ‘‘2019 

regression’’). DOE continued to rely on 

the 2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 

regression projections presented in 

September 2020 NOPD for this final 

determination. Additionally, DOE 

performed a sensitivity case to reflect a 

potential underreporting of ECUAC and 

WCUAC shipments. DOE developed a 

sensitivity analysis by multiplying the 

three shipment projections by 10 for all 

equipment classes to examine an upper 

bound estimate for potentially 

unreported shipments. The results of 

the sensitivity analysis are presented in 

section III.C.3 of this document. 

2. Model Counts 

Prior to receipt of updated shipments 

from AHRI in response to the July 2019 

ECS RFI, DOE conducted a review of the 

market for WCUACs and ECUACs based 

on models included in the DOE CCMS 

database.9 84 FR 36480, 36484. In the 

September 2020 NOPD DOE provided 

that the number of ECUAC and WCUAC 

models on the market is substantially 

less than the number of ACUAC models 

on the market for all capacity ranges, 

and that this is consistent with the 

relationship between model counts 

identified in the May 2012 final rule. 85 

FR 57149, 57156. This initial 

understanding of the ECUAC and 

WCUAC market as compared to the 

ACUAC market was further supported 

by the shipments data provided by 

AHRI. See discussion in section III.C.1 

of this document. DOE did not receive 

any comments on the model counts 

presented in the September 2020 NOPD. 

3. Current Market Efficiency 

Distributions 

For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE 

examined the efficiency ratings of 

ECUACs and WCUACs currently on the 

market and presented efficiency 

distributions to reflect the current 

market. 85 FR 57149, 57157–57159. 

Table III.4 presents the summary of 

statistics by equipment category and 

capacity range of equipment for unique 

models13 from DOE’s CCMS Database.9

TABLE III.4—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUAC 

Cooling capacity range 

(Btu/h) 

Number of 

unique models 

Average cooling capacity 

(Btu/h) 

EER Current 

Federal 

EER 

Standard 

Level * 

Minimum Average Maximum 

Water-Cooled Air Conditioners 

<65,000 ........................................................................ 1 58,000 12.2 12.2 12.2 12.1 

≥65,000 and <135,000 ................................................. 23 99,478 12.1 12.8 15.3 12.1 

≥135,000 and <240,000 ............................................... 15 175,600 13.5 14.6 16.3 12.5 

≥240,000 and <760,000 ............................................... 234 493,556 12.5 13.8 16.1** 12.4 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

I I 
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37009 

TABLE III.4—CURRENT MARKET EFFICIENCY DISTRIBUTIONS FOR WCUACS AND ECUAC—Continued 

Cooling capacity range 

(Btu/h) 

Number of 

unique models 

Average cooling capacity 

(Btu/h) 

EER Current 

Federal 

EER 

Standard 

Level * 

Minimum Average Maximum 

Evaporatively-Cooled Air Conditioners 

<65,000 ........................................................................ 8 37,950 13.2 15.0 16.0 12.1 

≥65,000 and <135,000 ................................................. 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

≥135,000 and <240,000 ............................................... 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 

≥240,000 and <760,000 ............................................... 4 442,750 11.8 12.7 13.4 11.7 

* For all capacity ranges except very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioners, the Federal EER standard listed is for ‘‘no heat or electric 

heat’’ class. For the very large evaporatively-cooled air conditioner class, the Federal EER standard listed is the ‘‘all other types of heating’’ 

class. 

** As mentioned later in this section, this maximum EER value was determined to be an outlier, and thus the next highest efficiency level (i.e., 

an EER of 15) was used as the ‘‘max-tech’’ value. 

DOE used these efficiency 

distributions and the previously 

described shipment projections to 

develop estimated energy savings and 

percent of no-new-standards energy 

consumption for 30 years of shipments 

(2020–2049). 

Energy savings were estimated based 

on the forecasted shipments labeled 

2019 trend, 2019 constant, and 2019 

regression. For the savings estimates 

labeled 2019 regression, as noted in 

section III.C.1 of this final 

determination, a regression projection 

was only developed for the very large 

equipment class. 

As mentioned in section II.B.2 of this 

final determination, the cumulative site 

energy savings are calculated using the 

max-tech level, which is the highest 

value of efficiency in DOE’s CCMS 

Database within each capacity range of 

ECUACs and WCUACs (i.e., <65,000 

Btu/h, 65,000–135,000 Btu/h, 135,000– 

240,000 Btu/h, and 240,000–760,000 

Btu/h). However, for very large 

WCUACs, consideration of the highest 

efficiency value in DOE’s CCMS 

database may not be appropriate for 

evaluating potential amendments to the 

energy conservation standards. As 

explained in the September 2020 NOPD, 

DOE considered the single model rated 

at 16.1 to be an outlier and subsequently 

calculated the energy savings from 

potential amended standards for very 

large WCUACs using the next highest 

level that was achievable across the 

range of capacities (i.e., an EER of 15). 

85 FR 57149, 57158. DOE did not 

receive any comments on the use of the 

max-tech efficiency levels in calculating 

the estimated savings in the NOPD, and 

the same max-tech levels were used for 

the final determination. 

For the September 2020 NOPD, DOE 

did not incorporate changing trends in 

shipments by efficiency over time in the 

no-new-standards case. No comments 

were received on efficiency trends and 

DOE retained this assumption in the 

energy savings estimates, which vary by 

shipment scenario and equipment class, 

presented in Table III.5 of this final 

determination. 

Selecting the minimum and 

maximum estimated savings scenario 

for each equipment class resulted in a 

range of total estimated site energy 

savings for the WCUAC classes of 

between 0.0030 quads (8.5 percent of 

estimated site energy use) and 0.0046 

quads (8.6 percent of estimated site 

energy use), and for the ECUAC classes 

of 0.00006 quads (6.2 percent of 

estimated site energy use) and 0.00011 

quads (6.0 percent of estimated site 

energy use) during the analysis period. 

For both equipment categories, the 

resulting estimated savings ranged 

between 0.0031 quads (8.5 percent of 

estimated site energy consumption) and 

0.0047 quads (8.6 percent of estimated 

site energy consumption) during the 

analysis period depending on the 

combination of shipment projections 

analyzed. Because DOE received no 

comments resulting in changes to inputs 

or the analysis, the estimate savings 

presented in Table III.5 are the same as 

those presented in the September 2020 

NOPD. 

TABLE III.5—ESTIMATED NATIONAL SITE ENERGY SAVINGS AND PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTIONS FOR WCUACS AND

ECUACS AT THE MAX-TECH LEVEL

Cooling capacity range 

(Btu/h) 

Cumulative site national energy savings 

(quads) * 

Reduction in 

national site 

energy consumption 

(percent) Trend Constant Regression 

WCUACs 

<65,000 ............................................................................................................ 0.00000 0.00000 ........................ 0.0 

≥65,000 and <135,000 ..................................................................................... 0.00005 0.00019 ........................ 13.3 

≥135,000 and <240,000 ................................................................................... 0.00011 0.00025 ........................ 10.1 

≥240,000 and <760,000 ................................................................................... 0.00287 0.00395 0.00413 8.4 

ECUACs 

<65,000 ............................................................................................................ 0.00001 0.00004 ........................ 5.3 

≥65,000 and <135,000 ..................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 

≥135,000 and <240,000 ................................................................................... N/A N/A N/A N/A 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1

I I 
37010 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

14 In the February 14, 2020 final rule amending 

the Process Rule the Institute for Policy Integrity at 

New York University’s School of Law (referred to 

as ‘‘IPI’’ in this document) is abbreviated as ‘‘NYU 

Law’’. See 85 FR 8626. 

TABLE III.5—ESTIMATED NATIONAL SITE ENERGY SAVINGS AND PERCENT ENERGY REDUCTIONS FOR WCUACS AND

ECUACS AT THE MAX-TECH LEVEL—Continued 

Cooling capacity range 

(Btu/h) 

Cumulative site national energy savings 

(quads) * 

Reduction in 

national site 

energy consumption 

(percent) Trend Constant Regression 

≥240,000 and <760,000 ................................................................................... 0.00005 0.00006 0.00007 6.5 

* Cumulative national energy savings are measured over the lifetime of ECUACs and WCUACs purchased in the 30- year analysis period 

(2020–2049). 

As noted in section III.C.1 of this 

document, in response to a UCA 

comment regarding the completeness of 

shipment data, DOE conducted a 

sensitivity analysis by multiplying 

annual shipments in the three shipment 

projections by 10 and calculating the 

resulting estimated energy savings using 

the higher shipment projections. This 

sensitivity resulted in estimated total 

site energy savings for the WCUAC 

classes of between 0.0303 quads (8.5 

percent of estimated site energy use of 

the evaluated equipment) and 0.0456 

quads (8.6 percent of estimated site 

energy use of the evaluated equipment), 

and for the ECUAC classes of 0.0006 

quads (6.2 percent of estimated site 

energy use of the evaluated equipment) 

and 0.0011 quads (6.0 percent of 

estimated site energy use of the 

evaluated equipment) during the 

analysis period. For both equipment 

categories, the resulting estimated 

savings ranged between 0.0308 quads 

(8.5 percent of estimated site energy use 

of the evaluated equipment) and 0.0467 

quads (8.6 percent of estimated site 

energy use of the evaluated equipment) 

during the analysis period. 

IV. Final Determination 

As required by EPCA, this final 

determination analyzes whether 

amended standards for ECUACs and 

WCUACs would result in significant 

conservation of energy, be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). DOE has 

determined that the energy conservation 

standards for WCUACs and ECUACs do 

not need to be amended, having 

determined that it lacks ‘‘clear and 

convincing’’ evidence that amended 

standards would result in significant 

additional conservation of energy. As 

previously discussed, EPCA specifies 

that for any commercial and industrial 

equipment addressed under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including WCUACs and 

ECUACs, DOE may prescribe an energy 

conservation standard more stringent 

than the level for such equipment in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ‘‘clear 

and convincing evidence’’ shows that a 

more stringent standard would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

IPI objected to DOE’s reliance on the 

significance of energy threshold 

established in the Process Rule. (IPI, No, 

12 at p. 1) IPI reiterated its comments 

regarding the significance of energy 

threshold it previously submitted to the 

rulemaking to update the Process Rule. 

(See IPI, 14 No. 12–3) IPI stated that DOE 

failed to analyze the benefit to 

consumers and the environment and the 

costs of achieving the 8.6 percent energy 

savings calculated using max-tech 

efficiency levels. (IPI, No. 12 at p. 1) 

DOE disagrees with IPI’s 

characterization of the statutory 

requirements applicable in the present 

case. EPCA specifically stipulates that 

the Secretary may not adopt a uniform 

national standard more stringent than 

the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

unless such standard would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)). A determination of 

whether energy savings would be 

significant is distinct from consideration 

of potential consumer cost impacts or 

environmental impacts, which are 

separate considerations in determining 

whether an amended standard is 

economically justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)). In this final 

determination DOE is unable to 

determine, with clear and convincing 

evidence, that amended standards 

would result in significant additional 

conservation of energy based on the low 

projected energy savings combined with 

low and potentially declining product 

shipments (see sections III.C.3 and 

III.C.1, respectively). 

An analysis of shipments data, a 

review of the CCMS database and the 

AHRI Directory, and comments received 

indicate that WCUACs and ECUACs 

continue to be a minor portion of total 

commercial air-cooled shipments with 

total combined shipments of less than 

1,300 units in 2018. The shipments of 

very large WCUACs may be cyclical, 

linked to investment in commercial 

buildings, but the shipment projections 

also suggest that shipments may be 

continuing to decline. 

DOE estimates that amended 

standards for ECUACs at the respective 

‘‘max-tech’’ levels would result in 

additional site energy savings of no 

more than 0.0001 quads during the 

analysis period. DOE has determined 

the energy savings potential for ECUACs 

is de minimis. A sensitivity analysis 

allowing for a factor of 10 increase in 

shipments also resulted in an energy 

savings potential that is de minimis (see 

Section III.C.3). Therefore, DOE has 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that amended 

standards for ECUACs would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy. 

For WCUACs, DOE estimated the 

additional energy savings based on the 

max- tech levels for small and large 

WCUACs, which were determined by 

identifying the highest efficiency ratings 

in the DOE CCMS Database. For very 

large WCUACs DOE determined that 

there is substantial doubt as to the 

appropriateness of using the highest 

efficiency reported in the DOE CCMS 

Database as the max-tech level. As 

discussed, there is a substantial 

question of whether the combination of 

technologies used to achieve the highest 

reported level for very large WCUACs is 

practicable for basic models across the 

capacity range of that equipment class. 

As such, DOE has determined that an 

energy savings calculation that would 

rely on the highest reported efficiency 

for very large WCUACs would not meet 

the ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’ 

threshold required by EPCA. Instead, 

DOE analyzed the next most efficient 

level reported in the DOE CCMS 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37011 

Database for very large WCUACs, which 

did not raise similar concerns, as the 

max-tech level for very large WCUACs. 

Using this next highest efficiency 

level for very large WCUACs and the 

max-tech efficiency levels for the small 

and large classes of WCUACs, DOE 

calculated that amended standards 

would result in additional site energy 

savings of no more than 0.0046 quads 

for all WCUAC classes during the 

analysis period. DOE has determined 

the energy savings potential for 

WCUACs is de minimis. A sensitivity 

analysis allowing for a factor of 10 

increase in shipments also resulted an 

energy savings potential that is de 

minimis (see Section III.C.3). Therefore, 

DOE has determined that it lacks clear 

and convincing evidence that amended 

standards for WCUACs would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy. Based on the consideration of 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and that these markets are small 

and may be declining, DOE has 

determined that the energy conservation 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs do 

not need to be amended. 

V. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Orders 

12866 and 13563 

This final determination has been 

determined to be not significant for 

purposes of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 

12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 

58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). As a result, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(‘‘OMB’’) did not review this final 

determination. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by Executive Order 13272, 

‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities 

in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (https://energy.gov/ 

gc/office-general-counsel). 

In response to the NOPD, UCA 

provided a number of general comments 

regarding the potential impacts of 

efficiency regulations on equipment and 

small businesses. UCA commented that 

small businesses are often not members 

of trade associations and do not have 

staff reading the Federal Register, and 

therefore do not get information on 

regulations. UCA also stated that small 

businesses generally do not have the 

resources to evaluate and access newer 

technologies at the same time as larger 

companies and do not have the 

resources to develop an alternative 

efficiency determination method. UCA 

further stated that small commercial 

HVAC manufacturers have higher costs 

to fabricate units for testing. (UCA No. 

11–1, pp. 2–3) 

DOE reviewed this final 

determination pursuant to the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. As stated, this final 

determination is not amending 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs. 

Further, this final determination does 

not amend the certification and 

reporting requirements. Therefore, DOE 

certifies that this final determination 

has no significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

final regulatory flexibility analysis 

(‘‘FRFA’’) for this final determination. 

DOE will transmit this certification and 

supporting statement of factual basis to 

the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the 

Small Business Administration for 

review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

Manufacturers of ECUACs and 

WCUACs must certify to DOE that their 

equipment complies with any 

applicable energy conservation 

standards. In certifying compliance, 

manufacturers must test their 

equipment according to the DOE test 

procedures for ECUACs and WCUACs, 

including any amendments adopted for 

those test procedures. DOE has 

established regulations for the 

certification and recordkeeping 

requirements for all covered consumer 

products and commercial equipment, 

including ECUACs and WCUACs. 76 FR 

12422 (March 7, 2011); 80 FR 5099 (Jan. 

30, 2015). The collection-of-information 

requirement for the certification and 

recordkeeping is subject to review and 

approval by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This 

requirement has been approved by OMB 

under OMB control number 1910–1400. 

Public reporting burden for the 

certification is estimated to average 35 

hours per response, including the time 

for reviewing instructions, searching 

existing data sources, gathering and 

maintaining the data needed, and 

completing and reviewing the collection 

of information. 

Notwithstanding any other provision 

of the law, no person is required to 

respond to, nor shall any person be 

subject to a penalty for failure to comply 

with, a collection of information subject 

to the requirements of the PRA, unless 

that collection of information displays a 

currently valid OMB Control Number. 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

Pursuant to the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’), DOE has analyzed this final 

determination in accordance with NEPA 

and DOE’s NEPA implementing 

regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE has 

determined that this rule qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regards to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. Therefore, DOE has 

determined that promulgation of this 

rule is not a major Federal action 

significantly affecting the quality of the 

human environment within the meaning 

of NEPA, and does not require an 

environmental assessment or an 

environmental impact statement. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 

64 FR 43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes 

certain requirements on Federal 

agencies formulating and implementing 

policies or regulations that preempt 

State law or that have Federalism 

implications. The Executive Order 

requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The 

Executive Order also requires agencies 

to have an accountable process to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have Federalism implications. On 

March 14, 2000, DOE published a 

statement of policy describing the 

intergovernmental consultation process 

it will follow in the development of 

such regulations. 65 FR 13735. As this 

final determination does not amend the 

standards for ECUACs and WCUACs, 

there is no impact on the policymaking 

discretion of the States. Therefore, no 

action is required by Executive Order 

13132. 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
37012 Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of 

Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice 

Reform,’’ imposes on Federal agencies 

the general duty to adhere to the 

following requirements: (1) Eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguity, (2) write 

regulations to minimize litigation, (3) 

provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct rather than a general 

standard, and (4) promote simplification 

and burden reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 

7, 1996). Regarding the review required 

by section 3(a), section 3(b) of Executive 

Order 12988 specifically requires that 

Executive agencies make every 

reasonable effort to ensure that the 

regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the 

preemptive effect, if any, (2) clearly 

specifies any effect on existing Federal 

law or regulation, (3) provides a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

while promoting simplification and 

burden reduction, (4) specifies the 

retroactive effect, if any, (5) adequately 

defines key terms, and (6) addresses 

other important issues affecting clarity 

and general draftsmanship under any 

guidelines issued by the Attorney 

General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 

12988 requires Executive agencies to 

review regulations in light of applicable 

standards in section 3(a) and section 

3(b) to determine whether they are met 

or it is unreasonable to meet one or 

more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this final 

determination meets the relevant 

standards of Executive Order 12988. 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at https://energy.gov/sites/ 

prod/files/gcprod/documents/umra_

97.pdf. 

This final determination does not 

contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditure of $100 million or more in 

one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

final determination would not have any 

impact on the autonomy or integrity of 

the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to Executive Order 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this final 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under guidelines established by 

each agency pursuant to general 

guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s 

guidelines were published at 67 FR 

62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB 

Memorandum M–19–15, Improving 

Implementation of the Information 

Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE 

published updated guidelines which are 

available at https://www.energy.gov/ 

sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/ 

DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20

Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE 

has reviewed this final determination 

under the OMB and DOE guidelines and 

has concluded that it is consistent with 

applicable policies in those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions 

Concerning Regulations That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 

22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to 

prepare and submit to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) at OMB, a Statement of Energy 

Effects for any significant energy action. 

A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined 

as any action by an agency that 

promulgates or is expected to lead to 

promulgation of a final rule, and that (1) 

is a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866, or any successor 

order; and (2) is likely to have a 

significant adverse effect on the supply, 

distribution, or use of energy, or (3) is 

designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any significant energy action, the agency 

must give a detailed statement of any 

adverse effects on energy supply, 

distribution, or use should the proposal 

be implemented, and of reasonable 

alternatives to the action and their 

expected benefits on energy supply, 

distribution, and use. 

Because this final determination does 

not amend the current standards for 

ECUACs and WCUACs, it is not a 

significant energy action, nor has it been 

designated as such by the Administrator 

at OIRA. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Information Quality 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 132 / Wednesday, July 14, 2021 / Rules and Regulations 37013 

15 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at https://

energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0. 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

a report describing that peer review.15

Generation of this report involved a 

rigorous, formal, and documented 

evaluation using objective criteria and 

qualified and independent reviewers to 

make a judgment as to the technical/ 

scientific/business merit, the actual or 

anticipated results, and the productivity 

and management effectiveness of 

programs and/or projects. DOE has 

determined that the peer-reviewed 

analytical process continues to reflect 

current practice, and the Department 

followed that process for developing 

energy conservation standards in the 

case of the present rulemaking. 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this final determination. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on July 7, 2021, by 

Kelly Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary and Acting 

Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 

delegated authority from the Secretary 

of Energy. That document with the 

original signature and date is 

maintained by DOE. For administrative 

purposes only, and in compliance with 

requirements of the Office of the Federal 

Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 

Register Liaison Officer has been 

authorized to sign and submit the 

document in electronic format for 

publication, as an official document of 

the Department of Energy. This 

administrative process in no way alters 

the legal effect of this document upon 

publication in the Federal Register. 

Signed in Washington, DC, on July 8, 2021. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2021–14837 Filed 7–13–21; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 25 

[Docket No. FAA–2021–0582; Special 

Conditions No. FAA–2021–0582–F] 

Special Conditions: Archeion 

Holdings, LLC, Boeing Model No. 777– 

200/–200LR/–300/–300ER Series 

Airplanes; Electronic-System Security 

Protection From Unauthorized External 

Access 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final special conditions; request 

for comments. 

SUMMARY: These special conditions are 

issued for the Boeing Model 777–200/– 

200LR/–300/–300ER Series Airplanes. 

These airplanes, as modified by 

Archeion Holdings, LLC (Archeion), 

will have a novel or unusual design 

feature when compared to the state of 

technology envisioned in the 

airworthiness standards for transport 

category airplanes. This design feature 

is a digital systems architecture for the 

installation of a system with wireless 

network and hosted application 

functionality that allows access from 

external sources to the airplane’s 

internal electronic components. The 

applicable airworthiness regulations do 

not contain adequate or appropriate 

safety standards for this design feature. 

These special conditions contain the 

additional safety standards that the 

Administrator considers necessary to 

establish a level of safety equivalent to 

that established by the existing 

airworthiness standards. 

DATES: This action is effective on 

Archeion on July 14, 2021. Send 

comments on or before August 30, 2021. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments identified 

by Docket No. FAA–2021–0582 using 

any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRegulations Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/ and follow 

the online instructions for sending your 

comments electronically. 

• Mail: Send comments to Docket 

Operations, M–30, U.S. Department of 

Transportation (DOT), 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Room W12–140, West 

Building Ground Floor, Washington DC 

20590–0001. 

• Hand Delivery or Courier: Take 

comments to Docket Operations in 

Room W12–140 of the West Building 

Ground Floor at 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE, Washington, DC, between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. 

• Fax: Fax comments to Docket 

Operations at 202–493–2251. 

Privacy: Except for Confidential 

Business Information (CBI) as described 

in the following paragraph, and other 

information as described in 14 CFR 

11.35, the FAA will post all comments 

received without change to http://

www.regulations.gov/, including any 

personal information you provide. The 

FAA will also post a report 

summarizing each substantive verbal 

contact received about this proposal. 

Confidential Business Information: 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

is commercial or financial information 

that is both customarily and actually 

treated as private by its owner. Under 

the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) 

(5 U.S.C. 552), CBI is exempt from 

public disclosure. If your comments 

responsive to this Notice contain 

commercial or financial information 

that is customarily treated as private, 

that you actually treat as private, and 

that is relevant or responsive to this 

Notice, it is important that you clearly 

designate the submitted comments as 

CBI. Please mark each page of your 

submission containing CBI as 

‘‘PROPIN.’’ The FAA will treat such 

marked submissions as confidential 

under the FOIA, and the indicated 

comments will not be placed in the 

public docket of this Notice. 

Submissions containing CBI should be 

sent to Varun Khanna, Airplane and 

Flight Crew Interface Section, AIR–622, 

Aircraft Information Systems, Technical 

Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and 

Innovation Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2200 South 216th 

Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; 

telephone and fax 206–231–3159; email 

Varun.Khanna@faa.gov. Comments the 

FAA receives, which are not specifically 

designated as CBI, will be placed in the 

public docket for this rulemaking. 

Docket: Background documents or 

comments received may be read at 

http://www.regulations.gov/ at any time. 

Follow the online instructions for 

accessing the docket or go to Docket 

Operations in Room W12–140 of the 

West Building Ground Floor at 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, 

DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Varun Khanna, Airplane and Flight 

Crew Interface Section, AIR–622, 

Aircraft Information Systems, Technical 

Innovation Policy Branch, Policy and 

Innovation Division, Aircraft 

Certification Service, Federal Aviation 

Administration, 2200 South 216th 

Street, Des Moines, Washington 98198; 


lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with RULES1