This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

24455 

Vol. 87, No. 80 

Tuesday, April 26, 2022 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042] 

RIN 1905–AE59 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination 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 commercial warm air furnaces 

(‘‘CWAFs’’). EPCA also requires the U.S. 

Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to 

periodically review standards. In this 

notification of proposed determination 

(‘‘NOPD’’), DOE has initially determined 

that it lacks clear and convincing 

evidence that amended energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs 

would be economically justified. DOE 

requests comment on this proposed 

determination. 

DATES:

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Tuesday, June 7, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before June 27, 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, identified by docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042, by 

any of the following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

2. Email: to 

PkgHVACFurnace2019STD0042@

ee.doe.gov. Include docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042 and/or RIN 

1904–AE59 in the subject line of the 

message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

V of this document (Public 

Participation). 

Although DOE has routinely accepted 

public comment submissions through a 

variety of mechanisms, including 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 coronavirus (‘‘COVID–19’’) 

pandemic. DOE is currently suspending 

receipt of public comments via postal 

mail and hand delivery/courier. 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, which includes 

Federal Register notices, public meeting 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

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/docket?D=EERE2019-BT-STD-0042. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section V, 

‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Julia Hegarty, 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: (240) 597– 

6737. 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 or review other 

public comments and the docket 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 Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

III. General Discussion and Rationale 

A. General Comments 

B. Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

1. Equipment Class Structure 

2. Definition and Coverage 

C. Test Procedures 

D. Market and Technology Assessment, 

and Engineering Analysis 

E. Economic and Energy Analyses 

F. Proposed Determination 

1. Significant Conservation of Energy 

2. Technological Feasibility 

3. Economic Justification 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 

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. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Public Meeting 

Webinar 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24456 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 Energy Act 

of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflects the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

3Air-cooled commercial package air conditioning 

and heating equipment (referred to as ‘‘air-cooled 

unitary air conditioners and air-cooled unitary heat 

pumps’’ or ‘‘ACUACs and ACUHPs’’) were also 

included in the scope of the request for information 

(‘‘RFI’’) published by DOE on May 12, 2020 (‘‘May 

2020 RFI’’) that precedes this NOPD. 85 FR 27941. 

In this NOPD, DOE only addresses CWAFs. DOE 

will address ACUACs and ACUHPs in a separate 

proceeding. 

4 In determining whether a more-stringent 

standard is economically justified, EPCA directs 

DOE to determine, after receiving views and 

comments from the public, whether the benefits of 

the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the 

proposed standard by, to the maximum extent 

practicable, considering the following seven factors: 

(1) The economic impact of the standard on the 

manufacturers and consumers of the products 

subject to the standard; (2) The savings in operating 

costs throughout the estimated average life of the 

product compared to any increases in the initial 

price of, initial charges for, or maintenance expense 

of the products 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 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 conservation; and (7) Other 

factors the Secretary of Energy (‘‘Secretary’’) 

considers relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)) 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

C. Conduct of the Public Meeting Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

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 

CWAFs, which are the subject of this 

NOPD.3 (42 U.S.C. 6311(J)) 

Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is triggered to 

consider amending the energy efficiency 

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, at a minimum, every 6 years after 

issuance of any final rule establishing or 

amending a standard (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)). DOE is conducting 

this review of the energy conservation 

standards for CWAFs under EPCA’s sixyear-lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

considered CWAFs subject to the 

current Federal energy conservation 

standards specified in the Code of 

Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 

431.77. In a direct final rule published 

in the Federal Register on January 15, 

2016 (‘‘January 2016 final rule’’), DOE, 

in relevant part, established amended 

standards for CWAFs, including energy 

conservation standards for which 

compliance is required beginning on 

January 1, 2023. 81 FR 2420. DOE has 

tentatively determined that there is 

significant uncertainty regarding 

whether more-stringent standards 

would be economically justified at this 

time, a matter which the Department 

discusses in more detail in section III.F 

of this document. Therefore, DOE has 

preliminarily determined that the 

energy conservation standards for 

CWAFs do not need to be amended 

because there is not clear and 

convincing evidence that amended 

standards would be economically 

justified, as required by EPCA to 

establish a more-stringent standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as the historical background 

relevant to the establishment of energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs. 

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 equipment includes CWAFs, the 

subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 

6311(J)) 

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 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 42 U.S.C. 6316(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. 

6316(b)(2)(D), which incorporates the 

preemption waiver provisions of 42 

U.S.C. 6297(d)) 

EPCA prescribed initial mandatory 

energy conservation standards for 

CWAFs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(4)) In doing 

so, EPCA established Federal energy 

conservation standards that generally 

corresponded to the levels in the 

ASHRAE Standards 90.1 in effect on 

October 24, 1992 (i.e., ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–1989). 

In overview, 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 CWAFs, 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)) 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.4 (42 U.S.C. 

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

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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24457 

5 It is DOE’s understanding that the relevant 

provisions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 

pertaining to CWAF standards contained a 

typographical error. Table 6.8.1–5 of ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2019 specifies a thermal efficiency 

(TE) requirement of 82 percent for oil-fired CWAFs 

applicable after January 1, 2023, which aligns with 

the standard adopted by the January 2016 final rule. 

However, Table 6.8.1–5 of ASHRAE 90.1–2019 also 

specifies a TE requirement of only 80 percent for 

oil-fired CWAFs applicable before January 1, 2023, 

whereas the previous version, ASHRAE 90.1–2016, 

specified a TE requirement of 81 percent for this 

class. DOE understands the 80-percent level in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 to be a typographical 

error, and that the TE requirement for oil-fired 

warm-air furnaces ≥225,000 Btu/h before January 1, 

2023 should be 81 percent, thereby aligning with 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 and the current 

Federal standard. Since the 80-percent level in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 is lower than the 

corresponding current Federal standard, DOE 

cannot consider adopting the ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 level due to the ‘‘anti-backsliding’’ 

provision in EPCA, 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)) 

Further, because the revised ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019 lowers the standard, as compared to the 

level specified by the uniform national standard 

adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE did not have the 

authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a 

higher standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) (i.e., DOE is not 

triggered). See 84 FR 3910, 3915 (Feb. 13, 2019). 

6 DOE assessed whether it was triggered based 

upon consideration of the current Federal standards 

codified at 10 CFR 431.77, which were promulgated 

through the final rule published in the Federal 

Register on 81 FR 2420 (Jan. 15, 2016). In doing so, 

DOE considered the totality of these CWAF 

standard levels, even though compliance with 

certain of those standards is not yet required (i.e., 

a compliance date of January 1, 2023). 

7The following stakeholders listed in Table II–1 

did not provide comments relevant to CWAFs and, 

therefore, are not discussed further in this 

document: PGE, UCA, Verified Inc., Heinemeier, 

and Walsh. 

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 shall evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for each class of 

certain covered commercial equipment, 

including CWAFs, and publish either a 

notice of determination that the 

standards do not need to be amended, 

or a notice of proposed rulemaking 

(‘‘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 not to amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notification 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)) 

A determination of whether amended 

energy conservation standards are 

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)(II); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)–(B)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which a determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

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

must be clear and convincing evidence 

that a determination that more-stringent 

standards would (1) result in significant 

additional conservation of energy, (2) be 

technologically feasible and (3) be 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

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

DOE is publishing this NOPD in 

satisfaction of the six-year-lookback 

review requirement in EPCA, having 

initially determined that DOE lacks 

clear and convincing evidence that 

amended standards for CWAFs would 

be economically justified. 

B. Background 

In a final rule published in the 

Federal Register on October 21, 2004 

(‘‘October 2004 final rule’’), DOE 

codified energy conservation standards 

for CWAFs equal to those established in 

EPCA (i.e., a thermal efficiency of 80 

percent for gas-fired CWAFs, and a 

thermal efficiency of 81 percent for oilfired CWAFs). 69 FR 61916, 61941. The 

standards established in the October 

2004 final rule are the same as DOE’s 

current CWAF standards for CWAFs 

manufactured before January 1, 2023. 10 

CFR 431.77. 

As noted previously, DOE most 

recently amended the energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs in 

the January 2016 final rule, which 

requires compliance beginning on 

January 1, 2023. 81 FR 2420 (Jan. 15, 

2016). 

Since publication of the January 2016 

final rule, ASHRAE published two 

updated versions of ASHRAE Standard 

90.1, one in 2016 (‘‘ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016’’) and another in 2019 

(‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019’’). The 

CWAF standards adopted in the January 

2016 final rule (i.e., the standards which 

take effect on and after the January 1, 

2023 compliance date) are more 

stringent than the minimum efficiency 

levels for CWAFs in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016. ASHRAE 90.1–2019 updated 

the minimum efficiency levels for 

CWAFs to align with those adopted by 

DOE in the January 2016 final rule.5

Because neither ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2016 nor ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 

2019 contained minimum efficiency 

levels more stringent than the current 

Federal standards for CWAFs, DOE was 

not triggered to examine amended 

standards for this equipment under 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A).6 As a result, 

despite these intervening ASHRAE 

actions, the Federal standards for 

CWAFs are those set forth in the January 

2016 final rule and codified in DOE’s 

regulations at 10 CFR 431.77. 

More specifically, for gas-fired 

CWAFs manufactured starting on 

January 1, 1994, until January 1, 2023, 

the thermal efficiency (‘‘TE’’) at the 

maximum rated capacity (i.e., rated 

maximum input) must be not less than 

80 percent. For gas-fired CWAFs 

manufactured starting on January 1, 

2023, the TE at the maximum rated 

capacity must be not less than 81 

percent. For oil-fired CWAFs 

manufactured starting on January 1, 

1994, until January 1, 2023, the TE at 

the maximum rated capacity must be 

not less than 81 percent. For oil-fired 

CWAFs manufactured starting on 

January 1, 2023, the TE at the maximum 

rated capacity must be not less than 82 

percent. 10 CFR 431.77 

In the January 2016 final rule, DOE 

rejected more-stringent standards on the 

basis that benefits of energy savings, 

emission reductions, and the estimated 

monetary value of the emissions 

reductions would be outweighed by the 

economic burden on many consumers, 

negative net present value (‘‘NPV’’) of 

consumer benefits, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a large reduction in 

industry net present value (‘‘INPV’’). 81 

FR 2420, 2522 (Jan. 15, 2016). 

In support of its present review of the 

CWAF energy conservation standards, 

DOE published in the Federal Register 

a request for information (RFI) on May 

12, 2020 (May 2020 RFI), which 

identified various issues on which DOE 

sought comment, data, and information 

to inform its determination of whether 

the current Federal standards need to be 

amended. (It is again noted that the May 

2020 RFI addressed ACUACs and 

ACUHPs, in addition to CWAFs.) 85 FR 

27941. 

DOE received numerous comments in 

response to the May 2020 RFI from 

interested parties, as listed in Table II– 

1. While Table II–1 includes all parties 

that commented in response to the May 

2020 RFI, only those comments relevant 

to CWAFs are summarized and 

addressed in this NOPD.7 As previously 

mentioned, DOE will consider ACUACs 

and ACUHPs in a separate proceeding, 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24458 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

8The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No. 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2019-BTSTD-0042). The references are arranged as follows: 

(Commenter name, comment docket ID number, 

page of that document). 

in which the Department will address 

comments received in response to the 

May 2020 RFI related to ACUACs and 

ACUHPs. 

TABLE II–1—INTERESTED PARTIES THAT PROVIDED WRITTEN COMMENT ON THE MAY 2020 RFI 

Commenter(s) Acronym used 

in this NOPD Commenter type 

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

Lennox International, Inc ......................................................................... Lennox ........................................... Manufacturer. 

Carrier Corporation .................................................................................. Carrier ............................................ Manufacturer. 

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

Goodman Manufacturing Company, L.P ................................................. Goodman ....................................... Manufacturer. 

Spire Inc .................................................................................................. Spire .............................................. Utility. 

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

American Public Gas Association ........................................................... APGA ............................................. Trade Association. 

Portland General Electric Company ........................................................ PGE ............................................... Utility. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ..................................................... NEEA ............................................. Efficiency Organization. 

California Investor-Owned Utilities .......................................................... CA IOUs ........................................ Utility. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships.Joint Advocates ............................. Efficiency Organizations and State 

Government. 

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

Robert Mowris ......................................................................................... Verified Inc ..................................... Other Stakeholder. 

Kristin Heinemeier ................................................................................... Heinemeier .................................... Other Stakeholder. 

John Walsh .............................................................................................. Walsh ............................................. Other Stakeholder. 

Daniel Harkins ......................................................................................... Harkins ........................................... Other Stakeholder. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.8

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), DOE notes that it is 

deviating from the provision in 

appendix A regarding the comment 

period for a notice of proposed 

rulemaking. Section 6(f)(2) of appendix 

A specifies that the length of the public 

comment period for a NOPR will not be 

less than 75 days. For this proposed 

determination, DOE has opted to instead 

provide a 60-day comment period. As 

stated previously, DOE requested 

comment in the May 2020 RFI on the 

technical and economic analyses that 

would be used to determine whether, 

based on clear and convincing evidence, 

a more-stringent standard would result 

in significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. DOE has 

determined that a 60-day comment 

period, in conjunction with the prior 

May 2020 RFI, provides sufficient time 

for interested parties to review the 

proposed rule and develop comments. 

III. General Discussion and Rationale 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after a review of the 

CWAF market, including product 

literature and product listings in the 

DOE Compliance Certification 

Management System (CCMS) database. 

DOE also considered comments, data, 

and information from interested parties 

that represent a variety of interests. This 

notice addresses issues raised by these 

commenters. 

A. General Comments 

DOE received multiple comments 

from stakeholders stating generally that 

DOE should not amend the current 

Federal standards for CWAFs. (AHRI, 

No. 14 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 4– 

5, 18–19; Lennox, No. 15 at pp. 1, 3; 

Trane, No. 16 at p. 2; APGA, No. 19 at 

pp. 1–3; Spire, No. 21 at pp. 2–3) More 

specifically, AHRI, Carrier, Lennox, and 

Trane argued that the current Federal 

standards should not be amended 

because of the regulatory burdens 

manufacturers already face. (AHRI, No. 

14 at p. 2; Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 18–19; 

Lennox, No. 15 at p. 4; Trane, No. 16 at 

p. 2) Commenters also asserted that the 

impacts associated with the 2023 

standards cannot be assessed at this 

time because the standards have yet to 

take effect, and, therefore, considering 

new standards prior to 2023 would be 

premature. (Lennox, No. 15 at pp. 2–3; 

AHRI, No. 14 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 13 at 

p. 8; Trane, No. 16 at p. 2) 

DOE also received comments from 

several other stakeholders generally 

expressing support for DOE evaluating 

and amending the current energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs. 

(Joint Advocates, No. 23 at p. 1; CA 

IOUs No. 20 at pp. 1–7; NEEA, No. 24 

at pp. 1–10) More specifically, the Joint 

Advocates stated that very large energy 

savings could result from amended 

standards for CWAFs, citing the maxtech efficiency levels analyzed in the 

January 2016 final rule, as well as the 

range of efficiencies in the current 

market. (Joint Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 

1–2) NEEA and the CA IOUs similarly 

commented as to the potential for 

energy savings. (CA IOUs No. 20 at pp. 

1–7; NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 1, 5–7) 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, 

AHRI asserted that DOE is not 

statutorily required to review amended 

standards under the six-year-lookback 

rulemaking for CWAFs, based on the 

fact that the 2023 standards adopted in 

the January 2016 final rule have not yet 

come into effect. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 3) 

DOE disagrees with AHRI’s reading of 

the statute. The statute does not 

reference compliance dates from 

previous rulemakings in setting the 

timing for DOE’s required review, but 

instead, the language of EPCA simply 

requires DOE to evaluate amended 

standards for CWAFs every 6 years, 

which DOE has interpreted as running 

from publication of the last final rule to 

amend the applicable standards. (see 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) However, DOE 

acknowledges that if it were to set 

standards under EPCA’s six-yearlookback provision, the statute would 

require DOE to set a compliance date 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24459 

that is the later of: (1) The date three 

years after publication of the final rule 

establishing the amended standard or 

(2) the date that is six years after the 

effective date of the current standard for 

a covered product (in this case 2029). 

(see 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)) 

Therefore, pursuant to its statutory 

obligations (particularly EPCA’s 

required six-year-lookback review under 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) and as 

discussed in this NOPD, DOE has 

considered the potential for amended 

standards for CWAFs. Such review is 

necessary for DOE to determine whether 

potential amended energy conservation 

standards for CWAFs would meet the 

applicable statutory criteria. DOE’s 

analyses in this proceeding also allow it 

to evaluate the opposing view of the 

comments previously discussed 

regarding the appropriateness of 

amended CWAF standards. 

B. Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

For CWAFs, the current energy 

conservation standards specified in 10 

CFR 431.77 are based on two equipment 

classes determined according to fuel 

type: Gas-fired CWAFs and oil-fired 

CWAFs. The current standards are 

consistent with the equipment class 

structure in the current version of 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 

1. Equipment Class Structure 

In response to the May 2020 RFI, 

NEEA recommended that DOE should 

consider dividing the gas-fired CWAF 

equipment class into two or more 

classes by capacity. NEEA argued that 

smaller units are more prominent in 

commercial buildings, that analyzing 

them as a separate equipment class 

would help identify their unique 

characteristics and challenges, and that 

the cost-effectiveness of efficiency 

features for smaller units will be 

different than those of larger units. 

(NEEA, No. 24 at p. 3) 

DOE declines to make NEEA’s 

recommended changes to the CWAF 

class structure for the reasons that 

follow. First, as discussed in section 

III.F of this document, DOE has 

tentatively determined that it lacks clear 

and convincing evidence that amended 

standards for CWAFs would be 

economically justified. As explained in 

that section, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the market for CWAFs 

has not yet fully responded to the 

pending 2023 energy conservation 

standards. This uncertainty extends to 

the energy characteristics of the market 

against which any alternate equipment 

class scheme would be compared. 

However, more importantly, DOE has 

determined that it lacks statutory 

authority to make the changes NEEA 

requests, as explained subsequently. 

As a general rule, for covered 

consumer products, EPCA requires that 

a rule prescribing an energy 

conservation standard for a type (or 

class) of covered products shall specify 

a different level of energy use or 

efficiency (either higher or lower) than 

that which applies (or would apply) to 

any group of covered products that have 

the same function or intended use, if the 

Secretary determines that covered 

products within such group either: (1) 

Consume a different kind of energy; or 

(2) have a capacity or other 

performance-related feature which other 

products within such type (or class) do 

not have and such feature justifies a 

different standard from that which 

applies (or will apply) to other products 

within such type (or class). (42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1)) These provisions also apply 

to covered commercial and industrial 

equipment—other than ASHRAE 

equipment—through the statutory 

crosswalk provision at 42 U.S.C. 

6316(a). In contrast, ASHRAE 

equipment, which includes CWAFs, has 

its own separate statutory scheme under 

EPCA, as described in section II.A of 

this document. For ASHRAE 

equipment, there is neither a companion 

provision nor crosswalk to 42 U.S.C. 

6295(q)(1). Therefore, EPCA in essence 

requires DOE to establish energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs at 

the minimum efficiencies set forth in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (unless DOE has 

clear and convincing evidence to adopt 

more-stringent standards), consistent 

with the equipment class structure in 

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

6313(a)(6)(A)) Consequently, DOE is not 

considering amendments to the 

equipment classes for CWAFs. 

2. Definition and Coverage 

EPCA defines a ‘‘warm air furnace’’ as 

a self-contained oil- or gas-fired furnace 

designed to supply heated air through 

ducts to spaces that require it and 

includes combination warm air furnace/ 

electric air conditioning units but does 

not include unit heaters and duct 

furnaces. (42 U.S.C. 6311(11)(A)) A 

‘‘commercial warm air furnace’’ is 

further defined in DOE’s regulations as 

a warm air furnace that is industrial 

equipment, and that has a capacity 

(rated maximum input) of 225,000 

British thermal units (‘‘Btu’’) per hour or 

more. 10 CFR 431.72. In the May 2020 

RFI, DOE requested comment on 

whether the Department’s regulatory 

definition for ‘‘commercial warm air 

furnace,’’ or related definitions, require 

any revisions, and if so, how those 

definitions should be revised. 85 FR 

27941, 27945 (May 12, 2020). 

Trane stated that it does not see the 

need for any changes to the definition 

of CWAF. (Trane, No. 16 at p. 3) 

Conversely, NEEA recommended that 

DOE should consider updating its 

definition for CWAF to account for 

different operating characteristics, 

different functions, or use cases in order 

to reduce uncertainty as to the 

applicable standard and test procedure 

and to provide more comprehensive 

coverage. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 5) 

In response, DOE reviewed the 

definition of ‘‘commercial warm air 

furnace.’’ The codified definition of 

‘‘warm air furnace’’ at 10 CFR 431.72 

matches EPCA’s definition of a ‘‘warm 

air furnace’’ at 42 U.S.C 6311(11)(A). A 

CWAF is defined at 10 CFR 431.72 as 

a warm air furnace with the additional 

requirements that it be industrial 

equipment having a capacity (rated 

maximum input) of 225,000 Btu per 

hour (‘‘Btu/h’’) or more, which picks up 

where the upper limit of consumer 

furnace input capacity for consumer 

furnaces leaves off (see 42 U.S.C. 

6291(23)(D)). After careful review, DOE 

considers this definition to be 

appropriately aligned with the 

definition in EPCA and to adequately 

cover commercial furnaces. (As 

discussed later in this section, DOE 

identified a small number of furnace 

models that are not covered by either 

the consumer furnace definition or the 

CWAF definition, but tentatively 

concludes that amending the CWAF 

definition in the CFR to cover those 

models is unnecessary because it would 

be duplicative, and would provide little 

opportunity for energy savings.) 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that no amendments to the 

regulatory definitions for ‘‘commercial 

warm air furnace’’ or ‘‘warm air 

furnace’’ are needed. 

AHRI and Carrier suggested 

modifying the definition of ‘‘commercial 

warm air furnace’’ to introduce an upper 

limit to the input capacity of covered 

CWAFs. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4; Carrier, 

No. 13 at p. 3) DOE notes that the topic 

of an upper capacity limit was 

discussed previously in a NOPR 

published in the Federal Register on 

February 4, 2015 (‘‘February 2015 

NOPR’’). 80 FR 6182, 6192–6193. In the 

February 2015 NOPR, DOE noted that 

neither EPCA nor DOE’s existing 

regulations for CWAFs specify an upper 

limit to the input rating of covered 

equipment, and that establishing an 

upper limit would potentially remove 

coverage of models that would have 

otherwise been covered by DOE 

regulations. Because of this, DOE did 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24460 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

not propose an upper limit on the input 

capacity of covered CWAF. Id. DOE 

tentatively maintains its position taken 

in the February 2015 NOPR and, 

therefore, is not proposing an upper 

limit on the input capacity of covered 

CWAFs. 

Carrier stated that there are gaps in 

coverage between the consumer furnace 

and CWAF definitions, so the 

commenter recommended that the 

CWAF definition should be modified to 

address those gaps. Specifically, Carrier 

stated that three-phase furnaces with 

input ratings less than 225,000 Btu/h, as 

well as single-phase furnaces with input 

ratings less than 225,000 Btu/h that are 

installed within the same cabinet as an 

air conditioner with a cooling capacity 

greater than 65,000 Btu/h, are not 

covered by either definition. Carrier 

recommended that the CWAF definition 

be expanded to classify furnaces that are 

currently unregulated as CWAFs, with 

the option of rating either with annual 

fuel utilization efficiency (‘‘AFUE’’) or 

TE, as allowed in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1. (Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 2–3) 

As previously stated, DOE defines a 

‘‘commercial warm air furnace’’ as a 

warm air furnace that is industrial 

equipment, and that has a capacity 

(rated maximum input) of 225,000 Btu 

per hour or more. 10 CFR 431.72. DOE 

defines a consumer ‘‘furnace’’ as a 

product which utilizes only singlephase electric current, or single-phase 

electric current or DC current in 

conjunction with natural gas, propane, 

or home heating oil, and which: (1) Is 

designed to be the principal heating 

source for the living space of a 

residence; (2) is not contained within 

the same cabinet with a central air 

conditioner whose rated cooling 

capacity is above 65,000 Btu per hour; 

(3) is an electric central furnace, electric 

boiler, forced-air central furnace, gravity 

central furnace, or low-pressure steam 

or hot water boiler; and (4) has a heat 

input rate of less than 300,000 Btu per 

hour for electric boilers and lowpressure steam or hot water boilers and 

less than 225,000 Btu per hour for 

forced-air central furnaces, gravity 

central furnaces, and electric central 

furnaces. 10 CFR 430.2. This potential 

gap in coverage was addressed in the 

February 2015 NOPR, in which DOE did 

not propose to extend CWAF coverage 

to three-phase, less than 225,000 Btu/h 

equipment. 80 FR 6182, 6192 (Feb. 4, 

2015). In the February 2015 NOPR, DOE 

agreed with commenters that there is 

limited potential for energy savings 

from coverage of such units due to the 

fact that equipment with these 

characteristics are already meeting 

efficiency levels specified by ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. In its review of the 

market at the time, DOE did not identify 

any equipment with an efficiency level 

below that specified in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 levels for analogous 

equipment, and thus, tentatively 

determined that a separate equipment 

class and standard for this equipment 

may be unnecessarily duplicative and 

provide little opportunity for energy 

savings. Id. 

For this notice, DOE reexamined this 

matter, and the agency once again 

reviewed the market and found a small 

number of gas-fired furnace models that 

are three-phase with an input rating less 

than 225,000 Btu/h. The Department 

found that for all of these models, 

manufacturers provide efficiency 

ratings, and the models meet or exceed 

the current gas-fired CWAF standards. 

Further, a majority of models identified 

also meet or exceed the 2023 gas-fired 

CWAF standards. In addition, DOE 

notes that these individual models make 

up a very small portion (roughly 2 

percent) of the total CWAF market. 

Therefore, DOE tentatively maintains its 

previous conclusion that there is limited 

potential for energy savings from 

extending the ‘‘commercial warm air 

furnace’’ definition to cover this 

equipment due to the small size of the 

market and the fact that these products 

appear to meet or exceed the minimum 

energy conservation standards despite 

falling in a coverage gap. DOE also was 

unable to identify any models currently 

on the market with input ratings less 

than 225,000 Btu/h and that are 

contained within the same cabinet as a 

central air conditioner with a cooling 

capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h, 

indicating that there would likely be no 

potential for additional energy savings 

from covering this equipment. 

Therefore, DOE has tentatively 

determined that amending the CWAF 

definition to cover such equipment 

would provide little opportunity for 

energy savings and is not proposing to 

do so in this notice. 

C. Test Procedures 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) As a 

general matter, manufacturers of 

covered ASHRAE equipment must use 

these test procedures to certify to DOE 

that their equipment complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 

6296) DOE’s current energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs are 

expressed in terms of a minimum 

thermal efficiency in percent. (See 10 

CFR 431.77) The applicable test 

procedure for CWAFs is found at 10 

CFR 431.76, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for 

Measurement of Energy Efficiency of 

Commercial Warm Air Furnaces.’’ 

In commenting on the May 2020 RFI, 

DOE received input from multiple 

stakeholders regarding DOE’s CWAF 

test procedure, particularly as relates to 

jacket loss. (Joint Advocates, No. 23 at 

pp. 3–4; NEEA, No. 24 at pp. 6–7; CA 

IOUs, No. 20 at p. 4; AHRI, No. 14 at 

p. 4; Carrier, No. 13. at p. 5; Goodman, 

No. 17 at p. 2) DOE also received 

comments from stakeholders regarding 

DOE’s CWAF test procedure relating to 

auxiliary electrical consumption. (Joint 

Advocates, No. 23 at pp. 2–3) However, 

on May 5, 2020, DOE published a test 

procedure RFI for CWAFs (‘‘May 2020 

CWAF TP RFI’’) in the Federal Register 

to initiate its review of the CWAF test 

procedure. DOE notes that the May 2020 

CWAF TP RFI specifically requested 

comment on jacket loss and auxiliary 

electrical consumption. 85 FR 26626, 

26631, 26332 (May 5, 2020). DOE 

reasons that it is most appropriate to 

consider issues related to the CWAF test 

procedure as part of a separate, 

dedicated test procedure rulemaking for 

such equipment. Consequently, DOE 

will address comments received in 

response to both the May 2020 RFI and 

May 2020 CWAF TP RFI regarding these 

topics as part of the CWAF test 

procedure proceeding. 

D. Market and Technology Assessment, 

and Engineering Analysis 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on topics related to 

performing a market and technology 

assessment, screening analysis, and 

engineering analysis. 85 FR 27941, 

27945–27950 (May 12, 2020). More 

specifically, DOE requested comment 

on: (1) Technology options that should 

be considered in a potential market and 

technology assessment; (2) the 

representative designs and 

characteristics of models that would be 

expected to be on the market after the 

2023 compliance date; (3) the screening 

criteria used to determine whether 

technologies are included in the 

engineering analysis; (4) baseline 

efficiency levels; (5) max-tech efficiency 

levels; (6) manufacturer production 

costs; and (7) manufacturer selling 

prices. Id. 

Regarding CWAF technology options, 

Carrier and Lennox stated that the 

technology options considered in the 

analysis for the January 2016 final rule 

and presented in the May 2020 RFI for 

CWAFs are appropriate. (Lennox, No. 15 

at p. 5; Carrier, No. 13 at p. 4) Trane 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24461 

9Pre-mixed burners mix the primary air and the 

fuel prior to combustion, which reduces or 

eliminates the need for secondary air and results in 

more complete combustion. 

10 ‘‘Burner de-rating’’ means decreasing the 

burner firing rate to increase the ratio of heat 

transfer area to fuel input. 

11 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database for 

CWAFs is available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

ccms (Last accessed Jan. 12, 2022). 

12 In the December 1999 NOPR, DOE did not 

include jacket loss in the TE calculation, having 

determined that, consistent with adopting industry 

test standards referenced in ASHRAE/IES Standard 

90.1–1989, the statute’s intent was to assign the 

same meaning to the term ‘‘thermal efficiency’’ as 

its definition in the corresponding referenced 

standards (i.e., 100 percent minus percent flue loss). 

64 FR 69598, 69601 (Dec. 13, 1999). DOE’s 

determination in the December 1999 NOPR was 

informed by a public workshop held on April 14 

and 15, 1998, and what DOE understood to be the 

consensus of the participants that TE should not 

include jacket loss, because ANSI Z21.47 defined 

TE without jacket loss. Id. 

asserted that pre-mixed burners 9 do not 

provide benefits, that burner de-rating 10

may result in oversizing burners for 

CWAF applications, and that concentric 

venting may not be appliable to rooftop 

applications due to the length of the 

vent. (Trane, No. 16 at p. 4) NEEA and 

the Joint Advocates suggested that DOE 

should consider additional technology 

options for CWAFs that are were not 

listed in the May 2020 RFI. (NEEA, No. 

24 at p. 6; Joint Advocates, No. 23 at p. 

4) More specifically, NEEA 

recommended that increased jacket 

insulation, decreased casing leakage, 

heat recovery equipment, highefficiency fans, variable-speed motors, 

low-leak dampers, modulating heat or 

cooling, and advanced controls such as 

demand control ventilation should be 

considered, and the Joint Advocates 

recommended DOE should consider 

insulation improvements and any 

technology options that may reduce the 

auxiliary electrical consumption of 

CWAFs. Id. Harkins recommended DOE 

consider all technologies that increase 

efficiency. (Harkins, No. 25 at p. 1) 

Regarding the designs and 

characteristics of the CWAF markets 

after the 2023 compliance date of the 

current set of standards, DOE received 

comments from multiple stakeholders 

asserting that the current CWAF markets 

are not representative of the models that 

would be expected to be on the market 

after the 2023 standards take effect. 

(Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 7–8; Trane, No. 

16 at p. 7) AHRI commented that it is 

impossible to forecast the market impact 

of the 2023 standards on CWAFs. 

(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 3) Carrier asserted 

that manufacturers will be working to 

optimize efficiencies, lower cost, and 

implement new entry-level products, 

and that the upcoming 2023 standards 

are causing manufacturers to further 

optimize their higher-efficiency 

equipment. (Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 7–8) 

According to Trane, the furnaces 

currently on the market will need to be 

redesigned to meet the 2023 standards. 

(Trane, No. 16 at p. 7) In contrast, 

Lennox commented that the CWAF 

models on the market are representative 

of designs and characteristics of models 

that would be expected to be on the 

market after the 2023 compliance date, 

although Lennox acknowledged that the 

market impacts of the 2023 standards 

are unknown because of uncertainties in 

assessing the evolving market, including 

uncertainties in future shipments, the 

economic impact on manufacturers and 

consumers, and the total projected 

energy savings. (Lennox, No. 15 at pp. 

5–6) 

In response to these comments, DOE 

explains that it conducted a preliminary 

market assessment based on the current 

CWAF market. DOE found that the 

characteristics of the current CWAF 

market are largely the same as when 

DOE assessed the CWAF market in the 

context of the proceeding culminating 

in the January 2016 final rule. However, 

unlike the market at that time, there are 

currently no condensing CWAFs (which 

typically have a TE of 90 percent or 

greater) or gas-fired CWAFs with a TE 

of 82 percent certified to DOE through 

the CCMS.11 Furthermore, DOE’s review 

of the market indicates that the available 

technologies used to achieve the 2023 

baseline efficiency level, as compared to 

the technologies that could be used to 

achieve higher levels of thermal 

efficiency (i.e., condensing technology) 

under the existing test procedure, have 

not changed significantly. Although 

NEEA and the Joint Advocates suggest 

analyzing numerous technologies (e.g., 

increased jacket insulation, decreased 

jacket leakage, heat recovery equipment, 

high-efficiency fans, variable-speed 

motors, low-leak dampers, modulating 

heat or cooling, advanced controls such 

as demand control ventilation, and any 

technology options that may reduce the 

auxiliary electrical consumption of 

CWAFs), none of the technologies 

identified by these commenters would 

improve thermal efficiency as it is 

measured today. More specifically, 

these technology options are not 

currently incorporated into the DOE 

CWAF test procedure, or the 

measurement of CWAF performance, 

because the current DOE test method 

does not require measurement of jacket 

losses and accounts for operation only 

when operating at the maximum input 

rating at steady state. DOE initially 

decided to exclude jacket loss from the 

calculation of TE in a NOPR published 

on December 13, 1999. 64 FR 69598, 

69601 (December 1999 NOPR).12

Therefore, because the technologies 

would not impact the regulatory metric 

(TE), it would not be appropriate to 

consider them as potential technologies 

for improving CWAF efficiency at this 

time. 

Regarding the screening criteria and 

analysis, AHRI and Carrier supported 

screening out CWAF technology options 

along the lines presented in the May 

2020 RFI (which were the same 

technology options screened out in the 

January 2016 final rule). (AHRI, No. 14 

at p. 5; Carrier, No. 13 at p. 7) Carrier 

also recommended that an additional 

screening criterion be added to address 

the cost of the technology option. 

(Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 6–7) 

In response to Carrier’s suggestion 

that DOE include an additional 

screening criterion to address cost of the 

technology option, DOE notes that the 

current screening criteria are included 

in 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

Appendix A, ‘‘Procedures, 

Interpretations, and Policies for 

Consideration of New or Revised Energy 

Conservation Standards and Test 

Procedures for Consumer Products and 

Certain Commercial/Industrial 

Equipment.’’ See sections 6(b)(3) and 

7(b). These criteria do not include an 

evaluation of the cost of a technology 

option, which is instead evaluated in 

the engineering analysis and 

subsequently in the consumer economic 

analyses. Thus, DOE asserts that it 

would be inappropriate to exclude a 

technology option from consideration 

based solely on incremental technology 

cost increases, because changes in the 

cost of equipment are more 

appropriately considered as part of the 

consumer economic analyses. 

Regarding baseline efficiency levels, 

multiple commenters stated that the 

2023 CWAF standards would be the 

correct baseline efficiency to be used in 

a future DOE analysis. (AHRI, No. 14 at 

p. 6; Lennox, No. 15 at p. 6; Goodman, 

No. 17 at p. 3; Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 8– 

9) 

Regarding the max-tech levels, 

multiple stakeholders asserted that the 

2023 CWAF standards are the highest 

possible for non-condensing equipment 

and recommended that a higher 

standard requiring condensing 

operation should not be considered. 

(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7; Trane, No. 16 at 

pp. 4, 7; Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 4–5, 10; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 3; Spire, No. 21 

at p. 2; Lennox, No. 15 at p. 5) Carrier, 

Trane, and Lennox cautioned that 

increasing the baseline efficiency past 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24462 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

13The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics publishes 

PPI data. PPI measures the average change over time 

in the selling prices received by domestic producers 

for their output. The prices included in the PPI are 

from the first commercial transaction for many 

products and some services. For more information 

see: www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

14Specifically, DOE reviewed the series ID PCU 

333415333415C, which provides PPI information 

for warm air furnaces, including duct furnaces and 

humidifiers, and electric comfort heating. The PPI 

index as of August 2021 (i.e., the last month for 

which data is available that is not subject to 

revision by BLS) was 186.7 as compared to 142.8 

in January 2016, an increase of over 30 percent. 

Although recent price increases could be 

temporary, reviewing the 10-year trend indicates 

that an increase of approximately 19 percent would 

be expected. 

15For analysis of Title 24–2022, the California 

Energy Commission used data from DOE’s National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory’s National Solar 

Radiation Database to include weather data 

collected between 1998–2017 (Available at: https:// 

nsrdb.nrel.gov/). 

the 2023 standards by utilizing 

improvements in these technology 

options would result in condensing 

operation, thereby imposing additional 

burden on manufacturers. (Lennox, No. 

15 at p. 5; Carrier, No. 13 at pp. 4–5; 

Trane, No. 16 at p. 4) Commenters citied 

technological problems associated with 

implementing CWAF standards at a 

level that would require condensing 

operation, including issues related to 

condensate disposal. Such issues 

included high costs, as well as 

practicality and the ability to dispose of 

condensate properly. Id. In contrast, the 

Joint Advocates and NEEA 

recommended that DOE should consider 

a condensing standard because of the 

potential for energy savings. (Joint 

Advocates, No. 23 at p. 4, NEEA, No. 24 

at p. 7). DOE discusses the merits of 

establishing a condensing standard in 

section III.F of this document. 

Regarding manufacturer production 

costs, manufacturer selling price, and 

how manufacturers would incorporate 

technology options to increase energy 

efficiency above the baseline, Carrier 

and Trane stated that the technology 

options listed in the May 2020 RFI 

(which were the options considered in 

the January 2016 final rule) are used to 

increase efficiency. (Carrier, No. 13 at p. 

11; Trane, No. 16 at p. 8) AHRI stated 

that generally, the engineering analysis 

in the January 2016 final rule was 

accurate at the time. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 

7) 

DOE considered how the 

manufacturer production cost and 

selling price of CWAFs have changed 

since the January 2016 final rule. As 

discussed previously, the designs and 

technologies used in equipment on the 

market are generally the same as those 

on the market at the time of the January 

2016 final rule. DOE, therefore, has 

tentatively determined that relevant 

factors such as manufacturing processes, 

materials, and components are the same 

as or similar to those in use in January 

2016. However, a review of the producer 

price index (PPI) 13 for furnaces found 

that it has increased significantly, and 

DOE has tentatively determined such an 

increase would apply to technologies 

used to improve CWAF efficiency as 

well.14 These factors indicate that to the 

extent that the cost of CWAFs (and in 

particular the cost of improving CWAF 

efficiency) has changed since the 

engineering analysis was conducted for 

the January 2016 final rule, it has 

increased. Thus, DOE does not expect 

that conducting additional engineering 

analysis would provide clear and 

convincing evidence that would lead 

DOE to differ in its conclusions from the 

January 2016 final rule regarding 

economic justification of adopting levels 

more stringent than those adopted in the 

January 2016 final rule. DOE notes that 

other factors also contribute to the 

economic justification of potential 

standards, and additional discussion of 

those factors is included in section III.E 

of this document. 

In summary, DOE considered the 

preliminary market assessment 

conducted for this rulemaking, as well 

as comments received that are relevant 

to the market and technology 

assessment, screening, and engineering 

analysis. For the reasons discussed 

previously, DOE has tentatively 

determined that the current CWAF 

market conditions (including issues in 

meeting more-stringent standards that 

would require use of condensing 

technology) are largely the same as 

those analyzed in the January 2016 final 

rule. 

E. Economic and Energy Analyses 

In the May 2020 RFI, DOE requested 

comment on a number of issues related 

to mark-ups and distribution channels, 

the energy use analysis, the life-cycle 

cost analysis, repair and maintenance 

costs, the shipments analysis, and the 

national impact analysis. 85 FR 27941, 

27950–27953 (May 12, 2020). DOE 

specifically requested information to 

describe how equipment moves from 

the manufacturer to the customer, the 

relative sales volume through each 

channel, data to estimate the mark-ups 

at each segment in the distribution 

channel, the energy use methodology, 

inputs to the life-cycle-cost model such 

as equipment lifetime, installation, 

repair, and maintenance costs, energy 

prices, the no-new-standards efficiency 

distribution, historical shipments, and 

future efficiency trends. Id. 

Regarding mark-ups and distribution 

channels, DOE received comments from 

AHRI and Carrier. AHRI commented 

that it is researching distribution 

channels; however, it had no feedback 

at the time the comment was provided. 

AHRI disagreed with DOE’s use of 

incremental mark-ups and 

recommended that DOE revert to using 

the baseline mark-up for both baseline 

and incremental costs. (AHRI, No. 14 at 

p. 8) Carrier commented that it has not 

observed large shifts in the distribution 

channels, as the industry remains 

mature in the United States. (Carrier, 

No. 13 at p. 12) 

In response, DOE notes that in the 

January 2016 final rule, the efficiency 

levels above the amended standard level 

were not economically justified. As DOE 

has received no feedback to indicate the 

distribution channels have changed and 

no feedback that markups have 

decreased (which would reduce the 

incremental costs of higher-efficiency 

products), DOE does not expect the 

outcome to change from the January 

2016 final rule. 

Regarding the energy use analysis, 

DOE received comments from the CA 

IOUs, AHRI, Carrier, Trane, Goodman, 

and NEEA. The CA IOUs commented 

that DOE should update the weather 

data used in the energy use analysis to 

reflect the temperatures recorded in the 

United States in recent years. Along 

these lines, the CA IOUs recommended 

that DOE should consider the 

methodology used by the California 

Energy Commission to update weather 

files to analyze Title 24 of the Building 

Energy Efficiency Standard.15 (CA IOUs, 

No. 20 at p. 5) AHRI expressed concern 

that use of the 2003 Commercial 

Building Energy Consumption Survey 

(CBECS 2003) and estimating the energy 

consumption using an equivalent fullload hour approach does not accurately 

reflect equipment that is optimized for 

part-load performance (AHRI, No. 14 at 

p. 9). Trane commented that a more upto-date building inventory analysis 

should be used to measure CWAF 

energy use. (Trane, No. 16 at p. 9) 

Carrier and Goodman commented that 

the previous analysis, from the January 

2016 final rule, was based on perimeter 

conditions (i.e., outdoor air conditions). 

(Carrier, No. 13 at p. 14; Goodman, No. 

17 at p. 4) Carrier commented that 

CWAFs do not run very often due to the 

internal loads on the building, and 

Goodman commented that CWAFs 

normally only provide morning warm 

up and night set back heating. (Carrier, 

No. 13 at p. 14; Goodman, No. 17 at p. 

4) NEEA recommended that DOE should 

account for part-load operation, staged 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24463 

16Chapter 7 of the January 2016 Final Rule 

Technical Support Document (Available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTSTD-0021-0050). 

17 Id. 

18See Appendix 8F of the January 2016 final rule 

technical support document (Available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BTSTD-0021-0050). 

19RS Means provides construction cost 

information that DOE uses to estimate installation, 

maintenance, and repair costs of CWAFs (Available 

at: https://www.rsmeansonline.com/) (Last accessed 

April 10, 2013). 

20Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/ 

tables_side.php. 

21Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/ 

archive/aeo21/. 

systems, and varying percentages of 

outside air. (NEEA, No. 24 at p. 9) 

In response, DOE notes that while the 

previous analysis relied on CBECS 2003, 

the CWAF energy consumption was 

adjusted for projected decreases in 

heating degree days between CBECS 

2003 and the compliance year.16

Furthermore, DOE notes that the main 

driver of CWAF energy consumption in 

the January 2016 final rule is the 

building heating load, which is based on 

the reported space heating energy 

consumption of buildings with a 

furnace in CBECS 2003.17 The previous 

analysis was not based on full-load 

hours or perimeter conditions. Finally, 

as stated in section III.D of this 

document, the Department’s research 

suggests that the characteristics of the 

CWAF market are largely the same as 

when analyzed for the January 2016 

final rule and that none of the 

technology options presented would 

improve thermal efficiency as measured 

in the current test procedure. Given the 

similar market, DOE does not anticipate 

the energy use to have changed 

sufficiently to drive a different outcome, 

as compared to that in the January 2016 

final rule. 

Regarding equipment lifetime, DOE 

received comments from AHRI, Carrier, 

and Trane. AHRI disagreed with the 

Weibull approach to lifetimes and stated 

its understanding that service lifetimes 

are in the range of 12 to 15 years. (AHRI, 

No. 14 at p. 10) In contrast, Trane stated 

that the Weibull approach is appropriate 

and that equipment lifetime should be 

the same as in the January 2016 final 

rule. (Trane, No. 16 at p. 10) Carrier 

likewise stated that the lifetimes 

determined by DOE’s proposed 

approach seem reasonable. (Carrier, No. 

13 at p. 14) AHRI and Carrier both 

stated that location is an important 

determinant of lifetime. (AHRI, No. 14 

at p. 10; Carrier, No. 13 at p. 14) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

CWAF lifetime was developed based on 

the lifetime model for ACUACs as 

nearly all CWAFs are packaged with an 

ACUAC. The ACUAC lifetime model 

was calibrated based on historical 

shipments data.18 Given the similar 

market characteristics to the January 

2016 final rule, DOE does not expect 

that equipment lifetime has changed 

significantly, and, therefore, it would 

not warrant changes to the findings 

regarding CWAF lifetimes presented in 

the January 2016 final rule. 

Regarding repair and maintenance 

costs, DOE received comments from 

AHRI, Trane, Carrier, and Goodman. 

AHRI stated that the costs used in 

previous analyses do not reflect actual 

repair and maintenance costs and that 

typical maintenance costs are double 

the values reported in RS Means.19

(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 10) Trane stated that 

the methodology used in the January 

2016 final rule for repair and 

maintenance costs is adequate, although 

an update to a more recent version of RS 

Means is appropriate. (Trane, No. 16 at 

p. 10) Carrier stated that the higher 

efficiency standards in 2023 will 

include more costly components, and, 

therefore, an increased cost of 

equipment which could lead end users 

to opt for repair instead of replacement. 

As the higher efficiency levels require 

more advanced components, it will 

increase overall cost. Carrier also 

commented that the impact of A2L 

refrigerants and low global warming 

potential (GWP) regulations on repair 

and maintenance costs is still unknown; 

however, the commenter believes that 

equipment with A2L refrigerants will 

inherently have increased repair and 

maintenance costs due to additional 

safety components in the equipment. 

(Carrier, No. 13 at p. 16) Goodman 

stated that repair and maintenance costs 

will be higher for products using 

alternative refrigerants. In addition, 

Goodman commented that DOE’s 

modeling on repair and maintenance 

costs should be appropriately revised to 

account for the baseline technologies 

that will be required to meet the 

amended standards beginning on 

January 1, 2023. (Goodman, No. 17 at p. 

4) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

increased repair and maintenance costs 

presented in the January 2016 analysis 

for higher-efficiency products reflects 

the increased cost of more advanced 

components. Moreover, the Department 

has tentatively concluded that an 

update to the most current RS Means 

would not reduce the incremental 

difference in repair and maintenance 

costs by efficiency level, and, therefore, 

it would not be expected to change the 

outcome as compared to the January 

2016 final rule. 

Regarding energy prices, DOE 

received comments from Spire and 

APGA. Spire commented that the gas 

prices used in developing the January 

2016 final rule for amended CWAF 

energy conservation standards were 

overstated and that gas prices have 

decreased since 2016. Spire also 

asserted that DOE did not properly 

measure the marginal gas rates when 

calculating the energy savings for 

CWAFs in the January 2016 final rule. 

(Spire, No. 21 at pp. 3–6) APGA 

commented that the natural gas supply 

has increased, allowing for stable or 

declining prices in some markets. APGA 

also stated that DOE should be utilizing 

marginal consumption-based prices, as 

they more accurately determine the 

impact of efficiency savings for an enduser. (APGA, No. 19 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE notes that the 

majority of CWAFs use natural gas. The 

Department uses the Annual Energy 

Outlook (‘‘AEO’’) to project future 

natural gas prices. In the January 2016 

final rule, DOE used the natural gas 

price projections from AEO 2015.20 The 

most current AEO is AEO 2021,21 and 

the natural gas price projections of AEO 

2021 are indeed lower than for AEO 

2015, in real dollars. With similar 

CWAF products and lower natural gas 

price projections, DOE does not expect 

the annual energy costs to rise 

compared to the January 2016 final rule. 

Regarding the no-new-standards 

efficiency distribution and future 

efficiency trends, DOE received 

comments from Carrier and Trane. 

Carrier commented that it expects most 

shipments in 2023 to be near the 

standards level. (Carrier, No. 13 at p. 15) 

Trane asserted that the majority of 

shipments (60–80 percent) will be at the 

minimum standard level in 2023. 

(Trane, No. 16 at p. 10) Carrier and 

Trane further commented that they 

expect the efficiency trends to remain 

close to the Federal standard level after 

2023. (Carrier, No. 13 at p. 17; Trane, 

No. 16 at p. 11) 

Regarding historical shipments, 

Carrier, Goodman, and Trane 

commented that historical shipments 

would not accurately portray the market 

for CWAFs, as the impacts of COVID– 

19 on the heating, ventilation, and airconditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) industry are not 

yet known. (Carrier, No. 13 at p. 16; 

Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4; Trane, No. 16 

at p. 11) Goodman argued that the 

CWAF market and shipments will be 

negatively impacted by future 

electrification trends and regulations. 

(Goodman, No. 17 at p. 4) 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24464 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

22The January 15, 2016 direct final rule relied on 

the December 14, 2015 National Impact Analysis 

Spreadsheet (Available at: www.regulations.gov/ 

document/EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021-0052). 

23 Id. 

24Although DOE analyzed 82-percent thermal 

efficiency for gas-fired CWAFs in the January 2016 

final rule, currently there are no non-condensing 

models available on the market with an efficiency 

exceeding the minimum standard of 81 percent. In 

addition, discussion during the negotiations that 

led to the January 2016 final rule indicated that it 

is not clear that CWAFs operating at 82-percent 

efficiency are always non-condensing. 

In response, DOE did not receive any 

historical shipments data in response to 

the May 2020 RFI. However, the CWAF 

market is mature, and in the January 

2016 final rule, shipments were 

projected to grow approximately 1 

percent per year, with the large majority 

of shipments going to the replacement 

market.22 The no-new-standards 

distribution projected that in 2023, 

nearly all shipments would be at or near 

the baseline level analyzed in the 

January 2016 final rule.23 As to 

comments on impacts related to the 

COVID–19 pandemic, it is too soon to 

tell what long-term effects that event 

may have on CWAF shipment trends, if 

any. Likewise, DOE cannot adequately 

account for future statutory or 

regulatory efforts to promote 

electrification until they are finalized. 

At this point, DOE finds these factors to 

be too speculative to account for in the 

present analysis for CWAFs. 

Accordingly, given the mature market, 

the expectation that most shipments 

will be at the baseline level in 2023, and 

no anticipated increase in equipment 

lifetime, DOE does not expect the 

shipments estimates and no-newstandards distributions from the January 

2016 final rule to change significantly 

for CWAFs. 

DOE also received comments from 

Policy Integrity regarding the social cost 

of carbon used in the emissions 

monetization analysis. Policy Integrity 

urged DOE to account for the benefits of 

greenhouse gas emissions reductions 

from the use of higher-efficiency 

equipment using the global estimate of 

the social cost of greenhouse gases, and 

the commenter added that the values 

developed by the interagency working 

group for the social cost of greenhouse 

gases are the best available. (Policy 

Integrity, No. 7, at pp. 2–3, 5) 

On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit 

Court of Appeals (No. 22–30087) 

granted the Federal government’s 

emergency motion for a stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, 

preliminary injunction in Louisiana v. 

Biden, No. 21–cv–1074–JDC–KK (W.D. 

La.). As a result of the Fifth Circuit’s 

order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of 

the Federal government’s appeal of that 

injunction or a further court order. 

Among other things, the preliminary 

injunction enjoined the defendants in 

that case from ‘‘adopting, employing, 

treating as binding, or relying upon’’ the 

interim estimates of the social cost of 

greenhouse gases—which were issued 

by the Interagency Working Group on 

the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on 

February 26, 2021—to monetize the 

benefits of reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. In the absence of further 

intervening court orders, DOE will 

revert to its approach prior to the 

injunction and present monetized 

benefits where appropriate and 

permissible under law. However, in this 

NOPD, the Department will not be 

monetizing the cost of greenhouse gas 

emissions, as DOE is not proposing any 

amended standards. Should DOE follow 

this NOPD with a final determination 

that amended standards for CWAFs 

would not meet the applicable statutory 

criteria, no change in greenhouse gas 

emissions would be expected to result 

from this proceeding. 

Finally, DOE received a comment 

from Lennox asserting that DOE lacks 

clear and convincing evidence to 

support a finding that implementing 

amended standards above the levels 

scheduled for compliance in 2023 

would be economically justified. 

(Lennox, No. 15 at p. 8) 

DOE considered the comments 

provided on the economic and energy 

use analyses and reviewed the inputs 

used in the life-cycle-cost, shipments, 

and national impact analysis from the 

January 2016 final rule. As discussed 

above, DOE has tentatively determined 

that there have not been any significant 

changes to the mark-ups and 

distribution channels, energy use, 

equipment lifetimes, repair and 

maintenance costs, energy prices, the 

no-new-standards efficiency 

distributions, and shipments that would 

lead to higher life-cycle-cost savings, 

increased national energy savings, and 

increased net present value of consumer 

benefits from the analysis that was 

conducted for the January 2016 final 

rule. Therefore, as discussed in section 

III.F of this document, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the analyses 

conducted for the January 2016 final 

rule are appropriate for the present 

determination. 

F. Proposed Determination 

After carefully considering the 

comments on the May 2020 RFI and the 

available data and information, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs do 

not need to be amended, for the reasons 

explained in the paragraphs 

immediately following. DOE will 

consider all comments received on this 

proposed determination prior to issuing 

the next document in this rulemaking 

proceeding. 

As previously discussed, EPCA 

specifies that for any commercial and 

industrial equipment addressed under 

42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including 

CWAFs, 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)) The ‘‘clear and 

convincing’’ evidentiary threshold 

applies both when DOE is triggered by 

ASHRAE action and when DOE 

conducts a six-year-lookback 

rulemaking, with the latter being the 

basis for the current proceeding. DOE 

addresses each of these statutory criteria 

in turn. 

1. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for CWAFs would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

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

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

DOE acknowledges that morestringent standards for CWAFs have the 

potential to result in significant 

additional conservation of energy. In the 

January 2016 final rule, DOE estimated 

that establishing a condensing standard 

(i.e., 92-percent thermal efficiency) for 

gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs would 

result in 2.1 quads of primary energy 

savings compared to a no-new-standards 

case over the lifetime of the CWAF 

(2019 through 2048). 81 FR 2420, 2508 

(Jan. 15, 2016). However, as discussed 

in section III.F.3 of this document, DOE 

has preliminarily determined that it 

lacks clear and convincing evidence to 

show that the potential amended 

standard levels considered would be 

economically justified. 

2. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for CWAFs would be 

technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

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

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

discussed, establishing more-stringent 

standards for CWAFs would likely 

require condensing operation,24 and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24465 

25See Chapter 3 of the Technical Support 

Document for the January 2016 final rule (Available 

at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE2013-BT-STD-0021-0050). 

26See DOE’s Compliance Certification Database 

for CWAFs (Available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

ccms) (Last accessed Jan. 12, 2022). 

DOE previously analyzed levels 

requiring condensing operation (i.e., 92- 

percent thermal efficiency) for the 

January 2016 final rule. 81 FR 2420 (Jan. 

15, 2016). In the analysis for the January 

2016 final rule, DOE identified a small 

number of condensing gas-fired CWAF 

models (four models at 90-percent 

thermal efficiency and four models at 

92-percent thermal efficiency) and one 

condensing oil-fired CWAF model,25

indicating that the market for 

condensing CWAFs is still very small, 

and DOE’s subsequent review suggests 

that it is now potentially smaller than it 

was at the time of the analysis for the 

January 2016 final rule. Although there 

is some uncertainty in how the market 

will respond once compliance is 

required with the 2023 energy 

conservation standards, DOE does not 

expect that the upcoming standards 

would spur significant development of 

condensing CWAFs, as there are certain 

technological and implementational 

challenges associated with use of 

condensing CWAFs, including 

condensate disposal and freezing in 

many commercial buildings/ 

applications. In addition, DOE notes 

that the amended standards in the 

January 2016 final rule implemented a 

1-percent increase in standard level for 

both gas-fired and oil-fired CWAFs, 

which can be achieved without use of 

condensing technology, and are levels at 

which models currently exist using noncondensing technology. However, DOE 

is not aware of any models on the 

market currently with an efficiency 

above the amended standards from the 

January 2016 final rule and that are noncondensing. Additionally, there are 

currently no condensing CWAFs 

certified to DOE through the compliance 

certification management system at this 

time.26

3. Economic Justification 

In the January 2016 final rule, DOE 

concluded that energy conservation 

standards at levels requiring condensing 

operation would not be economically 

justified, due to the economic burden on 

most consumers, the negative NPV of 

consumer benefits using a 7-percent 

discount rate, and the impacts on 

manufacturers, including the conversion 

costs and profit margin impacts that 

could result in a large reduction in 

INPV. Id. at 81 FR 2522 (Jan. 15, 2016). 

In examining the current market, DOE 

has found that market conditions are 

largely the same as at the time of the 

January 2016 final rule. 

Given the similar market size, DOE 

has tentatively determined that the 

manufacturing costs and manufacturer 

impacts would not be significantly 

different now than projected in the 

January 2016 final rule. In addition, 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

installation costs, which for condensing 

levels included costs for condensate 

removal, would be similar to those 

estimated in the previous analysis, and 

that energy cost savings would not 

increase as compared to the previous 

analysis, as updated AEO projections of 

energy prices show declining prices. For 

these reasons, DOE has tentatively 

determined that any analysis of a 

condensing level for CWAFs would not 

result in a significantly different 

economic outcome from the January 

2016 final rule, and that as such, it lacks 

clear and convincing evidence that 

more-stringent standard levels for 

CWAFs would be economically 

justified. 

DOE notes that the tentative 

determination, that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence, is specific to this 

rulemaking. DOE will evaluate its 

ability to reach clear and convincing 

evidence on a case-by-case basis. 

DOE requests comment on its 

proposed determination that the 

existing energy conservation standards 

for CWAFs do not need to be amended. 

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 

FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 

21, 2011), requires agencies, to the 

extent permitted by law, 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, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) 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 proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

OMB has determined that this 

proposed determination does not 

constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 

Accordingly, this action was not subject 

to review under E.O. 12866 by OIRA at 

OMB. 

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 E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(August 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 (energy.gov/gc/officegeneral-counsel). 

The Small Business Administration 

(SBA) considers a business entity to be 

a small business, if, together with its 

affiliates, it employs less than a 

threshold number of workers specified 

in 13 CFR part 121. The equipment 

covered by this rule are classified under 

North American Industry Classification 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24466 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

27The size standards are listed by NAICS code 

and industry description and are available at: 

www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards (Last accessed March 4, 2022). 

28U.S. Department of Energy Compliance 

Certification Management System (Available at: 

www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms). 

System (‘‘NAICS’’) code 333415,27 ‘‘AirConditioning 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 has conducted a focused inquiry 

into small business manufacturers of the 

equipment covered by this rulemaking. 

The Department used available public 

information to identify potential small 

manufacturers. DOE accessed its 

Compliance Certification Database 

(‘‘CCD’’) 28 to identify a list of 

companies that manufacture the CWAFs 

covered by this proposal. Using these 

sources, DOE identified a total of eight 

distinct manufacturers of CWAFs. DOE 

screened out companies that do not 

meet the definition of a ‘‘small 

business’’ or are foreign-owned and 

operated. Of these manufacturers, DOE 

identified one small, domestic 

manufacturer as a potential small 

business. 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. Because DOE is not 

proposing to amend standards for 

CWAFs, the determination, if adopted, 

would not amend any energy 

conservation standards. On the basis of 

the foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

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 of 1995 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

CWAFs are unneeded under the 

applicable statutory criteria, would 

impose no new informational or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

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 actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regard to an 

existing regulation and 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 action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (August 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 

determination 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 equipment that is the subject of this 

proposed determination. States can 

petition DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

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

proposed determination would not 

amend the standards for CWAFs, there 

is no impact on the policymaking 

discretion of the States. Therefore, no 

further action is required by E.O. 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 

determination 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, 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24467 

29 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007 (Available at: 

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

30The December 2021 NAS report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

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. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any 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 

proposed 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 E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

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

DOE has determined that this proposed 

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 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

%20IAQ%20Guidelines%20Dec

%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this 

NOPD 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 the 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 Executive 

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. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for CWAFs, is 

not a significant regulatory action under 

Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it 

would not 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. 

Therefore, it is not a significant energy 

action, and accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

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.’’ 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 

Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.29 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. Because available data, 

models, and technological 

understanding have changed since 2007, 

DOE has engaged with the National 

Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review 

DOE’s analytical methodologies to 

ascertain whether modifications are 

needed to improve the Department’s 

analyses. DOE is in the process of 

evaluating the resulting December 2021 

NAS report.30

V. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Public Meeting 

Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar 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: www1.eere.energy.gov/

buildings/appliance_standards/

standards.aspx?productid=49. 

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 NOPD, or who 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
24468 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

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 

requests to speak by email to the 

Appliance and Equipment Standards 

Program, ApplianceStandards

Questions@ee.doe.gov. Persons who 

wish to speak should include with their 

request a computer file in Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed determination 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

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 Public Meeting 

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 

webinar. 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 proposed determination. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a summary of the proposed 

determination, allow time for prepared 

general statements by participants, and 

encourage all interested parties to share 

their views on issues affecting this 

proposed determination. Each 

participant will be allowed to make a 

general statement (within time limits 

determined by DOE), before the 

discussion of specific topics. DOE will 

allow, 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 and 

comment on statements made by others. 

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 

determination. The official conducting 

the webinar meeting 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 public meeting 

webinar will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

NOPD. 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 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed 

determination. 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. With this 

instruction followed, 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. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 80 / Tuesday, April 26, 2022 / Proposed Rules 24469 

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). 

VI. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination and request for 

comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on April 20, 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 April 21, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–08868 Filed 4–25–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2020–BT–STD–0014] 

RIN 1904–AE68 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for 

Refrigerated Bottled or Canned 

Beverage Vending Machines 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of availability of 

preliminary technical support document 

and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) announces the 

availability of the preliminary analysis 

it has conducted for purposes of 

evaluating the need for amended energy 

conservation standards for refrigerated 

bottled or canned beverage vending 

machines, which is set forth in the 

Department’s preliminary technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’) for this 

rulemaking. DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar to discuss and 

receive comment on its preliminary 

analysis. The meeting will cover the 

analytical framework, models, and tools 

used to evaluate potential standards for 

this equipment; the results of 

preliminary analyses performed by 

DOE; the potential energy conservation 

standard levels derived from these 

analyses (if DOE determines that 

proposed amendments are necessary); 

and other relevant issues. In addition, 

DOE encourages written comments on 

these subjects. 

DATES: Comments: Written comments 

and information will be accepted on or 

before June 27, 2022. 

Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on 

Monday, May 23, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. 

to 4:00 p.m. See section IV, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov, under docket 

number EERE–2020–BT–STD–0014. 

Follow the instructions for submitting 

comments. Alternatively, comments 

may be submitted by email to: 

BVM2020STD0014@ee.doe.gov. Include 

docket number EERE–2020–BT–STD– 

0014 in the subject line of the message. 

No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

IV 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 corona virus 2019 

(‘‘COVID–19’’) pandemic. DOE is 

currently suspending receipt of public 

comments via postal mail and hand 

delivery/courier. 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. 

To inform interested parties and to 

facilitate this rulemaking process, DOE 

has prepared an agenda, a preliminary 

TSD, and briefing materials, which are 

available on the DOE website at: 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0014. 

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 those 

containing information that is exempt 

from public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2020-BT-STD-0014. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments in the docket. See section IV 

for information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Stephanie Johnson, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Building 

Technologies, EE–2J, 1000 

Independence Avenue SW, Washington, 

DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 

1943. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Sarah Butler, U.S. Department of 

Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC 20585–0121. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS1