Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat Pump Energy Conservation Standards, 58772-58830 [E8-23312]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 195 (Tuesday, October 7, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 58772-58830]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23312]



[[Page 58771]]

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

Part III





Department of Energy





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



10 CFR Part 431



Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial Equipment: 
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat Pump 
Energy Conservation Standards; Final Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 195 / Tuesday, October 7, 2008 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[Page 58772]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[Docket Number: EERE-2007-BT-STD-0012]
RIN 1904-AB44


Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Heat 
Pump Energy Conservation Standards

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

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy (DOE) has determined that its 
adoption of amended energy conservation standards for commercial 
standard size packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged 
terminal heat pumps (PTHPs), at efficiency levels more stringent than 
those in American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-
Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)/Illuminating Engineering Society of 
North America (IESNA) Standard 90.1-1999, is supported by clear and 
convincing evidence that such standards would result in significant 
additional conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and 
economically justified. On this basis, DOE is today amending the 
existing energy conservation standards for these types of equipment. In 
addition, DOE has determined that its adoption of amended energy 
conservation standards more stringent than the efficiency levels 
specified by ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for non-standard size PTACs and 
PTHPs is not supported by clear and convincing evidence, thus, DOE is 
adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for non-
standard size PTACs and PTHPs in today's final rule.

DATES: The effective date of this rule is November 6, 2008. The 
standards established in today's final rule will be applicable starting 
October 8, 2012 for standard size PTACs and PTHPs. The standards 
established in today's final rule will be applicable starting October 
7, 2010 for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs.

ADDRESSES: For access to the docket to read background documents, the 
technical support document, transcripts of the public meetings in this 
proceeding, or comments received, visit the U.S. Department of Energy, 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program, 950 L'Enfant Plaza, 
SW., 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586-2945, between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. For more 
information about visiting the Resource Room, please call Ms. Brenda 
Edwards at (202) 586-2945. (Note: DOE's Freedom of Information Reading 
Room no longer houses rulemaking materials.) You may also obtain copies 
of the final rule notice in this proceeding, related documents (e.g., 
the notice of proposed rulemaking and technical support document DOE 
used to reassess whether to adopt certain efficiency levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1), draft analyses, public meeting materials, and related 
test procedure documents from the Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy's Web site at https://www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/
appliance_standards/commercial/packaged_ac_hp.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Wes Anderson, Project Manager, Energy 
Conservation Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, U.S. Department of Energy, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, EE-2J, 
1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Phone: (202) 
586-7335. E-mail: Wes.Anderson@ee.doe.gov.
    Francine Pinto, Esq., or Michael Kido, Esq., U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of General Counsel, GC-72, 1000 Independence Avenue, 
SW., Washington, DC 20585. Phone: (202) 586-9507. E-mail: 
Francine.Pinto@hq.doe.gov or Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits
    A. The Standard Levels
    B. Current Federal Standards for Packaged Terminal Air 
Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
    C. Benefits to Customers of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
    D. Impact on Manufacturers
    E. National Benefits
    F. Other Considerations
    G. Conclusion
II. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Background
    1. Current Standards
    2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Packaged Terminal 
Equipment
III. General Discussion
    A. Test Procedures
    B. Technological Feasibility
    1. General
    2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    C. Energy Savings
    D. Economic Justification
    1. Economic Impact on Commercial Consumers and Manufacturers
    2. Life-Cycle Costs
    3. Energy Savings
    4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
IV. Analysis Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Analysis 
Methodology
    A. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Equipment Classes--Generally
    2. Comments
    B. Screening Analysis
    1. Scroll Compressors
    2. ECM Motors
    3. Fan Motors
    4. Micro-Channel Heat Exchangers
    5. Thermal Expansion Valves
    C. Engineering Analysis
    1. Material Prices for the Cost Model
    2. Impacts of the Refrigerant Phaseout on PTAC and PTHP 
Equipment Performance
    3. Manufacturer Production Cost Increases With R-410A
    D. Energy Use Characterization
    E. Life-Cycle Cost Analysis
    1. Equipment Prices
    2. Installation Costs
    3. Annual Energy Use
    4. Electricity Prices
    5. Maintenance Costs
    6. Repair Costs
    7. Equipment Lifetime
    8. Discount Rate
    F. National Impact Analysis--National Energy Savings and Net 
Present Value Analysis
    1. Shipments Analysis
    2. Base Case and Standards Case Forecasted Distribution of 
Efficiencies
    G. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    1. GRIM Input Updates
    2. Cumulative Regulatory Burden
    3. Employment Impacts
    H. Employment Impact Analysis
    I. Utility Impact Analysis
    J. Environmental Analysis
    K. Other Comments
    1. Burdens on Small, Non-Standard Size PTAC and PTHP 
Manufacturers
    2. PTAC and PTHP Labeling
V. Analytical Results and Conclusions
    A. Trial Standard Levels
    B. Significance of Energy Savings
    C. Economic Justification
    1. Economic Impact on Commercial Consumers
    2. Economic Impact on Manufacturers
    3. National Net Present Value and Net National Employment
    4. Impact on Utility or Performance of Equipment
    5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    6. Need of the Nation to Conserve Energy
    7. Other Factors
    D. Conclusion
    1. Standard Size PTACs and PTHPs
    2. Non-Standard Size PTACs and PTHPs
VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Reasons for the Final Rule
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, the Rule
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated

[[Page 58773]]

    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    5. Significant Issues Raised by Public Comments
    6. Steps DOE Has Taken To Minimize the Economic Impact on Small, 
Non-Standard Size PTAC and PTHP Manufacturers
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act
    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 of 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act of 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under the Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
    M. Congressional Notification
VII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Summary of the Final Rule and Its Benefits

A. The Standard Levels

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA), (42 
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.), establishes mandatory energy conservation 
standards for certain commercial equipment covered by the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers 
(ASHRAE) and the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America 
(IESNA) Standard 90.1, including packaged terminal air conditioners 
(PTACs) and packaged terminal heat pumps (PTHPs) (collectively referred 
to as ``packaged terminal equipment''). EPCA states that the Department 
of Energy (DOE) may prescribe amended standards for this equipment that 
exceed the stringency of efficiency levels contained in amendments to 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, only if DOE determines by rule that any such 
standard ``would result in significant additional conservation of 
energy and is technologically feasible and economically justified.'' 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) This determination must be 
``supported by clear and convincing evidence.'' Id. If DOE is unable to 
find that clear and convincing evidence exists that a more stringent 
efficiency level than the efficiency level contained in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 would result in a significant additional energy savings and is 
technologically feasible and economically justified, then EPCA states 
DOE must establish an amended uniform national standard for the product 
at the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1. 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) The standards in today's final rule, 
which apply to all packaged terminal equipment, satisfy these 
requirements and will achieve the maximum improvements in energy 
efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified. (See 42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(A).)
    Table I.1 shows the amended energy conservation standards that DOE 
is adopting today. These amended energy conservation standards will 
apply to standard size PTACs and PTHPs manufactured for sale in the 
United States, or imported to the United States, on or after October 8, 
2012 and non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs manufactured for sale in the 
United States, or imported to the United States, on or after October 7, 
2010.

  Table I.1--Amended Energy Conservation Standards for PTACs and PTHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Equipment class
--------------------------------------------------------
                                            Cooling
                                            capacity          Energy
                                            (British       conservation
      Equipment            Category      thermal units     standards *
                                         per hour [Btu/
                                              h])
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.................  Standard Size    <7,000.........  EER = 11.7
                        **.
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 13.8-
                                                          (0.300 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.3
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     <7,000.........  EER = 9.4
                        Size [dagger].
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 10.9 -
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 7.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTHP.................  Standard Size    <7,000.........  EER = 11.9
                        **.
                                                         COP = 3.3
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 14.0 -
                                                          (0.300 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                                         COP = 3.7 -
                                                          (0.052 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.5
                                                         COP = 2.9
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     <7,000.........  EER = 9.3
                        Size [dagger].
                                                         COP = 2.7
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 10.8 -
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                                         COP = 2.9 -
                                                          (0.026 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 7.6
                                                         COP = 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure (Air-
  Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute [ARI] Standard 310/380-2004),
  all energy efficiency ratio (EER) values must be rated at 95 [deg]F
  outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled equipment and
  evaporatively cooled equipment and at 85 [deg]F entering water
  temperature for water-cooled equipment. All coefficient of performance
  (COP) values must be rated at 47 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature
  for air-cooled equipment.
** Standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve
  dimensions having an external wall opening greater than or equal to 16
  inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and a cross-
  sectional area greater than or equal to 670 square inches.
[dagger] Non-standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with
  existing wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of
  less than 16 inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and a cross-
  sectional area less than 670 square inches.
[dagger][dagger] Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h (kBtu/h)
  at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.

    DOE only presents the benefits and burdens of adopting a standard 
level higher than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-1999. The benefits and burdens of adopting the efficiency levels 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs are 
not calculated in this rulemaking because

[[Page 58774]]

DOE considers this the baseline efficiency levels even though they 
represent an increase in energy efficiency when compared to the current 
Federal energy conservation standards.

B. Current Federal Standards for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps

    Table I.2 presents the minimum efficiency levels in the current 
Federal energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs.

                  Table I.2--Existing Federal Energy Conservation Standards for PTACs and PTHPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      Equipment class
-----------------------------------------------------------
                                     Cooling capacity (Btu/    Existing Federal energy conservation standards*
             Equipment                         h)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC...............................  <7,000...............  EER = 8.88
                                     7,000-15,000.........  EER = 10.0 - (0.16 x Cap**)
                                     >15,000..............  EER = 7.6
PTHP...............................  <7,000...............  EER = 8.88
                                                            COP = 2.7
                                     7,000-15,000.........  EER = 10.0 - (0.16 x Cap**)
                                                            COP = 1.3 + (0.16 x EER)
                                     >15,000..............  EER = 7.6
                                                            COP = 2.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For equipment rated according to the ARI standards, all EER values must be rated at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb
  temperature for air-cooled products and evaporatively cooled products and at 85 [deg]F entering water
  temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be rated at 47 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature
  for air-cooled products, and at 70 [deg]F entering water temperature for water-source heat pumps.
** Cap means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature.

C. Benefits to Customers of Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and 
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps

    Table I.3 presents the impacts on commercial customers of the 
energy conservation standards adopted in today's final rule.

                   Table I.3--Impacts of New Standards for a Sample of Commercial Customers *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                              Total
                                          Amended energy         Total      installed    Life-cycle    Payback
           Equipment class             conservation standard   installed       cost         cost        period
                                                                  cost       increase     savings      (years)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size PTAC, 9,000 Btu/h       11.1 EER..............        1,229          $22         ($3)         13.7
 Cooling Capacity.
Standard Size PTAC, 12,000 Btu/h      10.2 EER..............        1,469           16          (2)         13.1
 Cooling Capacity.
Standard Size PTHP, 9,000 Btu/h       11.3 EER..............        1,362           40           28          4.4
 Cooling Capacity.
                                      3.2 COP
Standard Size PTHP, 12,000 Btu/h      10.4 EER..............        1,603           38           24          4.6
 Cooling Capacity.
                                      3.0 COP
Non-Standard Size PTAC, 11,000 Btu/h  8.6 EER...............        1,570       ** N/A       ** N/A       ** N/A
 Cooling Capacity.
Non-Standard Size PTHP, 11,000 Btu/h  8.5 EER...............        1,692       ** N/A       ** N/A       ** N/A
 Cooling Capacity.
                                      2.6 COP
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The values in Table I.3 represent average values and all monetary values are expressed in 2007$.
** DOE did not calculate the implications on commercial customers of non-standard equipment because DOE is
  adopting the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 (i.e., the baseline efficiency levels).

    The economic impacts on commercial consumers (i.e., the average 
life-cycle cost (LCC) savings) are positive. For example, the typical, 
standard size PTAC with a cooling capacity of 9,000 Btu/h that meets 
the existing Federal energy conservation standards has an installed 
price of $1,207 and an annual energy cost of $109 (cooling only). A 
typical, standard size PTHP of the same cooling capacity that meets the 
existing Federal energy conservation standards has an installed price 
of $1,362 and an annual energy cost of $209. To meet the new standard, 
DOE estimates that the installed price of a typical, standard size PTAC 
with a cooling capacity of 9,000 Btu/h will be $1,229, an increase of 
$22. This price increase will be offset by an annual energy savings of 
about $3. Similarly, for a typical, standard size PTHP of the same 
cooling capacity to meet the new standard, the increase in installed 
price would be $40, offset by an annual energy savings of $11. Whereas 
the typical, non-standard size PTAC that meets the ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-1999 efficiency levels has an installed price of $1,570 and an 
annual energy cost of $180.

D. Impact on Manufacturers

    Using a real corporate discount rate of five-percent, DOE estimates 
the net present value (NPV) of the standard size packaged terminal 
equipment industry to be $427 million in 2007$ and the NPV of the non-
standard size packaged terminal equipment industry to be $30 million in 
2007$. DOE expects the impact of today's standards on the industry net 
present value (INPV) of manufacturers of standard size packaged 
terminal equipment to be between a two-percent loss and a 14 percent 
loss (-$8 million to -$61 million). Based

[[Page 58775]]

on DOE's interviews with the manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs, DOE 
expects minimal plant closings or loss of employment as a result of the 
standards for both the standard size and non-standard size industries.

E. National Benefits

    DOE estimates the amended energy conservation standards will save 
approximately 0.032 quads (quadrillion (1015) Btu) of energy 
over 30 years (2012-2042). This is equivalent to all the electricity 
used annually by approximately 500 motels.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Energy Informaton Agency. 2003 CBECS public use sample, 
where specific building activity = ``motel or inn'' (PBAPLUS8=39). 
Anual electricity use averages about 177,700 kWh per yer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    By 2042, DOE expects the energy savings from the standards to 
eliminate the need for approximately one new 82-megawatt (MW) power 
plant. These energy savings will result in cumulative greenhouse gas 
emission reductions of approximately 1.06 million tons (Mt) of carbon 
dioxide (CO2), or an amount equal to that produced by 
approximately 6,700 cars every year. Additionally, the standards will 
help alleviate air pollution by resulting in between approximately 90 
and 2,130 tons (0.09 and 2.13 kilotons (kt)) of nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) cumulative emission reductions from 2012 through 2042. 
Finally, the standards will also alleviate air pollution by resulting 
in between approximately 0 and 0.037 tons of mercury (Hg) cumulative 
emission reductions from 2012 through 2042.
    The national NPV of the standard for standard size PTACs and PTHPs 
is $10 million using a seven-percent discount rate and $54 million 
using a three-percent discount rate, cumulative from 2012 to 2062 in 
2007$. This is the estimated total value of future savings minus the 
estimated increased equipment costs, discounted to 2008.
    The benefits and costs of today's final rule can also be expressed 
in terms of annualized 2007$ values over the forecast period 2012 
through 2042. Using a seven-percent discount rate for the annualized 
cost analysis, the cost of the amended energy conservation standards 
established in today's final rule for standard size PTACs and PTHPs is 
$4.7 million per year in increased equipment and installation costs 
while the annualized benefits are $5.7 million per year in reduced 
equipment operating costs. Using a three-percent discount rate, the 
cost of the amended energy conservation standards established in 
today's final rule for standard size PTACs and PTHPs is $4.1 million 
per year, whereas the benefits of today's amended energy conservation 
standards are $6.5 million per year.

 F. Other Considerations

    DOE noted in the April 2008 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NOPR) 
that PTAC and PTHP equipment manufacturers also face a mandated 
refrigerant phaseout on January 1, 2010. 73 FR 18858, 18860 (April 7, 
2008). R-22, the only refrigerant currently used by PTACs and PTHPs, is 
a hydrochlorofluorocarbon (HCFC) refrigerant subject to the phaseout 
requirement. Phaseout of this refrigerant could have a significant 
impact on the manufacturing, performance, and cost of PTAC and PTHP 
equipment. DOE discussed and estimated the impacts of the refrigerant 
phaseout on PTAC and PTHP equipment and on the manufacturers of this 
equipment in the NOPR, see generally, 73 FR 18872-74, and today's final 
rule.

G. Conclusion

    DOE concludes that the benefits (energy savings, commercial 
customer LCC savings, positive national NPV, and emissions reductions) 
to the Nation of the amended standards for standard size equipment 
outweigh their costs (loss of manufacturer INPV and commercial customer 
LCC increases for some users of PTACs and PTHPs). DOE believes that 
these amended standards are technologically feasible, economically 
justified, and will save additional significant amounts of energy as 
compared to the savings that would result from adoption of the 
efficiency levels for standard size PTACs and PTHPs in ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-1999. DOE also believes that the standards for non-standard size 
equipment (i.e., the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999) 
are technologically feasible, economically justified, and will save 
significant amounts of energy compared to the current Federal energy 
conservation standards. Finally, DOE concludes that today's standards 
for PTACs and PTHPs are designed to achieve the maximum improvements in 
energy efficiency that are technologically feasible and economically 
justified. Currently, PTACs and PTHPs that meet the new standard levels 
are commercially available utilizing R-22 refrigerant. DOE believes 
that PTACs and PTHPs utilizing R-410A equipment at the new standard 
levels will be commercially available by the effective dates of the new 
standard levels.

II. Introduction

A. Authority

    Title III of EPCA sets forth a variety of provisions designed to 
improve energy efficiency. Part A of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6291-6309) 
provides for the Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 
Other than Automobiles. Part A-1 of Title III (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) 
establishes a similar program for ``Certain Industrial Equipment,'' 
including PTACs and PTHPs, the subjects of this rulemaking.\2\ DOE 
publishes today's final rule pursuant to Part A-1 of Title III, which 
provides for test procedures, labeling, and energy conservation 
standards for PTACs and PTHPs and certain other equipment, and 
authorizes DOE to require information and reports from manufacturers. 
The test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs appears in title 10 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) section 431.96.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ This part was originally titled Part C. However, it was 
redesignated Part A-1 after Part B of Title III of EPCA was repealed 
by Public Law 109-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards that 
generally correspond to the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, effective 
October 24, 1992, for most types of covered equipment listed in section 
342(a) of EPCA, including PTACs and PTHPs. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) For each 
type of equipment, EPCA directs that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is 
amended, DOE must adopt an amended standard at the new level in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a 
determination that adoption of a more stringent level as a national 
standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))
    EPCA also provides that in deciding whether a more stringent 
standard is economically justified for equipment such as PTACs and 
PTHPs, DOE must, after receiving comments on the proposed standard, 
determine whether the benefits of such a standard exceed its burdens by 
considering the following seven factors to the greatest extent 
practicable:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of products in the type (or class) compared to any increase in the 
price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the covered 
products that are likely to

[[Page 58776]]

result from the imposition of the standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the imposition of the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the products 
likely to result from the imposition of 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 
imposition of the standard;
    6. The need for national energy conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii))
    EPCA also contains an ``anti-backsliding'' provision, which 
prohibits DOE from prescribing any amended energy conservation standard 
that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or decreases the 
minimum required energy efficiency of covered equipment. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(1)) It is a fundamental principle in EPCA's 
statutory scheme that DOE cannot amend standards downward; that is, DOE 
may not weaken standards that have been previously promulgated. Natural 
Resources Defense Council v. Abraham, 355 F.3d 179 (2d Cir. 2004).
    In addition, EPCA, as amended (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)), 
establishes a rebuttable presumption that a standard is economically 
justified if the Secretary finds that ``the additional cost to the 
consumer of purchasing a product complying with an energy conservation 
standard level will be less than three times the value of the energy 
(and as applicable, water) savings during the first year that the 
consumer will receive as a result of the standard,'' as calculated 
under the test procedure in place for that standard. This approach 
provides an alternative path in establishing economic justification 
under the EPCA factors. (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(iii)) DOE considered 
this test, but believes that the criterion it applies (i.e., a limited 
payback period) is not sufficient for determining economic 
justification. Instead, DOE has considered a full range of impacts, 
including those to the consumer, manufacturer, Nation, and environment.
    Additionally, the Secretary may not prescribe an amended standard 
if interested persons have established by a preponderance of the 
evidence that the standard is ``likely to result in the unavailability 
in the United States of any product type (or class)'' with performance 
characteristics, features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that are 
substantially the same as those generally available in the United 
States at the time of the Secretary's finding. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 
U.S.C. 6295(o)(4))
    Section 325(q)(1) of EPCA directs that DOE must specify a different 
standard level than that which applies generally to such type or class 
of equipment for any group of products ``which have the same function 
or intended use, if * * * products within such group--(A) consume a 
different kind of energy from that consumed by other covered products 
within such type (or class); or (B) have a capacity or other 
performance-related feature which other products within such type (or 
class) do not have and such feature justifies a higher or lower 
standard'' than applies or will apply to the other products within that 
type or class. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)(A) and (B)) In determining whether 
a performance-related feature justifies such a different standard for a 
group of products, DOE must consider ``such factors as the utility to 
the consumer of such a feature'' and other factors DOE deems 
appropriate. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(1)) Any rule prescribing such a 
standard must include an explanation of the basis on which DOE 
established such higher or lower level. (42 U.S.C. 6295(q)(2))
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for commercial equipment 
generally supersede State laws or regulations concerning energy 
conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6297(a)-(c); 
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b)) However, DOE can grant waivers of preemption 
for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the 
procedures and other provisions of section 327(d) of the Act, as 
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))

B. Background

1. Current Standards
    As described in greater detail in the NOPR, 73 FR 18861-62, the 
current energy conservation standards in EPCA for PTACs and PTHPs apply 
to all equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 1994. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(3); 10 CFR 431.97) Table I.2 details these standards.
2. History of Standards Rulemaking for Packaged Terminal Equipment
    On October 29, 1999, ASHRAE adopted ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, 
which revised the efficiency levels for various categories of 
commercial equipment covered by EPCA, including PTACs and PTHPs. In 
amending the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989 levels for packaged terminal 
equipment, ASHRAE used the equipment classes contained in EPCA, which 
are distinguished by equipment type (i.e., air conditioner (PTAC) or 
heat pump (PTHP)) and cooling capacity. However, ASHRAE further divided 
these classes by wall sleeve dimensions, because they affect the energy 
efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs. Table II.1 shows the efficiency levels 
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for this equipment.

Table II.1--ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 Energy Efficiency Levels for PTACs
                                and PTHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Equipment class
-------------------------------------------------------- ASHRAE standard
                                            Cooling         90.1-1999
      Equipment            Category     capacity  (Btu/     efficiency
                                               h)            levels *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.................  Standard Size    <7,000.........  EER = 11.0
                        **.
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 12.5 -
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.3
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     <7,000.........  EER = 9.4
                        Size [dagger].
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 10.9 -
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 7.7
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTHP.................  Standard Size    <7,000.........  EER = 10.8
                        **.                              COP = 3.0
                                         7,000-15,000..  EER = 12.3 -
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                                         COP = 3.2 -
                                                          (0.026 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])

[[Page 58777]]

 
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.1
                                                         COP = 2.8
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     <7,000.........  EER = 9.3
                        Size [dagger].                   COP = 2.7
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 10.8 -
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                                         COP = 2.9 -
                                                          (0.026 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 7.6
                                                         COP = 2.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For equipment rated according to ARI standards, all EER values must be
  rated at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled
  products and evaporatively cooled products and at 85 [deg]F entering
  water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values must be
  rated at 47 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled
  products.
** Standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve
  dimensions greater than or equal to 16 inches high, or greater than or
  equal to 42 inches wide.
[dagger] Non-standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall
  sleeve dimensions less than 16 inches high and less than 42 inches
  wide. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 also includes a factory labeling
  requirement for non-standard size PTAC and PTHP equipment as follows:
  ``MANUFACTURED FOR REPLACEMENT APPLICATIONS ONLY; NOT TO BE INSTALLED
  IN NEW CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS.''
[dagger][dagger] Cap means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95 [deg]F
  outdoor dry-bulb temperature.

    After publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999, DOE analyzed many 
of its equipment categories to evaluate possible consideration of more 
stringent efficiency levels than those specified in the Standard. DOE 
summarized this analysis in a report, Screening Analysis for EPACT-
Covered Commercial HVAC [Heating, Ventilating and Air-Conditioning] and 
Water-Heating Equipment (commonly referred to as the 2000 Screening 
Analysis).\3\ On January 12, 2001, DOE published a final rule adopting 
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for many types of 
commercial HVAC and water heating equipment, excluding packaged 
terminal equipment and certain other types of equipment. 66 FR 3336. 
Regarding PTACs and PTHPs, the preamble to the final rule stated that 
the 2000 Screening Analysis indicated at least a reasonable possibility 
of finding ``clear and convincing evidence'' that more stringent 
standards ``would be technologically feasible and economically 
justified and would result in significant additional conservation of 
energy.'' 66 FR 3349-50. Under EPCA, these are the criteria for DOE's 
adoption of standards more stringent than the efficiency levels in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and 
Renewable Energy. ``Energy Conservation Program for Consumer 
Products: Screening Analysis for EPACT-Covered Commercial HVAC and 
Water-Heating Equipment Screening Analysis.'' April 2000. https://
www.eere.energy.gov/buildings/highperformance/pdfs/screening_
analysis_main.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    More recently, DOE announced the availability of a technical 
support document (TSD) it developed to reassess whether to adopt as 
national standards certain efficiency levels that were in amendments to 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, including the levels in the 1999 amendments for 
PTACs and PTHPs. 71 FR 12634 (March 13, 2006) (Notice of Availability). 
According to DOE, although the revised analysis in the TSD reduced the 
potential energy savings that might result from standards more 
stringent than the efficiency levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-
1999 for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE was inclined to pursue standards that are 
more stringent because there was a possibility that clear and 
convincing evidence exists that such standards are warranted. Id. at 
12638-39. DOE stated that it would explore more stringent efficiency 
levels than those in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for PTACs and PTHPs 
through a separate rulemaking. Id. at 12639.
    DOE proposed energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs in a 
NOPR published on April 7, 2008. 73 FR 18858. In conjunction with the 
NOPR, DOE also published on its Web site the complete TSD for the 
proposed rule, which incorporated the final analyses that DOE conducted 
and technical support documentation of each analysis. The NOPR TSD 
included the LCC spreadsheets, the national impact analysis 
spreadsheets, and the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) spreadsheet--
all of which are available on DOE's PTAC and PTHP webpage. The proposed 
standards were as follows:

  Table II.2--NOPR Proposed Energy Conservation Standards for PTACs and
                                  PTHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Equipment class
-------------------------------------------------------- Proposed energy
                                            Cooling        conservation
      Equipment            Category     capacity  (Btu/    standards *
                                               h)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.................  Standard Size    <7,000.........  EER = 11.4
                        **.
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 13.0-
                                                          (0.233 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.5
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     <7,000.........  EER = 10.2
                        Size.
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 11.7-
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 8.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 58778]]

 
PTHP.................  Standard Size    <7,000.........  EER = 11.8
                        **.                              COP = 3.3
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 13.4-
                                                          (0.233 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                                         COP = 3.7-
                                                          (0.053 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.9
                                                         COP = 2.9
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     <7,000.........  EER = 10.8
                        Size.                            COP = 3.0
                                        7,000-15,000...  EER = 12.3-
                                                          (0.213 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                                         COP = 3.1-
                                                          (0.026 x Cap
                                                          [dagger][dagge
                                                          r])
                                        >15,000........  EER = 9.1
                                                         COP = 2.8
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure (ARI Standard
  310/380-2004), all EER values must be rated at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-
  bulb temperature for air-cooled equipment and evaporatively cooled
  equipment and at 85 [deg]F entering water temperature for water-cooled
  equipment. All COP values must be rated at 47 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb
  temperature for air-cooled equipment, and at 70 [deg]F entering water
  temperature for water-source heat pumps.
** Standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve
  dimensions greater than or equal to 16 inches high, or greater than or
  equal to 42 inches wide.
[dagger] Non-standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall
  sleeve dimensions less than 16 inches high and less than 42 inches
  wide.
[dagger][dagger] Cap means cooling capacity in kBtu/h at 95 [deg]F
  outdoor dry-bulb temperature.

    The NOPR also included additional background information on the 
history of this rulemaking. 73 FR 18862-63. DOE held a public meeting 
in Washington, DC, on May 1, 2008, to accept oral comments on and 
solicit information relevant to the proposed rule.

III. General Discussion

A. Test Procedures

    Section 343(a) of EPCA, as amended, authorizes the Secretary to 
amend the test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs to the latest version 
generally accepted by industry or the rating procedures developed or 
recognized by the ARI, or ASHRAE as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, 
unless the Secretary determines by clear and convincing evidence that 
the latest version of the industry test procedure does not meet 
specific requirements. (See 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4) As the NOPR explains, 
DOE has determined that its existing test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs 
does not need modification. 73 FR 18863. Accordingly, DOE has not 
adopted a revised test procedure for this equipment.

B. Technological Feasibility

1. General
    To adopt standards for PTACs and PTHPs that are more stringent than 
the efficiency levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as amended, DOE must 
determine, supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such 
standards are technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) DOE considers a design option to be 
technologically feasible if it is in use by the respective industry or 
if research has progressed to the development of a working prototype. 
DOE defines technological feasibility as follows: ``Technologies 
incorporated in commercially available products or in working 
prototypes will be considered technologically feasible.'' 10 CFR part 
430, subpart C, appendix A, section 4(a)(4)(i).
    This final rule considers the same design options as those 
evaluated in the NOPR. (See the final rule TSD accompanying this 
notice, Chapter 4.) Based on equipment literature, the teardown 
analysis, manufacturer interviews, and the equipment performance 
degradations provided by AHRI during the NOPR phase of the rulemaking, 
DOE considered the following design options in the final rule analysis: 
(1) Higher efficiency compressors; (2) increasing the heat exchanger 
area; and (3) recircuiting the heat exchanger coils. Since these three 
design options are commercially available, have been used in PTAC and 
PTHP equipment, and are the most common ways by which manufacturers 
improve the energy efficiency of their PTACs and PTHPs, DOE has 
determined that clear and convincing evidence supports the conclusion 
that all of the efficiency levels evaluated in this notice are 
technologically feasible. DOE further discusses the technical 
feasibility of PTAC and PTHP equipment utilizing R-410A in section 
IV.C. of today's notice.
2. Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    In order to evaluate whether energy conservation standards for 
PTACs and PTHPs are economically justified, DOE determines the maximum 
improvement in energy efficiency or maximum reduction in energy use 
that is technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(p)(2)) DOE determined the maximum technologically feasible level 
(``max-tech'') efficiency levels in its engineering analysis for the 
NOPR. 73 FR 18863-64. (See NOPR TSD Chapter 5.) In the NOPR, DOE based 
its identification of the max-tech efficiency levels on standard size 
and non-standard size PTAC and PTHP equipment utilizing R-22 that is 
currently available on the market. For the final rule, DOE revised the 
max-tech efficiency levels for standard size and non-standard size 
PTACs and PTHPs based on submitted comments, which are discussed in 
section IV.C of today's notice. The max-tech efficiency levels 
considered for today's final rule are based on the efficiency levels 
identified in the NOPR and factor performance degradations stemming 
from the switch to R-410A refrigerant.\4\ Table III.1 lists the max-
tech efficiency levels that DOE identified for this rulemaking for the

[[Page 58779]]

estimated system performance of equipment utilizing R-410A. DOE 
discusses these levels further in section IV.C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE expects the overall system efficiency of R-410A PTAC and 
PTHP equipment will be lower than if that equipment used R-22, which 
DOE estimated using an overall system performance degradation. This 
estimate is based on data submitted by manufacturers and AHRI 
pointing to a decline in performance when using R-410A refrigerant 
in place of R-22 refrigerant.

   Table III.1--R-410A Max-Tech Efficiency Levels (7,000-15,000 Btu/h
                          Equipment Classes) *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          R-410A ``Max-
                                            Cooling           Tech''
    Equipment type     Equipment class   capacity (Btu/     efficiency
                                               h)            level **
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTAC.................  Standard Size    9,000..........  11.5 EER
                        [dagger].
                                        12,000.........  10.8 EER
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     11,000.........  10.0 EER
                        Size
                        [dagger][dagge
                        r].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTHP.................  Standard Size    9,000..........  11.5 EER
                        [dagger].                        3.3 COP
                                        12,000.........  10.8 EER
                                                         3.1 COP
                      --------------------------------------------------
                       Non-Standard     11,000.........  10.0 EER
                        Size                              2.9 COP
                        [dagger][dagge
                        r].
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* As discussed in the NOPR, DOE is presenting the results for two
  cooling capacities of standard size PTACs and PTHPs, 9,000 and 12,000
  Btu/h, which fall within the equipment classes of PTACs and PTHPs with
  cooling capacities of 7,000-15,000 Btu/h. 73 FR 18870-18871.
** For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure, all EER
  values would be rated at 95 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for
  air-cooled products and evaporatively cooled products and at 85 [deg]F
  entering water temperature for water-cooled products. All COP values
  must be rated at 47 [deg]F outdoor dry-bulb temperature for air-cooled
  products and at 70 [deg]F entering water temperature for water-source
  heat pumps.
[dagger] Standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with wall sleeve
  dimensions having an external wall opening of greater than or equal to
  16 inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and having
  a cross-sectional area greater than or equal to 670 square inches.
[dagger][dagger] Non-standard size refers to PTAC or PTHP equipment with
  existing wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of
  less than 16 inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and having a
  cross-sectional area less than 670 square inches.

C. Energy Savings

    DOE forecasted energy savings in its national energy savings (NES) 
analysis using an NES spreadsheet tool, which the NOPR discussed in 
greater detail. See generally, 73 FR 18864, 18876, 18880-83, 18899.
    Among the criteria that govern DOE's adoption of more stringent 
standards for PTACs and PTHPs than the amended levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, clear and convincing evidence must support a 
determination that the standards would result in ``significant'' energy 
savings. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Although EPCA does not 
define ``significant,'' the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia indicated that Congress intended ``significant'' energy 
savings to mean savings that were not ``genuinely trivial'' in Section 
325 of the Act. Natural Resources Defense Council v. Herrington, 768 
F.2d 1355, 1373 (D.C. Cir. 1985). DOE's estimates of the energy savings 
for each of the TSLs considered for today's rule provide clear and 
convincing evidence that the additional energy savings each would 
achieve by exceeding the corresponding efficiency levels in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-1999 are nontrivial. Therefore, DOE considers these 
savings to be ``significant'' as required by 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II).

D. Economic Justification

    As noted earlier, EPCA provides seven factors to be evaluated in 
determining whether an energy conservation standard for PTACs and PTHPs 
is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)-(ii)) The following paragraphs discuss how DOE has 
addressed each of those seven factors in this rulemaking.
1. Economic Impact on Commercial Consumers and Manufacturers
    DOE considered the economic impact of the standards on commercial 
consumers and manufacturers. For customers, DOE measures the economic 
impact as the change in installed cost and life-cycle operating costs, 
i.e., the LCC. (See section V.C.1 and Chapter 8 of the TSD.) DOE 
investigates the impacts of amended energy conservation standards of 
PTACs and PTHPs on manufacturers through the manufacturer impact 
analysis (MIA). (See section V.C.2 and Chapter 13 of the TSD.) This 
factor is discussed in detail in the NOPR. See generally 73 FR 18860-
61, 18864-66, 18869, 18883-87, 18893-99, 18906-07, 18910-12.
2. Life-Cycle Costs
    DOE considered life-cycle costs of PTACs and PTHPs. This factor is 
discussed in detail in the NOPR. See generally 73 FR 18860-61, 18865, 
18876-80, 18883, 18888, 18891-93. DOE calculated the sum of the 
purchase price and the operating expense--discounted over the lifetime 
of the equipment--to estimate the range in LCC benefits that commercial 
customers would expect to achieve due to the standards.
3. Energy Savings
    Although significant additional conservation of energy is a 
separate statutory requirement for imposing a more stringent energy 
conservation standard than the level in the most current ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, EPCA also requires that DOE consider the total projected 
energy savings that will likely result directly from the standard in 
determining whether a standard is economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(III)) DOE used the NES spreadsheet 
results in its consideration of total projected savings. 73 FR 18860-
61, 18864, 18876, 18880-83, 18899. DOE presents the energy savings at 
each TSL for standard size and non-standard size PTACs and PTHPs in 
section V.B of today's notice.
4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of Equipment
    In selecting today's standard levels, DOE sought to avoid new 
standards for PTACs and PTHPs that would lessen the utility or 
performance of that equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(IV)) 73 FR 18865, 18866-68, 18900. The design options 
considered in the engineering analysis of this rulemaking, which 
include higher efficiency compressors, increasing the heat exchanger 
area, and recircuiting the heat exchanger coils, do not involve changes 
in equipment design or unusual installation requirements that could 
reduce the utility or performance of PTACs and PTHPs. In the NOPR, DOE 
considered

[[Page 58780]]

industry concerns that one-third of the non-standard size market 
subject to the more stringent standards under ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 
definition would not be able to meet the efficiency levels specified by 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1999 for standard size equipment due to the 
physical size constraints of the wall sleeve if this equipment class 
delineation was adopted. In today's final rule, DOE is adopting the 
equipment class delineations specified in Addendum t to ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-2007. This action should mitigate manufacturers' concerns 
regarding the misclassification of non-standard equipment classes. DOE 
further discusses the equipment classes it is adopting today and the 
comments received from interested parties regarding equipment classes 
in section IV.A of today's rulemaking.
5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition
    DOE considers any lessening of competition likely to result from 
standards. As discussed in the NOPR (73 FR 18865, 18900), DOE requested 
that the Attorney General transmit to the Secretary a written 
determination of the impact of any lessening of competition likely to 
result from the proposed standards, together with an analysis of the 
nature and extent of such impact. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(V) and (B)(ii))
    To assist the Attorney General in making such a determination, DOE 
provided DOJ with copies of the proposed rule and the TSD for review. 
(DOJ, No. 21 at p. 1-2) \5\ The Attorney General's response is 
discussed in section IV.K.1, and is reprinted at the end of today's 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ ``DOJ, No. 21 at pp 1-2'' refers to (1) a statement that was 
submitted by the Department of Justice and is recorded in the 
Resource Room of the Building Technologies Program in the docket 
under ``Energy Conservation Program for Commercial and Industrial 
Equipment: Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner and Packaged Terminal 
Heat Pump Energy Conservation Standards,'' Docket Number EERE-2007-
BT-STD-0012, as comment number 21; and (2) a passage that appears on 
pages 1 and 2 of that statement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

6. Need of the Nation To Conserve Energy
    In considering standards for PTACs and PTHPs, the Secretary must 
consider the need of the Nation to conserve energy. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 
42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VI)) The Secretary recognizes that energy 
conservation benefits the Nation in several important ways. The non-
monetary benefits of the standards will likely be reflected in 
improvements to the security and reliability of the Nation's energy 
system. Today's standards also will likely result in environmental 
benefits. As discussed in the proposed rule, DOE has considered these 
factors in adopting today's standards. See generally, 73 FR at 18860, 
18865, 18888, 18900-02, 18912.
7. Other Factors
    In determining whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA 
directs the Secretary of Energy to consider any other factors that the 
Secretary deems to be relevant. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 
6295(o)(2)(B)(i)(VII)) In adopting today's standard, DOE considered (1) 
the impacts of setting different amended standards for PTACs and PTHPs, 
(2) the potential that amended standards could cause equipment 
switching (i.e., purchase of PTACs instead of PTHPs) and the effects of 
any such switching, (3) the uncertainties associated with the impending 
phaseout in 2010 of R-22 refrigerant, and (4) the impact of amended 
standards on the manufacture of and market for non-standard size 
packaged terminal equipment (e.g., impacts on small businesses). See 
generally, 73 FR at 18860, 18865-66, 18872-74, 18882, 18884-87, 18893-
98, 18902, 18911-12.

IV. Analysis Methodology and Discussion of Comments on Analysis 
Methodology

    DOE used several analytical tools that it developed previously and 
adapted for use in this rulemaking. The first tool is a spreadsheet 
that calculates LCC and payback period (PBP). The second tool 
calculates national energy savings and national NPV. DOE also used the 
Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), among other methods, in its 
MIA. Finally, DOE developed an approach using the National Energy 
Modeling System (NEMS) to estimate impacts of PTAC and PTHP energy 
efficiency standards on electric utilities and the environment. The 
NOPR discusses each analytical tool in detail. 73 FR at 18866-89.
    As a basis for this final rule, DOE has continued to use the 
spreadsheets and approaches described above and in the NOPR. DOE used 
the same general methodology as applied in the NOPR, but revised some 
of the assumptions and inputs for the final rule in response to 
comments from interested parties. The following paragraphs discuss 
these revisions.

A. Market and Technology Assessment

    When beginning an energy conservation standards rulemaking, DOE 
develops information that provides an overall picture of the market for 
the equipment concerned, including the purpose of the equipment, the 
industry structure, and market characteristics. This activity includes 
both quantitative and qualitative assessments based primarily on 
publicly available information. DOE presented various subjects in the 
market and technology assessment for this rulemaking. (See the NOPR and 
Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD.) These include equipment classes, 
manufacturers, quantities and types of equipment sold and offered for 
sale, retail market trends, and regulatory and nonregulatory programs. 
73 FR 18866-69 and Chapter 3 of the NOPR TSD. In response to 
publication of the NOPR, DOE received comments from interested parties 
about the establishment of equipment classes for the rulemaking.
1. Equipment Classes--Generally
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
generally divides covered equipment into equipment classes by the type 
of energy used, capacity, or other performance-related features that 
affect efficiency. Different energy conservation standards may apply to 
different equipment classes. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a); 42 U.S.C. 6295(q))
    PTACs and PTHPs can be divided into various equipment classes 
categorized by physical characteristics that affect equipment 
efficiency. Key characteristics that affect the energy efficiency of 
t