Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Single Package Vertical Units, 22958-22970 [2020-08318]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
22958
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 85, No. 80
Friday, April 24, 2020
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.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0033]
RIN 1904–AE78
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Single
Package Vertical Units
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current
energy conservation standards for single
package vertical air conditioners
(SPVACs) and single package vertical
heat pumps (SPVHPs), collectively
referred to as single package vertical
units (SPVUs). This request for
information (RFI) solicits information
from the public to help DOE determine
whether amended standards for SPVUs,
a category of covered commercial
equipment, would result in significant
additional energy savings and whether
such standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE welcomes
written comments from the public on
any subject within the scope of this
document (including those topics not
specifically raised in this RFI), as well
as the submission of data and other
relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and
information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 23, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are
encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
Alternatively, interested persons may
submit comments, identified by docket
number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0033
and/or RIN 1904–AE78, by any of the
following methods:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: SPVU2019STD@ee.doe.gov.
Include the docket number EERE–2019–
BT–STD–0033 and/or RIN 1904–AE78
in the subject line of the message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and
Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a compact
disc (CD), in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance
and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza
SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024.
Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in
which case it is not necessary to include
printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be
accepted. For detailed instructions on
submitting comments and additional
information on this process, see section
III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity,
which includes Federal Register
notices, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is
available for review at https://
www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://
www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
The docket web page can be found at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket
Detail;D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033. The
docket web page contains instructions
on how to access all documents,
including public comments, in the
docket. See section III for information
on how to submit comments through
https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW, Washington,
DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–
7335. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
2. Equipment Classes
3. Model Counts
4. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
2. Maximum Available and Maximum
Technologically Feasible Levels
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and
Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Mark-ups Analysis and Distribution
Channels
F. Energy Use Analysis
1. Model Buildings
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
H. Shipments Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act, as amended (EPCA),1 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
1 All references to EPCA in this document refer
to the statute as amended through America’s Water
Infrastructure Act of 2018, Public Law 115–270
(Oct. 23, 2018).
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
equipment. Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA
(42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as codified),
added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV,
section 441(a), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes SPVUs, which are a
category of small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment and the subject
of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D))
EPCA prescribed initial standards for
this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)–
(2))
Under EPCA, DOE’s energy
conservation program consists
essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2)
labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and
enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313),
test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
and the authority to require information
and reports from manufacturers (42
U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency
requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally
supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing,
labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C.
6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE
may, however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption 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))
The Energy Independence and
Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007), Public
Law 110–140, amended EPCA in
relevant part to establish equipment
classes and minimum energy
conservation standards for SPVUs. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)) In doing so, the
EISA 2007 amendments established
Federal energy conservation standards
for SPVUs at levels that generally
corresponded to the levels in the 2004
edition of the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers (ASHRAE)
Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for
Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–
2004). On March 23, 2009, DOE
published a final rule that codified the
statutory equipment classes and energy
conservation standards for SPVUs into
DOE’s regulations in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR 431.97. 74
2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the
U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
FR 12058, 12073–12074 (March 2009
final rule).
EPCA further required that, not later
than 3 years after the date of enactment
of EISA 2007, DOE must review
ASHRAE Standard 90.1, with respect to
SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance
with the procedures established under
42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(10)(B)) Additionally, in
acknowledgement of technological
changes that yield energy efficiency
benefits, Congress further directed DOE
through EPCA to consider amending the
existing Federal energy conservation
standards for SPVUs, each time
ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1 with
respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this
manner, DOE must undertake and
publish an analysis of the energy
savings potential of amended energy
efficiency standards, and amend the
Federal standards to establish a uniform
national standard at the minimum level
specified in the amended ASHRAE
Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines
that there is clear and convincing
evidence to support a determination
that a more-stringent standard level as a
national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings
and be technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)–(ii))
On September 23, 2015, DOE
published amendments to the SPVU
standards in accordance with the 3-year
review prescribed by EPCA as amended
by EISA 2007 and in response to the
2013 update to ASHARE Standard 90.1
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013). 80
FR 57438 (September 2015 final rule).
For four of the six SPVU equipment
classes, DOE adopted the levels
specified ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013.
80 FR 57438, 57439 (Sept. 23, 2015). For
the remaining two equipment classes,
DOE concluded that there is clear and
convincing evidence to support more
stringent standards than the levels in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. Id.
Compliance dates for the amended
standards were as follows: SPVACs and
SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity
beginning September 23, 2019; SPVACs
and SPVHPs ≥65,000 and <135,000 Btu/
h cooling capacity, beginning October 9,
2015; and SPVACs and SPVHPs
≥135,000 and <240,000 Btu/h cooling
capacity, beginning October 9, 2016. 80
FR 57438, 57438 (Sept. 23, 2015). The
current energy conservation standards
are codified at 10 CFR 431.97.
The currently applicable DOE test
procedure for SPVUs is set forth at 10
CFR 431.96. DOE’s test procedures for
SPVUs were established in a final rule
for commercial heating, air-
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22959
conditioning, and water-heating
equipment published on May 16, 2012.
77 FR 28928. The current test procedure
incorporates by reference American
National Standards Institute (ANSI)/AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI) Standard 390–2003,
Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat
Pumps (ANSI/AHRI 390–2003),
omitting section 6.4. The current test
procedure also requires that
manufacturers adhere to additional
provisions in paragraphs (c) and (e) of
10 CFR 431.96. Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR
431.96 provides the method for an
optional compressor break-in period,
while paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96
provides specifications for addressing
key information typically found in the
installation and operation manuals.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been
updated on several occasions since the
2013 version, the most recently being
released on October 26, 2016 (i.e.,
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016).
However, the standard levels for SPVUs
remain unchanged from the 2013
version.
In those situations where ASHRAE
has not acted to amend the levels in
Standard 90.1 for the equipment types
enumerated in the statute, EPCA also
provides for a 6-year-lookback to
consider the potential for amending the
uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) Specifically, pursuant to
EPCA, DOE is required to conduct an
evaluation of each class of covered
equipment in the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 ‘‘every 6 years’’ to determine
whether the applicable energy
conservation standards need to be
amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
DOE must publish either a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to propose
amended standards or a notice of
determination that existing standards do
not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I)–(II)) In making a
determination, DOE must evaluate
whether amended standards would
result in significant additional
conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)) In proposing new
standards under the 6-year-lookback
review, DOE must undertake the same
considerations as if it were adopting a
standard that is more stringent than an
amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)) This is a separate
statutory review obligation, as
differentiated from the obligation
triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1
amendment, as previously discussed.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22960
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
While the statute continues to defer to
ASHRAE’s lead on covered equipment
subject to Standard 90.1, it does allow
for a comprehensive review of all such
equipment and the potential for
adopting more-stringent standards,
where supported by the requisite clear
and convincing evidence. That is, DOE
interprets ASHRAE’s not amending
Standard 90.1 with respect to a product
or equipment type as ASHRAE’s
determination that the standard
applicable to that product or equipment
type is already at an appropriate level of
stringency, and DOE will not amend
that standard unless there is clear and
convincing evidence that a morestringent level is justified. In those
instances where DOE makes a
determination that the standards for the
equipment in question do not need to be
amended, the statute requires the
Department to revisit that decision
within three years to either make a new
determination or propose amended
standards. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II))
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information to inform its
decision consistent with its obligations
under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
As discussed, DOE is required to
conduct an evaluation of each class of
covered equipment in ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 every 6 years. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) In making a
determination of whether standards for
such equipment need to be amended,
DOE must follow specific statutory
criteria. DOE must evaluate whether
amended Federal standards would
result in significant additional
conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and
economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i) (referencing 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) To determine
whether a potential proposed standard
is economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the
benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest
extent practicable, the following seven
factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard
on manufacturers and consumers of the
equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of the
covered equipment in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price of,
initial charges for, or maintenance expenses
of the covered equipment that are likely to
result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy
savings likely to result directly from the
standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the
performance of the covered equipment likely
to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing by the
Attorney General, that is likely to result from
the standard;
(6) The need for national energy
conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy
(Secretary) considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)
(referencing 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)))
DOE fulfills these and other
applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the
rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows the
individual analyses that are performed
to satisfy each of the requirements
within EPCA.
TABLE I.1—EPCA REQUIREMENTS AND CORRESPONDING DOE ANALYSIS
EPCA requirement
Corresponding DOE analysis
Significant Energy Savings .......................................................................
Technological Feasibility ...........................................................................
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and consumers ....................
2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for
the product.
3. Total projected energy savings .....................................................
4. Impact on utility or performance ....................................................
5. Impact of any lessening of competition .........................................
6. Need for national energy and water conservation ........................
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant .............................
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE
is publishing this document seeking
input and data from interested parties to
aid in the development of the technical
analyses on which DOE will ultimately
rely to determine whether (and if so,
how) to amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
•
•
•
•
•
•
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Market and Technology Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
Mark-ups for Product Price Determination.
Energy and Water Use Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Manufacturer Impact Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Employment Impact Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact Analysis.
II. Request for Information and
Comments
In the following sections, DOE has
identified a variety of issues on which
it seeks input to aid in the development
of the technical and economic analyses
regarding whether amended standards
for SPVUs may be warranted. DOE also
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
welcomes comments on other issues
relevant to this data-gathering process
that may not specifically be identified in
this document.
In addition, as an initial matter, DOE
seeks comment on whether there have
been sufficient technological or market
changes since the most recent standards
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22961
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
update that may justify a new
rulemaking to consider more-stringent
standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data
and information that could enable the
agency to determine whether DOE
should propose a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination because a more-stringent
standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant additional savings of energy;
(2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is
not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meet
the definitions of SPVACs and SPVHPs,
as codified at 10 CFR 431.92. The
definitions for SPVACs and SPVHPs
were established under EPCA, as
amended by EISA 2007 (see 42 U.S.C.
6311(22) and (23)), and codified in the
March 2009 final rule. 74 FR 12058,
12061, 12073 (March 23, 2009).
DOE defines a ‘‘single package
vertical air conditioner’’ as air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment that:
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
(1) Is factory assembled as a single package
that:
(i) Has major components that are arranged
vertically;
(ii) Is an encased combination of cooling
and optional heating components; and
(iii) Is intended for exterior mounting on,
adjacent interior to, or through an outside
wall;
(2) Is powered by single- or three-phase
current;
(3) May contain one or more separate
indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various
ventilation options, indoor free air
discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or
sleeves; and
(4) Has heating components that may
include electrical resistance, steam, hot
water, or gas, but may not include reverse
cycle refrigeration as a heating means.
10 CFR 431.92
DOE defines ‘‘single package vertical
heat pumps’’ as a single package vertical
air conditioner that: (1) Uses reverse
cycle refrigeration as its primary heating
source and (2) may include secondary
supplemental heating by means of
electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or
gas. Id.
Issue A.1 DOE requests comment on
whether the definitions for SPVUs
require any revisions—and if so, how
those definitions should be revised.
Please provide the rationale for any
suggested change.
Issue A.2 DOE requests comment on
whether additional equipment
definitions are necessary to close any
potential gaps in existing coverage
between equipment types. If there are
such gaps, DOE also seeks input on
whether equipment currently exists in
the market that are in such a gap or
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
whether they are being planned for
introduction.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology
assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a
potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides
information about the SPVUs industry
that will be used in DOE’s analysis
throughout the rulemaking process.
DOE uses qualitative and quantitative
information to characterize the structure
of the industry and market. DOE
identifies manufacturers, estimates
market shares and trends, addresses
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives
intended to improve energy efficiency
or reduce energy consumption, and
explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and
manufacturing of SPVUs. DOE also
reviews product literature, industry
publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting
interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market
and available technologies for SPVUs.
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
For SPVUs, DOE currently prescribes
energy efficiency ratio (EER) as the
cooling mode metric and coefficient of
performance (COP) as the heating mode
metric. 10 CFR 431.96. These energy
efficiency descriptors are the same as
those included in ASHRAE 90.1–2016
for SPVUs. EER is the ratio of the
produced cooling effect of the SPVU to
its net work input, expressed in Btu/
watt-hour, and measured at standard
rating conditions. COP is the ratio of the
produced heating effect of the SPVU to
its net work input, when both are
expressed in identical units of
measurement, and measured at standard
rating conditions. DOE’s test procedure
for SPVUs does not include a seasonal
metric that accounts for part-load
performance.
On July 20, 2018, DOE published an
RFI (July 2018 TP RFI) to collect
information and data to consider
amendments to DOE’s test procedure for
SPVUs. 83 FR 34499. As part of the July
2018 TP RFI, DOE requested comment
on whether adoption of a cooling-mode
metric that integrates part-load
performance would better represent fullseason efficiency for SPVUs. 83 FR
34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). If DOE
amends the SPVU test procedure to
incorporate a part-load metric, it would
conduct any analysis for future
standards rulemakings, if any, based on
the amended test procedure.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Equipment Classes
For SVPUs, the current energy
conservation standards specified in 10
CFR 431.97 are based on six equipment
classes determined according to the
following performance-related features
that provide utility to the consumer:
Cooling capacity and whether the
equipment is an air conditioner or a
heat pump. Table II.1 lists the current
six equipment classes for SPVUs:
TABLE II.1—CURRENT SPVU
EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Equipment class
1 ..
2 ..
3 ..
4 ..
5 ..
6 ..
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h.
SPVAC ≥65,000 Btu/h
Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h
Btu/h.
SPVAC ≥135,000 Btu/h
Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h
Btu/h.
and <135,000
and <135,000
and <240,000
and <240,000
Issue B.1 DOE requests feedback on
the current SPVU equipment classes
and whether changes to these individual
equipment classes and their
descriptions should be made or whether
certain classes should be merged or
separated. Specifically, DOE requests
comment on opportunities to combine
equipment classes that could reduce
regulatory burden. DOE further requests
feedback on whether combining certain
classes could impact product utility by
eliminating any performance-related
features or impact the stringency of the
current energy conservation standard for
these equipment. DOE also requests
comment on separating any of the
existing equipment classes and whether
it would reduce any compliance
burdens.
3. Model Counts
For this RFI, DOE conducted a review
of the current market for SPVUs based
on models included in DOE’s
Compliance Certification Database.3
Table II.2 shows the number of models
listed within the DOE Compliance
Certification Database that DOE has
identified for each class of SPVUs.
Based on DOE’s review of equipment
currently available on the market, DOE
did not identify any SPVAC models
with a cooling capacity greater than
3 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database can be
found at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/products.html#q=Product_
Group_s%3A* (Last accessed Jan. 29, 2020).
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22962
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
135,000 Btu/h or SPVHP models with
cooling capacities greater than 65,000
Btu/h.
cooling capacities greater than 65,000
Btu/h.
TABLE II.2—NUMBER OF MODELS UNDER CURRENT SPVU EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Number of models
Cooling capacity range
(Btu/h)
SPVACs
<65,000 ....................................................................................................................................................................
≥65,000 and <135,000 .............................................................................................................................................
≥135,000 and <240,000 ..........................................................................................................................................
Issue B.2 DOE requests comment on
whether there are units currently
available on the market in the following
equipment classes: SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/
h and <135,000 Btu/h, SPVAC ≥135,000
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, and SPVHP
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR SPVUS CONSIDERED IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEPTEMBER
2015 FINAL RULE—Continued
Other Improvements ..
4. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of
potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses
information about existing and past
technology options and prototype
designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet
and/or exceed a given set of energy
conservation standards under
consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to
develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis
will likely include a number of the
technology options DOE previously
considered during its most recent
rulemaking for SPVUs (i.e., the
September 2015 final rule). 80 FR 57438
(Sept. 23, 2015). A complete list of those
prior options appears in Table II.3.
TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR SPVUS CONSIDERED IN THE
DEVELOPMENT OF THE SEPTEMBER
2015 FINAL RULE
Technology Options
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Heat Exchanger Improvements.
Indoor Blower and
Outdoor Fan Improvements.
Compressor Improvements.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
Increased frontal coil
area.
Increased depth of
coil.
Microchannel heat
exchangers.
Dual condenser heat
exchangers.
Improved fan motor
efficiency.
Improved fan blades.
Improved compressor
efficiency.
Multi-speed compressors.
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
Thermostatic expansion valves.
Electronic expansion
valves.
Thermostatic cyclic
controls.
In addition, DOE conducted
preliminary market research by
examining manufacturer product
literature and published technical
literature (e.g., reports, journal articles,
or presentations) which identified
specific technologies and design
options, and DOE will consider these
along with others identified during the
rulemaking process, should it determine
that a rulemaking is necessary. Table
II.4 lists additional technology options
that DOE may consider in a future SPVU
energy conservation standards
rulemaking.
TABLE II.4—OTHER TECHNOLOGY
OPTIONS FOR SPVUS
Technology Options
Indoor Blower and
Outdoor Fan Improvements.
Variable speed condenser fan/motor.
Variable speed indoor blower/motor.
Issue B.4 DOE seeks information on
the technologies listed in Table II.3
regarding their applicability to the
current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency
of SPVUs, as measured according to the
DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks
information on how these technologies
may have changed since they were
considered in the September 2015 final
rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies
or performance characteristics that are
currently available for each technology
option.
Issue B.5 DOE seeks information on
the technologies listed in Table II.4
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
411
58
0
SPVHPs
221
0
0
regarding their market adoption, costs,
and any concerns with incorporating
them into equipment (e.g., impacts on
consumer utility, potential safety
concerns, manufacturing/production/
implementation issues).
Issue B.6 DOE seeks comment on
other technology options that it should
consider for inclusion in its analysis
and if these technologies may impact
equipment features or consumer utility.
DOE did not evaluate several
technology options in the September
2015 final rule for the following reasons:
• Data were not available to evaluate
the energy efficiency characteristics;
• The test procedure would not
measure the energy impact of these
technologies; and
• Available data suggest that the
efficiency benefits of the technology are
negligible.
80 FR 57438, 57454–57455 (Sept. 23,
2015)
DOE did not evaluate microchannel
heat exchangers for the September 2015
final rule engineering analysis because
there was insufficient information
regarding improvements to the overall
system’s energy efficiency. 80 FR 57438,
57455 (Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue B.7 DOE requests information
and data on how microchannel heat
exchangers may impact overall system
energy efficiency for SPVUs.
In addition, DOE did not consider the
following technologies for the
engineering analysis because they were
determined not to have a measured
impact on energy consumption based on
the DOE test procedure:
• Thermostatic Expansion Valves
(TXVs) and Electronic Expansion Valves
(EEVs);
• Thermostatic Cyclic Controls, and
• Multi-Speed Compressors, Id.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this
RFI, the current DOE test procedure for
SPVUs measures efficiency at full-load
steady-state conditions, while TXV,
EEV, thermostatic cyclic controls, and
multi-speed compressor technologies
only provide benefit at part-load
conditions. TXVs and EEVs regulate the
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22963
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
flow of liquid refrigerant entering the
evaporator and can adapt to changes in
operating conditions, such as variations
in temperature, humidity, and
compressor staging. As a result, TXVs
and EEVs can control for optimum
system operating parameters over a
wide range of operating conditions, and
are a consideration in evaluating
improved seasonal efficiency.
Thermostatic cyclic controls more
accurately monitor room temperature
and allow for modulation of
performance to match room conditions,
which impacts seasonal energy savings.
Multi-speed compressors (e.g., twospeed, variable-capacity, and variablespeed compressors) enable modulation
of the refrigeration system cooling
capacity, allowing the unit to match the
cooling load. This modulation can
improve efficiency by reducing off-cycle
losses and can improve heat exchanger
effectiveness at part-load conditions by
operating at a lower mass flow rate.
DOE notes that the technologies
identified in Table II.4 (i.e., variable
speed condenser fan motors and
variable speed indoor blower motors)
would likewise not have a measured
impact on energy consumption based on
the current test procedure. These
technologies allow for varying fan speed
to reduce airflow rate at part-load
operation, which is not accounted for
under the current metric.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this
RFI, DOE may consider adopting for
SPVUs a cooling-mode metric that
integrates part-load performance.
Issue B.8 DOE requests comment
and data on how the following
technology options would impact the
measured energy consumption for
SPVUs based on the current DOE test
procedure: TXVs and EEVs,
thermostatic cyclic controls, multispeed compressors, variable speed
condenser fan motors, and variable
speed indoor blower motors. In the
event DOE were to amend the metric for
the SPVU standards to account for partload performance, DOE requests data on
the efficiency improvement associated
with these technology options when
considering part-load operation. In
addition, DOE requests data on any
other technology options not listed
above that would improve the efficiency
of equipment under part-load
conditions.
Finally, DOE did not consider the
following technologies for the
engineering analysis because they were
commonly found in most baseline and
higher-efficiency SPVUs:
• Improved Fin Design,
• Improved Tube Design, and
• Hydrophilic Film Coating on Fins.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
Id.
Issue B.9 DOE requests comment on
whether the above technology options
are still commonly found in both
baseline and higher-efficiency SPVUs.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis
is to evaluate the technologies that
improve equipment efficiency to
determine which technologies will be
eliminated from further consideration
and which will be passed to the
engineering analysis for further
consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate
certain technology options from further
consideration based on the following
criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies
that are not incorporated in commercial
equipment or in working prototypes will not
be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install,
and service. If it is determined that mass
production of a technology in commercial
products and reliable installation and
servicing of the technology could not be
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the
relevant market at the time of the compliance
date of the standard, then that technology
will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or
equipment availability. If a technology is
determined to have significant adverse
impact on the utility of the equipment to
significant subgroups of consumers, or result
in the unavailability of any covered
equipment type or class with performance
characteristics (including reliability),
features, sizes, capacities, and volumes that
are substantially the same as equipment
generally available in the United States at the
time, it will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If
it is determined that a technology will have
significant adverse impacts on health or
safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary
Technologies. If a design option utilizes
proprietary technology that represents a
unique pathway to achieving a given
efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further.
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C,
appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
Technology options identified in the
technology assessment are evaluated
against these criteria using DOE
analyses and inputs from interested
parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade
organizations, and energy efficiency
advocates). Technologies that pass
through the screening analysis are
referred to as ‘‘design options’’ in the
engineering analysis. Technology
options that fail to meet one or more of
the five criteria are eliminated from
consideration.
Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on
what impact, if any, the five screening
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
criteria described in this section would
have on each of the technology options
listed in Table II.3 and Table II.4 with
respect to SPVUs. Similarly, DOE seeks
information regarding how these same
criteria would affect consideration of
any other technology options not
already identified in this document with
respect to their potential use in SPVUs.
DOE did not screen out any
technology options in the September
2015 final rule based on any of the
screening criteria. Table II.5 summarizes
the preliminary technology options
which DOE intends to examine further
as part of the engineering analysis.
TABLE II.5—PRELIMINARY
TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR SPVUS
Technology Options
Heat Exchanger Improvements.
Indoor Blower and
Outdoor Fan Improvements.
Compressor Improvements.
Other Improvements ..
Increased frontal coil
area.
Increased depth of
coil.
Microchannel heat
exchangers.
Dual condenser heat
exchangers.
Improved fan motor
efficiency.
Improved fan blades.
Variable speed condenser fan/motor.
Variable speed indoor blower/motor.
Improved compressor
efficiency.
Multi-speed compressors.
Thermostatic expansion valves.
Electronic expansion
valves.
Thermostatic cyclic
controls.
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates
the cost-efficiency relationship of
equipment at different levels of
increased energy efficiency (efficiency
levels). This relationship serves as the
basis for the cost-benefit calculations for
consumers, manufacturers, and the
Nation. In determining the costefficiency relationship, DOE estimates
the increase in manufacturer production
cost (MPC) associated with increasing
the efficiency of equipment above the
baseline (i.e., the current minimum
energy conservation standards), up to
the maximum technologically feasible
(max-tech) efficiency level for each
equipment class.
DOE historically has used the
following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing
costs and establish efficiency levels
(ELs) for analysis: (1) The design-option
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22964
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
approach, which provides the
incremental costs of adding to a baseline
model design options that will improve
its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level
approach, which provides the relative
costs of achieving increases in energy
efficiency levels, without regard to the
particular design options used to
achieve such increases; and (3) the costassessment (or reverse engineering)
approach, which provides ‘‘bottom-up’’
manufacturing cost assessments for
achieving various levels of increased
efficiency, based on detailed cost data
for parts and materials, labor, shipping/
packaging, and investment for models
that operate at particular efficiency
levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each established equipment class,
DOE selects a baseline model as a
reference point against which any
changes resulting from new or amended
energy conservation standards can be
measured. The baseline model in each
equipment class represents the
characteristics of common or typical
equipment in that class. Typically, a
baseline model is one that just meets the
current minimum energy conservation
standards and provides basic consumer
utility.
If it determines that a rulemaking is
necessary, consistent with this
analytical approach, DOE tentatively
plans to consider the current minimum
energy conservation standards 4 to
establish the baseline efficiency levels
for each equipment class. As discussed
in section II.B.1 of this document, the
current standards for SPVUs are based
on the full-load metrics (i.e., EER and
COP). The current standards for SPVUs
are found at 10 CFR 431.97 and are
presented in Table II.6 of this document.
As discussed, the majority of equipment
currently available on the market are at
the minimum energy conservation
standard levels.
TABLE II.6—CURRENT SPVU ENERGY
CONSERVATION STANDARD LEVELS
Equipment class
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h ..........
Minimum
energy
conservation
standard level
EER = 11.0.
4 The current standards for SPVUs with cooling
capacities <65,000 Btu/h are applicable to
equipment manufactured on or after September 23,
2019. The current standards for SPVUs with cooling
capacities ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h are
applicable to equipment manufactured on or after
October 9, 2015. The current standards for SPVUs
with cooling capacities ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h are applicable to equipment
manufactured on or after October 9, 2016.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
TABLE II.6—CURRENT SPVU ENERGY standards rulemaking based on the
CONSERVATION STANDARD LEV- amended test procedure, including
considering baseline efficiency levels
ELS—Continued
Minimum
energy
conservation
standard level
Equipment class
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h ..........
SPVAC ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVAC ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
EER = 11.0.
COP = 3.3.
EER = 10.0.
EER = 10.0.
COP = 3.0.
EER = 10.0.
based on a part-load metric.
Issue D.3 To the extent that it is
available, DOE seeks data and
information regarding part-load
performance for SPVUs currently on the
market, in the event that DOE amends
the SPVU test procedure to include a
part-load energy efficiency metric.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum
Technologically Feasible Levels
To inform its data collection in this
RFI, DOE initially reviewed data in
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database to characterize the distribution
of efficiencies for SPVU equipment
currently available on the market,
analyzing cooling and heating efficiency
separately. DOE is making available for
comment a document that provides the
distributions of EER and COP for SPVUs
in all three equipment classes for which
DOE has identified units: SPVAC
<65,000, SPVAC ≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h, and SPVHP <65,000
Btu/h.5
Issue D.1 DOE requests feedback on
whether using the current established
minimum energy conservation
standards for SPVUs are appropriate
baseline efficiency levels for DOE to
apply to each equipment class in
evaluating whether to amend the
current energy conservation standards
for this equipment, or if there are
different efficiency levels DOE should
consider to evaluate the baseline
efficiency levels in order to better
evaluate amending energy conservation
standards for this equipment.
Issue D.2 DOE requests feedback on
the appropriate baseline efficiency
levels for any newly analyzed
equipment classes that are not currently
in place or for any contemplated
combined equipment classes, as
discussed in section II.B.2 of this
document. For newly analyzed
equipment classes, DOE requests energy
use data to develop a baseline
relationship between energy use and
adjusted volume.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this
document, if DOE were to amend the
SPVU test procedure to incorporate a
part-load metric, it would conduct any
analysis for the energy conservation
As part of DOE’s analysis, DOE
considers the maximum available
efficiency level, which is the highestefficiency unit currently available on
the market. DOE also considers the maxtech efficiency level, which it defines as
the level that represents the theoretical
maximum possible efficiency if all
available design options are
incorporated in a model. In many cases,
the max-tech efficiency level is not
commercially available because it is not
economically feasible.
For the September 2015 final rule,
DOE surveyed the AHRI Directory,
manufacturers’ websites, and technical
literature to determine the highest
efficiency that SPVU equipment could
attain. DOE also discussed what an
appropriate max-tech level would be
with manufacturers. For all six
equipment classes, DOE determined that
the maximum technologically feasible
efficiency was the maximum available
efficiency. For the September 2015 final
rule analysis, DOE did not develop COP
efficiency levels independent of EER
efficiency levels. Rather, DOE
developed the COP efficiency levels
using a relationship between EER and
COP from AHRI Database market data,
thus determining a ‘‘median’’ COP level
for each EER efficiency level. Therefore,
DOE did not separately analyze
maximum available COP levels as part
of the September 2015 final rule. See
section II.B.4 of this document for
further discussion on heating efficiency
levels. See chapter 5 of the 2015 final
rule technical support document
(TSD).6
Table II.7 shows the maximumavailable efficiency levels considered
for the September 2015 final rule and
based on the current market for each
equipment classes, as identified in
DOE’s Compliance Certification
Database.
5 The supplemental file be found in docket EERE–
2019–BT–STD–0033 at https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2019-BTSTD-0033-0001.
6 The 2015 final rule TSD can be found in docket
EERE–2012–BT–STD–0041–0027 at https://
www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BTSTD-0041-0027.
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
EER = 10.0.
COP = 3.0.
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22965
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.7—MAXIMUM-AVAILABLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR SPVUS
Equipment class
2015 Final rule
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h .......................................................................................................................
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h .......................................................................................................................
12.3 EER ..............................
12.3 EER ..............................
3.9 COP ...............................
10.0 EER ..............................
10.0 EER ..............................
3.0 COP.
N/A .......................................
N/A .......................................
SPVAC ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ......................................................................................
SPVHP ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h * ....................................................................................
SPVAC ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h * ..................................................................................
SPVHP ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h * ..................................................................................
Current
market
12.5 EER.
12.0 EER.
4.1 COP
11.2 EER.
N/A.
N/A.
N/A.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
* Based on DOE’s review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any SPVAC models with a cooling capacity
greater than 135,000 Btu/h or SPVHP models with cooling capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h.
Issue D.4 DOE seeks input on
whether the current maximum available
efficiency levels are appropriate and
technologically feasible for potential
consideration as possible energy
conservation standards for the
equipment at issue. Although the
Department has tentatively concluded
that the maximum available efficiency
level for SPVUs would be the max-tech
level, DOE also seeks input as to what
efficiency levels should be considered
max-tech.
Issue D.5 DOE seeks feedback on
what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency
level. DOE also seeks information as to
whether there are limitations on the use
of certain combinations of design
options.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this
document, if DOE were to amend the
SPVU test procedure to incorporate a
part-load metric, it would conduct any
analysis for an energy conservation
standards rulemaking based on the
amended test procedure, including
considering efficiency levels based on a
part-load metric.
Issue D.6 DOE seeks data and
information regarding incremental and
maximum-available efficiency levels for
each equipment class in the event that
the SPVU test procedure includes a
part-load energy efficiency metric. In
particular, DOE seeks energy use data
for equipment operating at part-load
capacities, for example, at the part-load
test conditions specified in AHRI
Standard 340/360 (I/P)–2019, ‘‘2019
Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment.’’ In addition, DOE requests
information on the technologies for
improving part-load operation,
including the order in which
manufacturers would likely add such
technologies.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and
Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this
section, the main outputs of the
engineering analysis are cost-efficiency
relationships that describe the estimated
increases in manufacturer production
cost associated with higher-efficiency
equipment for the analyzed equipment
classes. For the September 2015 final
rule, DOE developed the cost-efficiency
relationships using a combination of the
efficiency level and reverse-engineering
approaches, performing teardowns of
equipment available on the market at
different efficiency levels to estimate the
efficiency improvements and costs
associated with incorporating specific
design options into the assumed
baseline model for each analyzed
equipment class. 80 FR 57438, 57456–
57459 (Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue D.7 DOE requests feedback on
how manufacturers would incorporate
the technology options listed in Table
II.3 and Table II.4 to increase energy
efficiency in SPVU efficiencies beyond
the current levels. This includes
information on the order in which
manufacturers would incorporate the
different technologies to incrementally
improve the efficiencies of equipment.
DOE also requests feedback on whether
the increased energy efficiency would
lead to other design changes that would
not occur otherwise. DOE is also
interested in information regarding any
potential impact of design options on a
manufacturer’s ability to incorporate
additional functions or attributes in
response to consumer demand.
Issue D.8 DOE also seeks input on
the increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design
option. Specifically, DOE is interested
in whether and how the costs estimated
for design options in the September
2015 final rule have changed since the
time of that analysis. DOE also requests
information on the investments
necessary to incorporate specific design
options, including, but not limited to,
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
costs related to new or modified tooling
(if any), materials, engineering and
development efforts to implement each
design option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
Issue D.9 DOE requests comment on
whether certain design options may not
be applicable to (or incompatible with)
specific equipment classes.
DOE directly analyzed one equipment
class in the September 2015 final rule
(i.e., SPVACs with a cooling capacity
<65,000 Btu/h). DOE then performed a
more limited analysis of the other
equipment classes based on limited
physical/virtual teardowns and scaling
the results from the analysis conducted
for SPVACs with a cooling capacity
<65,000 Btu/h. See chapter 5 of the
September 2015 final rule TSD for the
cost-efficiency curves developed in that
rulemaking. 80 FR 57438, 57459–57460
(Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue D.10 DOE seeks feedback on
whether the approach of directly
analyzing the SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h
equipment class and scaling the results
to other equipment classes is
appropriate for a future SPVU energy
conservation standards rulemaking,
should one be undertaken. DOE requests
comment on whether it is necessary to
individually analyze all or some of the
available equipment classes.
As discussed in the September 2015
final rule, for SPVACs ≥65,000 and
<135,000 Btu/h, there were no models
on the market above the ASHRAE level,
and for SPVHPs ≥65,000 and ≥135,000
Btu/h and SPVUs ≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h, there were no models
on the market at all. As a result, DOE
had no basis with which to develop
higher efficiency levels or conduct
analyses for those equipment classes. As
a result, DOE adopted amended
standards for those equipment classes
equivalent to levels specified in
ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013, as
required by EPCA. 80 FR 57438, 57456
(Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue D.11 DOE requests information
on how to conduct the cost-efficiency
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22966
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
analyses for equipment classes without
models on the market and for which
DOE does not have data, and whether
the approach used in the 2015 final rule
is appropriate.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a non-production cost multiplier
(the manufacturer mark-up) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price
(MSP) is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the September 2015 final
rule, DOE used a manufacturer mark-up
of 1.28 for all SPVUs. See chapter 5 of
the September 2015 final rule TSD.
Issue D.12 DOE requests feedback on
whether manufacturer mark-up of 1.28
is appropriate for SPVUs, or if a
different value would be more
appropriate.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
E. Mark-Ups Analysis and Distribution
Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for
the life-cycle cost (LCC) analysis and the
national impact analysis (NIA), DOE
must identify distribution channels (i.e.,
how the products are moved from the
manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimate relative sales volumes through
each channel. Additionally, DOE needs
to determine the cost to the commercial
consumer of a baseline piece of
equipment that satisfies the currently
applicable standards, and the cost of the
more-efficient piece of equipment the
consumer would purchase under
potential new and/or amended
standards. By applying a multiplier
called a ‘‘mark-up’’ to the MSP, DOE
estimates the commercial consumer’s
price. The appropriate mark-ups for
determining the end-user equipment
price depend on the distribution
channels (i.e., how equipment is
distributed from the manufacturer to the
consumer), and estimated relative sales
volumes through each channel.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE
identified four distribution channels
based on a literature review and
interviews with SPVU manufacturers,
two distribution channels representing
the sale of new equipment, and two
representing the sale of replacement
equipment. A recent literature review
indicates that the end users of SPVUs
have not changed since the September
2015 final rule. 80 FR 57438, 57460–
57461 (Sept. 23, 2015).
In the first new equipment
distribution channel, an SPVU
manufacturer sells the product to a
heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) distributor, who
sells to a modular building
manufacturer, who sells to the end user.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Modular Building Manufacturer →
End User
In the second new equipment
distribution channel, an SPVU
manufacturer sells the product to an
HVAC distributor, who sells to a
modular building manufacturer, who
sells to the end user, via a general
contractor.
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Modular Building Manufacturer →
General Contractor → End User
In the first replacement distribution
channel, an SPVU manufacturer sells
the product to an HVAC distributor,
who sells it to a modular building
distributor, who sells it to the end user.
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Modular Building Distributor →
End user
Finally, in the second replacement
distribution channel, an SPVU
manufacturer sells the product to an
HVAC distributor, who sells it to a
mechanical contractor, who sells it to
the end user.
Manufacturer → HVAC Distributor →
Mechanical Contractor → End user
Were DOE to undertake an energy
conservation standards rulemaking,
DOE would determine the mark-ups for
wholesalers, modular building
manufacturers, and contractors by
examining the updated versions of the
sources of information used in the
previous energy conservation standards
rulemaking for SPVUs. In the September
2015 final rule, DOE developed baseline
and incremental mark-ups based on
available financial data. More
specifically, DOE based the airconditioning wholesaler/distributor
mark-ups on data from the Heating, Air
Conditioning, and Refrigeration
Distributors International (HARDI) 2013
Profit Report.7 DOE also used financial
data from the U.S. Census Bureau 8 to
estimate mark-ups for modular building
manufacturers, modular building
distributors, mechanical contractors,
and general contractors. See Chapter 6
of the September 2015 final rule TSD for
more details on mark-ups and
distribution channels.
Issue E.1 DOE requests information
on the existence of any distribution
channels other than the four
distribution channels identified in the
September 2015 final rule that are used
to distribute the SPVU equipment at
7 Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration
Distributors International (HARDI), 2013 Profit
Report (2012 Data) (Available at: https://
www.hardinet.org/Profit-Report).
8 Available at: https://www.census.gov/programssurveys/economic-census.html.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
issue into the market. DOE also requests
data on the fraction of SPVUs that go
through each of the four identified
distribution channels, as well as the
fraction of sales that go through any
other identified channels. DOE also
welcomes comment on its approach to
estimating mark-ups and any financial
data available that would assist DOE in
developing mark-ups for the various
segments in the above-mentioned
distribution channels.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of a typical rulemaking
process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how equipment is
used by consumers, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential
of energy efficiency improvements. To
determine the energy savings potential,
DOE develops estimates of the annual
unit energy consumption (UEC) for each
efficiency level developed in the
engineering analysis. The energy
savings are calculated by comparing the
UEC of a baseline product to the UECs
of higher-efficiency products. In the
September 2015 final rule, DOE used
Energy Plus,9 a whole building energy
simulation program, to develop
estimates of the UECs for SPVUs. SPVUs
are most commonly used in modular
buildings, such as classrooms,
telecommunications shelters, and
modular offices for a variety of other
industries. In the September 2015 final
rule, DOE simulated the energy use in
three types of buildings: Modular
offices, modular schools, and
telecommunications structures. DOE
developed State-specific unit energy
consumption estimates in order to
account for the variability of energy use
by climate. 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept.
23, 2015).
1. Model Buildings
DOE developed three prototypical
building models to simulate modular
offices, modular schools, and
telecommunications structures. For
offices and schools, a 1,568 sq. ft. woodframe structure was developed that had
performance characteristics (lighting
density, ventilation, envelope,
economizer usage) meeting the
requirements of ASHRAE 90.1–2004.
Schedules and load profiles were taken
from the DOE commercial reference
buildings for primary schools and small
offices. For telecommunications
shelters, a 240 sq. ft. precast concrete
structure was developed. These shelters
were assumed to operate with a constant
thermal load of 6.86 kW (23,400 Btu/h)
9 Available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/energyplus/.
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
during all hours of the year, thus
requiring year-round cooling. DOE plans
to continue to use the model building
approach as it provides DOE with the
capability to measure the diverse loads
conditions that SPVUs encounter in the
field. For a detailed discussion of the
building models see Chapter 7 of the
2015 final rule TSD.
Issue F.1 DOE requests comment on
the simulation approach that was used
in the analysis for the September 2015
final rule. Specifically, should any other
types of commercial buildings be
included in the energy use analysis?
Issue F.2 DOE seeks input on the
assumption that the internal cooling
load of telecommunications structures is
constant. As part of the energy use
analysis for the September 2015 final
rule, DOE could not identify a source for
the typical load profiles of
telecommunications structures, as it did
for schools and offices. Instead, DOE
based its cooling load assumptions on
computer server room environments,
which maintain a constant cooling load.
DOE requests input on whether this was
a valid basis for comparison and how
cooling loads may vary as
telecommunications traffic changes
throughout the day.
Issue F.3 DOE requests feedback on
the use of economizers in
telecommunications structures. As part
of the energy use analysis for the
September 2015 final rule, DOE
assigned economizers to offices and
schools in all climate zones except for
the hot-humid regions (zones 1A, 2A,
3A, and 4A), in line with ASHRAE
guidelines for economizer use. There are
no ASHRAE guidelines for economizers
in telecommunications structures, and
discussions with manufacturers
indicated that economizer use is driven
by individual corporate user
specifications, not climate zone.
Manufacturers estimated that 45 percent
of telecommunications structures have
economizers and that 55 percent do not.
Therefore, in the energy use analysis,
DOE simulated all telecommunications
buildings with and without economizers
and weighted the results using the 45
percent and 55 percent market share
breakdown. DOE seeks input on this
approach and requests input about
whether economizers should be
assigned by climate zone.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP
analysis to evaluate the economic effects
of potential energy conservation
standards for SPVUs on individual
customers. For any given efficiency
level, DOE measures the PBP and the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
change in LCC relative to an estimated
baseline level. The LCC is the total
customer expense over the life of the
equipment, consisting of purchase,
installation, and operating costs
(expenses for energy use, maintenance,
and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of
the equipment—which includes MSPs,
distribution channel markups, and sales
taxes—and installation costs. Inputs to
the calculation of operating expenses
include annual energy consumption,
energy prices and price projections,
repair and maintenance costs,
equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and
the year that compliance with new and
amended standards is required.
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
In order to develop annual operating
costs and savings for the life-cycle cost
analysis, DOE must estimate repair and
maintenance costs over the lifetime of
the SPVU. In the September 2015 final
rule, DOE used RS Means 10 in order to
develop annualized repair and
maintenance costs. The repair costs
represent the expenses associated with
repairing or replacing a damaged
component of an SPVU that has failed,
and the first instance of a significant
repair typically occurs about 10 years
after purchase. The materials portion of
the repair cost scales with the
manufacturer selling price, although the
labor portion stays constant, so higherefficiency units will typically have
higher repair costs. The annual
maintenance cost represents expenses
associated with ensuring continued
operation of the covered equipment over
time, something which remained
constant across all efficiency levels. For
a detailed discussion of the repair and
maintenance cost estimates, see Chapter
8 of the 2015 final rule TSD. RS Means
is a leading source for facility repair and
maintenance data for space conditioning
equipment, and, as such, DOE intends
to continue to use RS Means for any
future rulemakings for SPVUs.
Issue G.1 DOE requests feedback and
data on whether maintenance costs
differ in comparison to the baseline
maintenance costs for any of the specific
technology options listed in Table II.3
and Table II.4. To the extent that these
costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data
and an explanation of the reasons for
those differences.
Issue G.2 DOE requests information
and data on the frequency of repair and
repair costs by equipment class for the
technology options listed in Table II.3
10 RS Means, CostWorks 2014 (2014) (Available
at: https://www.rsmeansonline.com) (Last accessed
Feb. 27, 2014).
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22967
and Table II.4. While DOE is interested
in information regarding each of the
listed technology options, DOE is also
interested in the extent to which
consumers simply replace, as opposed
to repair, failed equipment.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE develops shipments forecasts of
SPVUs to calculate the national impacts
of potential amended energy
conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value (NPV),
and future manufacturer cash flows.
DOE shipments projections are based on
available historical data broken out by
equipment class, capacity, and
efficiency. Current sales estimates allow
for a more accurate model that captures
recent trends in the market. In the
September 2015 final rule, DOE used
three data sources to develop its
shipments model: (1) Actual shipments
of SPVUs in 2005 provided by AHRI; (2)
a graph displaying the shipments trend
from 2006–2014 provided by AHRI, and
(3) floor space production data from the
modular building institute from 1994–
2005. 80 FR 57438, 57469–57470 (Sept.
23, 2015). The modular building floor
space production data was used to
develop shipments prior to 2005, which
is necessary to account for replacement
shipments in future years once the older
stock of SPVUs reach the end of their
useful life. Future new construction
shipments for offices and schools were
based on floor space projections from
the 2015 Energy Information
Administration’s Annual Energy
Outlook (AEO).11 New construction
shipments for the telecommunication
sector were based on data of power and
communication line construction from
the U.S. Census.12 DOE intends to
project future shipments using the most
current AEO and Census data, as new
shipments of SPVUs should track floor
space of the industries that use SPVUs.
Issue H.1 DOE requests the most
recent annual sales data for SPVUs (i.e.,
number of shipments), as well as
historical annual sales data going back
to 2015. DOE also requests the
shipments by equipment class and
efficiency level for the most recent year
available and if possible, for each year
going back to 2015.
Table II.8 presents the shipments and
market shares from the year 2015 in the
11 Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/
pdf/0383(2015).pdf (Last accessed April 18, 2015).
12 Available at: U.S. Census Bureau. County
Business Patterns. www.census.gov/econ/cbp/
index.html (Last accessed April 15, 2014).
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22968
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
National Impact Analysis 13 spreadsheet
for the September 2015 final rule. As
requested in Issue H.1 DOE seeks to
update this table with shipments and
market shares by EER bin for the most
recent year available. Interested parties
are also encouraged to provide
additional shipments data as may be
relevant.
TABLE II.8—SUMMARY TABLE OF SHIPMENTS-RELATED DATA REQUESTS FOR SPVUS
Annual sales
(2015)
Equipment class
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
SPVAC
SPVHP
<65,000 Btu/h .........................................................
<65,000 Btu/h .........................................................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h * ......................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h * ....................
≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h * ....................
Fraction of annual sales (%)
9–10 EER
41,741
17,343
1,868
0
0
0
10–11 EER
80.8
80.8
80.8
N/A
N/A
N/A
18.1
18.1
18.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
11–12 EER
1.1
1.1
1.1
N/A
N/A
N/A
>12 EER
0
0
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
* DOE did not identify any SPVAC models with a cooling capacity greater than 135,000 Btu/h or SPVHP models with cooling capacities greater
than 65,000 Btu/h.
If disaggregated fractions of annual
sales are not available at the equipment
class or efficiency level, DOE requests
more aggregated fractions of annual
sales at the equipment category level.
Issue H.2 In the September 2015
final rule, DOE determined that SPVU
lifetimes range from 10 to 25 years, with
an average lifetime of 15 years. 80 FR
57438, 57467 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE
requests comment on the estimated
average lifetime of 15 years, as well as
any new data or information about the
lifetimes of SPVUs. DOE also requests
input on whether the lifetimes changes
by equipment class, efficiency, or end
use.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (MIA) is to estimate the
financial impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of SPVUs, and to
evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and
manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and
qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the
Government Regulatory Impact Model
(GRIM), an industry cash-flow model
adapted for each product in this
analysis, with the key output being
industry net present value (INPV). The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the
potential impacts of energy conservation
standards on manufacturing capacity
and manufacturing employment, as well
as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular
subgroups of firms, and important
market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to
analyze impacts of amended energy
conservation standards on subgroups of
13 Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/
document?D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0041-0029 (Last
accessed Sept 2, 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
manufacturers of covered equipment,
including small business manufacturers.
DOE uses the Small Business
Administration’s (SBA) small business
size standards to determine whether
manufacturers qualify as small
businesses, which are listed by the
applicable North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) code.14
Manufacturing of SPVUs is classified
under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing,’’ and the SBA sets a
threshold of 1,250 employees or less for
a domestic entity to be considered as a
small business. This employee
threshold includes all employees in a
business’ parent company and any other
subsidiaries.
One aspect of assessing manufacturer
burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE
standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal
agencies that affect the manufacturers of
a covered product or equipment. While
any one regulation may not impose a
significant burden on manufacturers,
the combined effects of several existing
or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some
manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the
impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory
burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other
regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers’ financial operations.
Multiple regulations affecting the same
manufacturer can strain profits and lead
companies to abandon product lines or
markets with lower expected future
returns than competing products. For
these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis
of cumulative regulatory burden as part
of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue I.1 To the extent feasible, DOE
seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute
SPVUs in commerce in the United
States.
Issue I.2 DOE identified small
businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests the names and contact
information of small business
manufacturers (as defined by the SBA’s
size threshold) of SPVUs that distribute
products in commerce in the United
States. In addition, DOE requests
comment on any other manufacturer
subgroups that could be
disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE
requests feedback on any potential
approaches that could be considered to
address impacts on manufacturers,
including small businesses.
Issue I.3 DOE requests information
regarding the cumulative regulatory
burden impacts on manufacturers of
SPVUs associated with: (1) Other DOE
standards applying to different
equipment that these manufacturers
may also make and (2) equipmentspecific regulatory actions of other
Federal agencies. DOE also requests
comment on its methodology for
computing cumulative regulatory
burden and whether there are any
flexibilities it can consider that would
reduce this burden while remaining
consistent with the requirements of
EPCA.
14 Available online at https://www.sba.gov/
document/support--table-size-standards.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market
failure is a situation in which the
market outcome does not maximize
societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential
welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially
those in the context of amended energy
conservation standards for SPVUs.
2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
DOE published an RFI on the
emerging smart technology appliance
and equipment market. 83 FR 46886
(Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought
information to better understand market
trends and issues in the emerging
market for appliances and commercial
equipment that incorporate smart
technology. DOE’s intent in issuing the
RFI was to ensure that DOE did not
inadvertently impede such innovation
in fulfilling its statutory obligations in
setting efficiency standards for covered
products and equipment. DOE seeks
comments, data, and information on the
issues presented in that RFI as they may
be applicable to energy conservation
standards for SPVUs.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
3. Other Issues
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on any other aspects of
energy conservation standards for
SPVUs that may not specifically be
identified in this document. In
particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, ‘‘Reducing
Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,’’ Executive Branch agencies such
as DOE are directed to manage the costs
associated with the imposition of
expenditures required to comply with
Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339
(Feb. 3, 2017). Consistent with that
Executive Order, DOE encourages the
public to provide input on measures
DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standards
rulemakings, recordkeeping and
reporting requirements, and compliance
and certification requirements
applicable to SPVUs while remaining
consistent with the requirements of
EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to
submit in writing by the date specified
previously in the DATES section of this
document, comments and information
on matters addressed in this document
and on other matters relevant to DOE’s
consideration of amended energy
conservations standards for SPVUs.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
After the close of the comment period,
DOE will review the public comments
received and may begin collecting data
and conducting the analyses discussed
in this RFI.
Submitting comments via https://
www.regulations.gov. The https://
www.regulations.gov web page requires
you to provide your name and contact
information. Your contact information
will be viewable to DOE Building
Technologies Office staff only. Your
contact information will not be publicly
viewable except for your first and last
names, organization name (if any), and
submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact
you for clarification, DOE may not be
able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information
will be publicly viewable if you include
it in the comment or in any documents
attached to your comment. Any
information that you do not want to be
publicly viewable should not be
included in your comment, nor in any
document attached to your comment.
Following such instructions, 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 https://
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 https://
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 https://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 https://
www.regulations.gov provides after you
have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or postal mail.
Comments and documents submitted
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
22969
via email, hand delivery/courier, or
postal mail also will be posted to https://
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information on a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via postal mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not
secured, written in English, and free of
any defects or viruses. Documents
should not contain special characters or
any form of encryption, and, if possible,
they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50 to
500 form letters per PDF or as one form
letter with a list of supporters’ names
compiled into one or more PDFs. This
reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit via email, postal mail, or hand
delivery/courier 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.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to
be a very important part of the process
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
22970
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 / Proposed Rules
for developing energy conservation
standards. DOE actively encourages the
participation and interaction of the
public during the comment period in
each stage of the rulemaking process.
Interactions with and between members
of the public provide a balanced
discussion of the issues and assist DOE
in the process. Anyone who wishes to
be added to the DOE mailing list to
receive future notices and information
about this process should contact
Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or via
email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 21,
2020.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–08318 Filed 4–23–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2020–0411; Product
Identifier 2018–SW–061–AD]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Leonardo
S.p.a. Helicopters
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Leonardo S.p.a. (Leonardo)
Model A119 and AW119MKII
helicopters. This proposed AD would
require repetitive borescope inspections
of the tail rotor gearbox (TGB) and
depending on the inspection results,
removing the TGB from service. This
proposed AD was prompted by reports
of corrosion on the internal surface of
the 90-degree TGB output shaft. The
actions of this proposed AD are
intended to address an unsafe condition
on these products.
DATES: The FAA must receive comments
on this proposed AD by June 23, 2020.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Docket: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
online instructions for sending your
comments electronically.
khammond on DSKJM1Z7X2PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Apr 23, 2020
Jkt 250001
• Fax: 202–493–2251.
• Mail: Send comments to the U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue SE, Washington, DC
20590–0001.
• Hand Delivery: Deliver to the
‘‘Mail’’ address between 9 a.m. and 5
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
Examining the AD Docket
You may examine the AD docket on
the internet at https://
www.regulations.gov by searching for
and locating Docket No. FAA–2020–
0411; or in person at Docket Operations
between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except Federal holidays.
The AD docket contains this proposed
AD, the European Union Aviation
Safety Agency (previously European
Aviation Safety Agency) (EASA) AD,
any comments received, and other
information. The street address for
Docket Operations is listed above.
Comments will be available in the AD
docket shortly after receipt.
For service information identified in
this proposed rule, contact Leonardo
S.p.a. Helicopters, Emanuele Bufano,
Head of Airworthiness, Viale G.Agusta
520, 21017 C.Costa di Samarate (Va)
Italy; telephone +39–0331–225074; fax
+39–0331–229046; or at https://
www.leonardocompany.com/en/home.
You may view the referenced service
information at the FAA, Office of the
Regional Counsel, Southwest Region,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Room 6N–321,
Fort Worth, TX 76177.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rao
Edupuganti, Aviation Safety Engineer,
Regulations and Policy Section,
Rotorcraft Standards Branch, FAA,
10101 Hillwood Pkwy., Fort Worth, TX
76177; telephone 817–222–5110; email
rao.edupuganti@faa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
The FAA invites you to participate in
this rulemaking by submitting written
comments, data, or views. The FAA also
invites comments relating to the
economic, environmental, energy, or
federalism impacts that might result
from adopting the proposals in this
document. The most helpful comments
reference a specific portion of the
proposal, explain the reason for any
recommended change, and include
supporting data. To ensure the docket
does not contain duplicate comments,
commenters should send only one copy
of written comments, or if comments are
filed electronically, commenters should
submit only one time.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The FAA will file in the docket all
comments received, as well as a report
summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerning
this proposed rulemaking. Before acting
on this proposal, the FAA will consider
all comments received on or before the
closing date for comments. The FAA
will consider comments filed after the
comment period has closed if it is
possible to do so without incurring
expense or delay. The FAA may change
this proposal in light of the comments
received.
Discussion
EASA, which is the Technical Agent
for the Member States of the European
Union, has issued EASA AD No. 2018–
0156, dated July 24, 2018 (EASA AD
2018–0156) to correct an unsafe
condition for Leonardo (formerly
Finmeccanica S.p.A., AgustaWestland
S.p.A., Agusta S.p.A.; and
AgustaWestland Philadelphia
Corporation, formerly Agusta Aerospace
Corporation) Model A119 and
AW119MKII helicopters with 90-degree
TGB part number (P/N) 109–0440–06–
101 or P/N 109–0440–06–105 having
serial number 167, 169 through 172
inclusive, 215 through 225 inclusive,
227, 230, 232, 233, AW268, K3, K16,
M47, or L29, installed. EASA advises of
two reported occurrences of corrosion
on the internal surface of the 90-degree
TGB shaft installed on Model A119
helicopters. Further analysis identified a
specific batch of parts that may be
susceptible to similar conditions. Due to
design similarity, Model AW119MKII
helicopters are also affected.
EASA states that this condition, if not
detected and corrected, could lead to
failure of the tail rotor, possibly
resulting in reduced control of the
helicopter. Accordingly, EASA AD
2018–0156 requires performing
repetitive endoscope inspections on the
internal surface of the 90-degree TGB
output shaft for corrosion and
depending on the findings, replacing the
TGB. EASA further states EASA AD
2018–0156 is considered an interim
action and further AD action may
follow.
FAA’s Determination
These helicopters have been approved
by EASA and are approved for operation
in the United States. Pursuant to the
FAA’s bilateral agreement with the
European Union, EASA has notified the
FAA about the unsafe condition
described in its AD. The FAA is
proposing this AD after evaluating all
known relevant information and
determining that an unsafe condition is
E:\FR\FM\24APP1.SGM
24APP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 80 (Friday, April 24, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 22958-22970]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-08318]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 80 / Friday, April 24, 2020 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 22958]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033]
RIN 1904-AE78
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Single Package Vertical Units
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is initiating an effort to
determine whether to amend the current energy conservation standards
for single package vertical air conditioners (SPVACs) and single
package vertical heat pumps (SPVHPs), collectively referred to as
single package vertical units (SPVUs). This request for information
(RFI) solicits information from the public to help DOE determine
whether amended standards for SPVUs, a category of covered commercial
equipment, would result in significant additional energy savings and
whether such standards would be technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE welcomes written comments from the public
on any subject within the scope of this document (including those
topics not specifically raised in this RFI), as well as the submission
of data and other relevant information.
DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be
accepted on or before June 23, 2020.
ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0033 and/or RIN 1904-AE78, by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
the instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EERE-
2019-BT-STD-0033 and/or RIN 1904-AE78 in the subject line of the
message.
3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202)
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section III of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials,
is available for review at https://www.regulations.gov. All documents in
the docket are listed in the https://www.regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
The docket web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit
comments through https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-7335. Email:
[email protected].
Mr. 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: [email protected].
For further information on how to submit a comment or review other
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
B. Market and Technology Assessment
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
2. Equipment Classes
3. Model Counts
4. Technology Assessment
C. Screening Analysis
D. Engineering Analysis
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
E. Mark-ups Analysis and Distribution Channels
F. Energy Use Analysis
1. Model Buildings
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
H. Shipments Analysis
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
A. Authority and Background
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (EPCA),\1\
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
[[Page 22959]]
equipment. Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as
codified), added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, section 441(a),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes SPVUs, which are a category
of small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment and the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-
(D)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(1)-(2))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018,
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C.
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C.
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers
of Federal preemption 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))
The Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (EISA 2007),
Public Law 110-140, amended EPCA in relevant part to establish
equipment classes and minimum energy conservation standards for SPVUs.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)) In doing so, the EISA 2007 amendments
established Federal energy conservation standards for SPVUs at levels
that generally corresponded to the levels in the 2004 edition of the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2004). On
March 23, 2009, DOE published a final rule that codified the statutory
equipment classes and energy conservation standards for SPVUs into
DOE's regulations in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) at 10 CFR
431.97. 74 FR 12058, 12073-12074 (March 2009 final rule).
EPCA further required that, not later than 3 years after the date
of enactment of EISA 2007, DOE must review ASHRAE Standard 90.1, with
respect to SPVACs and SPVHPs in accordance with the procedures
established under 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(B))
Additionally, in acknowledgement of technological changes that yield
energy efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA
to consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standards
for SPVUs, each time ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1 with respect to such
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in this manner, DOE
must undertake and publish an analysis of the energy savings potential
of amended energy efficiency standards, and amend the Federal standards
to establish a uniform national standard at the minimum level specified
in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines that there
is clear and convincing evidence to support a determination that a
more-stringent standard level as a national standard would produce
significant additional energy savings and be technologically feasible
and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii))
On September 23, 2015, DOE published amendments to the SPVU
standards in accordance with the 3-year review prescribed by EPCA as
amended by EISA 2007 and in response to the 2013 update to ASHARE
Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013). 80 FR 57438 (September
2015 final rule). For four of the six SPVU equipment classes, DOE
adopted the levels specified ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. 80 FR 57438,
57439 (Sept. 23, 2015). For the remaining two equipment classes, DOE
concluded that there is clear and convincing evidence to support more
stringent standards than the levels in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. Id.
Compliance dates for the amended standards were as follows: SPVACs and
SPVHPs <65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity beginning September 23, 2019;
SPVACs and SPVHPs >=65,000 and <135,000 Btu/h cooling capacity,
beginning October 9, 2015; and SPVACs and SPVHPs >=135,000 and <240,000
Btu/h cooling capacity, beginning October 9, 2016. 80 FR 57438, 57438
(Sept. 23, 2015). The current energy conservation standards are
codified at 10 CFR 431.97.
The currently applicable DOE test procedure for SPVUs is set forth
at 10 CFR 431.96. DOE's test procedures for SPVUs were established in a
final rule for commercial heating, air-conditioning, and water-heating
equipment published on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 28928. The current test
procedure incorporates by reference American National Standards
Institute (ANSI)/Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(AHRI) Standard 390-2003, Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical
Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps (ANSI/AHRI 390-2003), omitting section
6.4. The current test procedure also requires that manufacturers adhere
to additional provisions in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96.
Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 431.96 provides the method for an optional
compressor break-in period, while paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96
provides specifications for addressing key information typically found
in the installation and operation manuals.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been updated on several occasions since
the 2013 version, the most recently being released on October 26, 2016
(i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016). However, the standard levels for
SPVUs remain unchanged from the 2013 version.
In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute,
EPCA also provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the potential for
amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C))
Specifically, pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to conduct an
evaluation of each class of covered equipment in the ASHRAE Standard
90.1 ``every 6 years'' to determine whether the applicable energy
conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i))
DOE must publish either a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) to
propose amended standards or a notice of determination that existing
standards do not need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I)-
(II)) In making a determination, DOE must evaluate whether amended
standards would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and are technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) In proposing new
standards under the 6-year-lookback review, DOE must undertake the same
considerations as if it were adopting a standard that is more stringent
than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II); 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)) This is a separate
statutory review obligation, as differentiated from the obligation
triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment, as previously
discussed.
[[Page 22960]]
While the statute continues to defer to ASHRAE's lead on covered
equipment subject to Standard 90.1, it does allow for a comprehensive
review of all such equipment and the potential for adopting more-
stringent standards, where supported by the requisite clear and
convincing evidence. That is, DOE interprets ASHRAE's not amending
Standard 90.1 with respect to a product or equipment type as ASHRAE's
determination that the standard applicable to that product or equipment
type is already at an appropriate level of stringency, and DOE will not
amend that standard unless there is clear and convincing evidence that
a more-stringent level is justified. In those instances where DOE makes
a determination that the standards for the equipment in question do not
need to be amended, the statute requires the Department to revisit that
decision within three years to either make a new determination or
propose amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II))
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information to
inform its decision consistent with its obligations under EPCA.
B. Rulemaking Process
As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every 6 years. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) In making a determination of whether standards
for such equipment need to be amended, DOE must follow specific
statutory criteria. DOE must evaluate whether amended Federal standards
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and are
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) To
determine whether a potential proposed standard is economically
justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens by considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of the equipment subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the covered equipment in the type (or class)
compared to any increase in the price of, initial charges for, or
maintenance expenses of the covered equipment that are likely to
result from the standard;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
covered equipment likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers
relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II) (referencing 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII)))
DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the
requirements within EPCA.
Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPCA requirement Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings......... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact Analysis.
Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Technological Feasibility.......... Market and Technology
Assessment.
Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on Manufacturer Impact
manufacturers and consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup
Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost Mark-ups for Product Price
savings compared to increased Determination.
cost for the product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy Shipments Analysis.
savings. National Impact Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or Screening Analysis.
performance. Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and Shipments Analysis.
water conservation. National Impact Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary Employment Impact
considers relevant. Analysis.
Utility Impact Analysis.
Emissions Analysis.
Monetization of Emission
Reductions Benefits.
Regulatory Impact
Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the energy conservation
standards for SPVUs.
II. Request for Information and Comments
In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and
economic analyses regarding whether amended standards for SPVUs may be
warranted. DOE also welcomes comments on other issues relevant to this
data-gathering process that may not specifically be identified in this
document.
In addition, as an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether
there have been sufficient technological or market changes since the
most recent standards
[[Page 22961]]
update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more-stringent
standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that could
enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new
standard'' determination because a more-stringent standard: (1) Would
not result in a significant additional savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meet the definitions of SPVACs and
SPVHPs, as codified at 10 CFR 431.92. The definitions for SPVACs and
SPVHPs were established under EPCA, as amended by EISA 2007 (see 42
U.S.C. 6311(22) and (23)), and codified in the March 2009 final rule.
74 FR 12058, 12061, 12073 (March 23, 2009).
DOE defines a ``single package vertical air conditioner'' as air-
cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that:
(1) Is factory assembled as a single package that:
(i) Has major components that are arranged vertically;
(ii) Is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating
components; and
(iii) Is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior
to, or through an outside wall;
(2) Is powered by single- or three-phase current;
(3) May contain one or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor
louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air discharges,
ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and
(4) Has heating components that may include electrical
resistance, steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse
cycle refrigeration as a heating means.
10 CFR 431.92
DOE defines ``single package vertical heat pumps'' as a single
package vertical air conditioner that: (1) Uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heating source and (2) may include
secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance,
steam, hot water, or gas. Id.
Issue A.1 DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for SPVUs
require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions should be
revised. Please provide the rationale for any suggested change.
Issue A.2 DOE requests comment on whether additional equipment
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in existing
coverage between equipment types. If there are such gaps, DOE also
seeks input on whether equipment currently exists in the market that
are in such a gap or whether they are being planned for introduction.
B. Market and Technology Assessment
The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy
conservation standard provides information about the SPVUs industry
that will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process.
DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information to characterize the
structure of the industry and market. DOE identifies manufacturers,
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency
improvements in the design and manufacturing of SPVUs. DOE also reviews
product literature, industry publications, and company websites.
Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to
improve its assessment of the market and available technologies for
SPVUs.
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
For SPVUs, DOE currently prescribes energy efficiency ratio (EER)
as the cooling mode metric and coefficient of performance (COP) as the
heating mode metric. 10 CFR 431.96. These energy efficiency descriptors
are the same as those included in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 for SPVUs. EER is
the ratio of the produced cooling effect of the SPVU to its net work
input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour, and measured at standard rating
conditions. COP is the ratio of the produced heating effect of the SPVU
to its net work input, when both are expressed in identical units of
measurement, and measured at standard rating conditions. DOE's test
procedure for SPVUs does not include a seasonal metric that accounts
for part-load performance.
On July 20, 2018, DOE published an RFI (July 2018 TP RFI) to
collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE's test
procedure for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499. As part of the July 2018 TP RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether adoption of a cooling-mode metric that
integrates part-load performance would better represent full-season
efficiency for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). If DOE amends
the SPVU test procedure to incorporate a part-load metric, it would
conduct any analysis for future standards rulemakings, if any, based on
the amended test procedure.
2. Equipment Classes
For SVPUs, the current energy conservation standards specified in
10 CFR 431.97 are based on six equipment classes determined according
to the following performance-related features that provide utility to
the consumer: Cooling capacity and whether the equipment is an air
conditioner or a heat pump. Table II.1 lists the current six equipment
classes for SPVUs:
Table II.1--Current SPVU Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......................... SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h.
2.......................... SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h.
3.......................... SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
4.......................... SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.
5.......................... SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
6.......................... SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.1 DOE requests feedback on the current SPVU equipment
classes and whether changes to these individual equipment classes and
their descriptions should be made or whether certain classes should be
merged or separated. Specifically, DOE requests comment on
opportunities to combine equipment classes that could reduce regulatory
burden. DOE further requests feedback on whether combining certain
classes could impact product utility by eliminating any performance-
related features or impact the stringency of the current energy
conservation standard for these equipment. DOE also requests comment on
separating any of the existing equipment classes and whether it would
reduce any compliance burdens.
3. Model Counts
For this RFI, DOE conducted a review of the current market for
SPVUs based on models included in DOE's Compliance Certification
Database.\3\ Table II.2 shows the number of models listed within the
DOE Compliance Certification Database that DOE has identified for each
class of SPVUs. Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available
on the market, DOE did not identify any SPVAC models with a cooling
capacity greater than
[[Page 22962]]
135,000 Btu/h or SPVHP models with cooling capacities greater than
65,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed Jan. 29, 2020).
Table II.2--Number of Models Under Current SPVU Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of models
Cooling capacity range (Btu/h) -------------------------------
SPVACs SPVHPs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000................................. 411 221
>=65,000 and <135,000................... 58 0
>=135,000 and <240,000.................. 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.2 DOE requests comment on whether there are units currently
available on the market in the following equipment classes: SPVHP
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h, SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000
Btu/h, and SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.
4. Technology Assessment
In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent
rulemaking for SPVUs (i.e., the September 2015 final rule). 80 FR 57438
(Sept. 23, 2015). A complete list of those prior options appears in
Table II.3.
Table II.3--Technology Options for SPVUs Considered in the Development
of the September 2015 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements............... Increased frontal coil area.
Increased depth of coil.
Microchannel heat
exchangers.
Dual condenser heat
exchangers.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements Improved fan motor
efficiency.
Improved fan blades.
Compressor Improvements................... Improved compressor
efficiency.
Multi-speed compressors.
Other Improvements........................ Thermostatic expansion
valves.
Electronic expansion valves.
Thermostatic cyclic
controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, DOE conducted preliminary market research by examining
manufacturer product literature and published technical literature
(e.g., reports, journal articles, or presentations) which identified
specific technologies and design options, and DOE will consider these
along with others identified during the rulemaking process, should it
determine that a rulemaking is necessary. Table II.4 lists additional
technology options that DOE may consider in a future SPVU energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
Table II.4--Other Technology Options for SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements Variable speed condenser fan/
motor.
Variable speed indoor blower/
motor.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue B.4 DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.3 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of SPVUs, as measured according
to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the
September 2015 final rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information
on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are
currently available for each technology option.
Issue B.5 DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.4 regarding their market adoption, costs, and any concerns with
incorporating them into equipment (e.g., impacts on consumer utility,
potential safety concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation
issues).
Issue B.6 DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies
may impact equipment features or consumer utility.
DOE did not evaluate several technology options in the September
2015 final rule for the following reasons:
Data were not available to evaluate the energy efficiency
characteristics;
The test procedure would not measure the energy impact of
these technologies; and
Available data suggest that the efficiency benefits of the
technology are negligible.
80 FR 57438, 57454-57455 (Sept. 23, 2015)
DOE did not evaluate microchannel heat exchangers for the September
2015 final rule engineering analysis because there was insufficient
information regarding improvements to the overall system's energy
efficiency. 80 FR 57438, 57455 (Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue B.7 DOE requests information and data on how microchannel
heat exchangers may impact overall system energy efficiency for SPVUs.
In addition, DOE did not consider the following technologies for
the engineering analysis because they were determined not to have a
measured impact on energy consumption based on the DOE test procedure:
Thermostatic Expansion Valves (TXVs) and Electronic
Expansion Valves (EEVs);
Thermostatic Cyclic Controls, and
Multi-Speed Compressors, Id.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this RFI, the current DOE test
procedure for SPVUs measures efficiency at full-load steady-state
conditions, while TXV, EEV, thermostatic cyclic controls, and multi-
speed compressor technologies only provide benefit at part-load
conditions. TXVs and EEVs regulate the
[[Page 22963]]
flow of liquid refrigerant entering the evaporator and can adapt to
changes in operating conditions, such as variations in temperature,
humidity, and compressor staging. As a result, TXVs and EEVs can
control for optimum system operating parameters over a wide range of
operating conditions, and are a consideration in evaluating improved
seasonal efficiency. Thermostatic cyclic controls more accurately
monitor room temperature and allow for modulation of performance to
match room conditions, which impacts seasonal energy savings. Multi-
speed compressors (e.g., two-speed, variable-capacity, and variable-
speed compressors) enable modulation of the refrigeration system
cooling capacity, allowing the unit to match the cooling load. This
modulation can improve efficiency by reducing off-cycle losses and can
improve heat exchanger effectiveness at part-load conditions by
operating at a lower mass flow rate.
DOE notes that the technologies identified in Table II.4 (i.e.,
variable speed condenser fan motors and variable speed indoor blower
motors) would likewise not have a measured impact on energy consumption
based on the current test procedure. These technologies allow for
varying fan speed to reduce airflow rate at part-load operation, which
is not accounted for under the current metric.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this RFI, DOE may consider
adopting for SPVUs a cooling-mode metric that integrates part-load
performance.
Issue B.8 DOE requests comment and data on how the following
technology options would impact the measured energy consumption for
SPVUs based on the current DOE test procedure: TXVs and EEVs,
thermostatic cyclic controls, multi-speed compressors, variable speed
condenser fan motors, and variable speed indoor blower motors. In the
event DOE were to amend the metric for the SPVU standards to account
for part-load performance, DOE requests data on the efficiency
improvement associated with these technology options when considering
part-load operation. In addition, DOE requests data on any other
technology options not listed above that would improve the efficiency
of equipment under part-load conditions.
Finally, DOE did not consider the following technologies for the
engineering analysis because they were commonly found in most baseline
and higher-efficiency SPVUs:
Improved Fin Design,
Improved Tube Design, and
Hydrophilic Film Coating on Fins.
Id.
Issue B.9 DOE requests comment on whether the above technology
options are still commonly found in both baseline and higher-efficiency
SPVUs.
C. Screening Analysis
The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from
further consideration based on the following criteria:
(1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not
incorporated in commercial equipment or in working prototypes will
not be considered further.
(2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it
is determined that mass production of a technology in commercial
products and reliable installation and servicing of the technology
could not be achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant
market at the time of the compliance date of the standard, then that
technology will not be considered further.
(3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type or class
with performance characteristics (including reliability), features,
sizes, capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as
equipment generally available in the United States at the time, it
will not be considered further.
(4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined
that a technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or
safety, it will not be considered further.
(5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be
considered further.
See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b).
Technology options identified in the technology assessment are
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the
technology options listed in Table II.3 and Table II.4 with respect to
SPVUs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how these same
criteria would affect consideration of any other technology options not
already identified in this document with respect to their potential use
in SPVUs.
DOE did not screen out any technology options in the September 2015
final rule based on any of the screening criteria. Table II.5
summarizes the preliminary technology options which DOE intends to
examine further as part of the engineering analysis.
Table II.5--Preliminary Technology Options for SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements............... Increased frontal coil area.
Increased depth of coil.
Microchannel heat
exchangers.
Dual condenser heat
exchangers.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements Improved fan motor
efficiency.
Improved fan blades.
Variable speed condenser fan/
motor.
Variable speed indoor blower/
motor.
Compressor Improvements................... Improved compressor
efficiency.
Multi-speed compressors.
Other Improvements........................ Thermostatic expansion
valves.
Electronic expansion valves.
Thermostatic cyclic
controls.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency
(efficiency levels). This relationship serves as the basis for the
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation.
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the
increase in manufacturer production cost (MPC) associated with
increasing the efficiency of equipment above the baseline (i.e., the
current minimum energy conservation standards), up to the maximum
technologically feasible (max-tech) efficiency level for each equipment
class.
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (ELs) for analysis: (1) The design-option
[[Page 22964]]
approach, which provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline
model design options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the
efficiency-level approach, which provides the relative costs of
achieving increases in energy efficiency levels, without regard to the
particular design options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the
cost-assessment (or reverse engineering) approach, which provides
``bottom-up'' manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various
levels of increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts
and materials, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models
that operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one
that just meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and
provides basic consumer utility.
If it determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with
this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current
minimum energy conservation standards \4\ to establish the baseline
efficiency levels for each equipment class. As discussed in section
II.B.1 of this document, the current standards for SPVUs are based on
the full-load metrics (i.e., EER and COP). The current standards for
SPVUs are found at 10 CFR 431.97 and are presented in Table II.6 of
this document. As discussed, the majority of equipment currently
available on the market are at the minimum energy conservation standard
levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The current standards for SPVUs with cooling capacities
<65,000 Btu/h are applicable to equipment manufactured on or after
September 23, 2019. The current standards for SPVUs with cooling
capacities >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h are applicable to
equipment manufactured on or after October 9, 2015. The current
standards for SPVUs with cooling capacities >=135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h are applicable to equipment manufactured on or after
October 9, 2016.
Table II.6--Current SPVU Energy Conservation Standard Levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum energy
Equipment class conservation standard level
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h....................... EER = 11.0.
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h....................... EER = 11.0.
COP = 3.3.
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h... EER = 10.0.
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h... EER = 10.0.
COP = 3.0.
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.. EER = 10.0.
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h.. EER = 10.0.
COP = 3.0.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To inform its data collection in this RFI, DOE initially reviewed
data in DOE's Compliance Certification Database to characterize the
distribution of efficiencies for SPVU equipment currently available on
the market, analyzing cooling and heating efficiency separately. DOE is
making available for comment a document that provides the distributions
of EER and COP for SPVUs in all three equipment classes for which DOE
has identified units: SPVAC <65,000, SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000
Btu/h, and SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The supplemental file be found in docket EERE-2019-BT-STD-
0033 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue D.1 DOE requests feedback on whether using the current
established minimum energy conservation standards for SPVUs are
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply to each
equipment class in evaluating whether to amend the current energy
conservation standards for this equipment, or if there are different
efficiency levels DOE should consider to evaluate the baseline
efficiency levels in order to better evaluate amending energy
conservation standards for this equipment.
Issue D.2 DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not
currently in place or for any contemplated combined equipment classes,
as discussed in section II.B.2 of this document. For newly analyzed
equipment classes, DOE requests energy use data to develop a baseline
relationship between energy use and adjusted volume.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, if DOE were to
amend the SPVU test procedure to incorporate a part-load metric, it
would conduct any analysis for the energy conservation standards
rulemaking based on the amended test procedure, including considering
baseline efficiency levels based on a part-load metric.
Issue D.3 To the extent that it is available, DOE seeks data and
information regarding part-load performance for SPVUs currently on the
market, in the event that DOE amends the SPVU test procedure to include
a part-load energy efficiency metric.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, DOE considers the maximum available
efficiency level, which is the highest-efficiency unit currently
available on the market. DOE also considers the max-tech efficiency
level, which it defines as the level that represents the theoretical
maximum possible efficiency if all available design options are
incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech efficiency level
is not commercially available because it is not economically feasible.
For the September 2015 final rule, DOE surveyed the AHRI Directory,
manufacturers' websites, and technical literature to determine the
highest efficiency that SPVU equipment could attain. DOE also discussed
what an appropriate max-tech level would be with manufacturers. For all
six equipment classes, DOE determined that the maximum technologically
feasible efficiency was the maximum available efficiency. For the
September 2015 final rule analysis, DOE did not develop COP efficiency
levels independent of EER efficiency levels. Rather, DOE developed the
COP efficiency levels using a relationship between EER and COP from
AHRI Database market data, thus determining a ``median'' COP level for
each EER efficiency level. Therefore, DOE did not separately analyze
maximum available COP levels as part of the September 2015 final rule.
See section II.B.4 of this document for further discussion on heating
efficiency levels. See chapter 5 of the 2015 final rule technical
support document (TSD).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The 2015 final rule TSD can be found in docket EERE-2012-BT-
STD-0041-0027 at https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0041-0027.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.7 shows the maximum-available efficiency levels considered
for the September 2015 final rule and based on the current market for
each equipment classes, as identified in DOE's Compliance Certification
Database.
[[Page 22965]]
Table II.7--Maximum-Available Efficiency Levels for SPVUs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class 2015 Final rule Current market
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h............ 12.3 EER.......... 12.5 EER.
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h............ 12.3 EER.......... 12.0 EER.
3.9 COP........... 4.1 COP
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and 10.0 EER.......... 11.2 EER.
<135,000 Btu/h.
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and 10.0 EER.......... N/A.
<135,000 Btu/h *. 3.0 COP...........
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and N/A............... N/A.
<240,000 Btu/h *.
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and N/A............... N/A.
<240,000 Btu/h *.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market,
DOE did not identify any SPVAC models with a cooling capacity greater
than 135,000 Btu/h or SPVHP models with cooling capacities greater
than 65,000 Btu/h.
Issue D.4 DOE seeks input on whether the current maximum available
efficiency levels are appropriate and technologically feasible for
potential consideration as possible energy conservation standards for
the equipment at issue. Although the Department has tentatively
concluded that the maximum available efficiency level for SPVUs would
be the max-tech level, DOE also seeks input as to what efficiency
levels should be considered max-tech.
Issue D.5 DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level. DOE also seeks information
as to whether there are limitations on the use of certain combinations
of design options.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, if DOE were to
amend the SPVU test procedure to incorporate a part-load metric, it
would conduct any analysis for an energy conservation standards
rulemaking based on the amended test procedure, including considering
efficiency levels based on a part-load metric.
Issue D.6 DOE seeks data and information regarding incremental and
maximum-available efficiency levels for each equipment class in the
event that the SPVU test procedure includes a part-load energy
efficiency metric. In particular, DOE seeks energy use data for
equipment operating at part-load capacities, for example, at the part-
load test conditions specified in AHRI Standard 340/360 (I/P)-2019,
``2019 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment.'' In addition, DOE
requests information on the technologies for improving part-load
operation, including the order in which manufacturers would likely add
such technologies.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost
associated with higher-efficiency equipment for the analyzed equipment
classes. For the September 2015 final rule, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency relationships using a combination of the efficiency level
and reverse-engineering approaches, performing teardowns of equipment
available on the market at different efficiency levels to estimate the
efficiency improvements and costs associated with incorporating
specific design options into the assumed baseline model for each
analyzed equipment class. 80 FR 57438, 57456-57459 (Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue D.7 DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.3 and Table II.4
to increase energy efficiency in SPVU efficiencies beyond the current
levels. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers
would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve
the efficiencies of equipment. DOE also requests feedback on whether
the increased energy efficiency would lead to other design changes that
would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested in information
regarding any potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's
ability to incorporate additional functions or attributes in response
to consumer demand.
Issue D.8 DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated
with incorporating each particular design option. Specifically, DOE is
interested in whether and how the costs estimated for design options in
the September 2015 final rule have changed since the time of that
analysis. DOE also requests information on the investments necessary to
incorporate specific design options, including, but not limited to,
costs related to new or modified tooling (if any), materials,
engineering and development efforts to implement each design option,
and manufacturing/production impacts.
Issue D.9 DOE requests comment on whether certain design options
may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment
classes.
DOE directly analyzed one equipment class in the September 2015
final rule (i.e., SPVACs with a cooling capacity <65,000 Btu/h). DOE
then performed a more limited analysis of the other equipment classes
based on limited physical/virtual teardowns and scaling the results
from the analysis conducted for SPVACs with a cooling capacity <65,000
Btu/h. See chapter 5 of the September 2015 final rule TSD for the cost-
efficiency curves developed in that rulemaking. 80 FR 57438, 57459-
57460 (Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue D.10 DOE seeks feedback on whether the approach of directly
analyzing the SPVACs <65,000 Btu/h equipment class and scaling the
results to other equipment classes is appropriate for a future SPVU
energy conservation standards rulemaking, should one be undertaken. DOE
requests comment on whether it is necessary to individually analyze all
or some of the available equipment classes.
As discussed in the September 2015 final rule, for SPVACs >=65,000
and <135,000 Btu/h, there were no models on the market above the ASHRAE
level, and for SPVHPs >=65,000 and >=135,000 Btu/h and SPVUs >=135,000
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h, there were no models on the market at all. As
a result, DOE had no basis with which to develop higher efficiency
levels or conduct analyses for those equipment classes. As a result,
DOE adopted amended standards for those equipment classes equivalent to
levels specified in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013, as required by EPCA. 80
FR 57438, 57456 (Sept. 23, 2015).
Issue D.11 DOE requests information on how to conduct the cost-
efficiency
[[Page 22966]]
analyses for equipment classes without models on the market and for
which DOE does not have data, and whether the approach used in the 2015
final rule is appropriate.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
mark-up) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (MSP) is
the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into commerce.
For the September 2015 final rule, DOE used a manufacturer mark-up of
1.28 for all SPVUs. See chapter 5 of the September 2015 final rule TSD.
Issue D.12 DOE requests feedback on whether manufacturer mark-up of
1.28 is appropriate for SPVUs, or if a different value would be more
appropriate.
E. Mark-Ups Analysis and Distribution Channels
In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (LCC)
analysis and the national impact analysis (NIA), DOE must identify
distribution channels (i.e., how the products are moved from the
manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales volumes
through each channel. Additionally, DOE needs to determine the cost to
the commercial consumer of a baseline piece of equipment that satisfies
the currently applicable standards, and the cost of the more-efficient
piece of equipment the consumer would purchase under potential new and/
or amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a ``mark-up'' to
the MSP, DOE estimates the commercial consumer's price. The appropriate
mark-ups for determining the end-user equipment price depend on the
distribution channels (i.e., how equipment is distributed from the
manufacturer to the consumer), and estimated relative sales volumes
through each channel.
In the September 2015 final rule, DOE identified four distribution
channels based on a literature review and interviews with SPVU
manufacturers, two distribution channels representing the sale of new
equipment, and two representing the sale of replacement equipment. A
recent literature review indicates that the end users of SPVUs have not
changed since the September 2015 final rule. 80 FR 57438, 57460-57461
(Sept. 23, 2015).
In the first new equipment distribution channel, an SPVU
manufacturer sells the product to a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) distributor, who sells to a modular building
manufacturer, who sells to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Modular Building
Manufacturer [rarr] End User
In the second new equipment distribution channel, an SPVU
manufacturer sells the product to an HVAC distributor, who sells to a
modular building manufacturer, who sells to the end user, via a general
contractor.
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Modular Building
Manufacturer [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] End User
In the first replacement distribution channel, an SPVU manufacturer
sells the product to an HVAC distributor, who sells it to a modular
building distributor, who sells it to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Modular Building
Distributor [rarr] End user
Finally, in the second replacement distribution channel, an SPVU
manufacturer sells the product to an HVAC distributor, who sells it to
a mechanical contractor, who sells it to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] HVAC Distributor [rarr] Mechanical Contractor
[rarr] End user
Were DOE to undertake an energy conservation standards rulemaking,
DOE would determine the mark-ups for wholesalers, modular building
manufacturers, and contractors by examining the updated versions of the
sources of information used in the previous energy conservation
standards rulemaking for SPVUs. In the September 2015 final rule, DOE
developed baseline and incremental mark-ups based on available
financial data. More specifically, DOE based the air-conditioning
wholesaler/distributor mark-ups on data from the Heating, Air
Conditioning, and Refrigeration Distributors International (HARDI) 2013
Profit Report.\7\ DOE also used financial data from the U.S. Census
Bureau \8\ to estimate mark-ups for modular building manufacturers,
modular building distributors, mechanical contractors, and general
contractors. See Chapter 6 of the September 2015 final rule TSD for
more details on mark-ups and distribution channels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Heating, Air-conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors
International (HARDI), 2013 Profit Report (2012 Data) (Available at:
https://www.hardinet.org/Profit-Report).
\8\ Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue E.1 DOE requests information on the existence of any
distribution channels other than the four distribution channels
identified in the September 2015 final rule that are used to distribute
the SPVU equipment at issue into the market. DOE also requests data on
the fraction of SPVUs that go through each of the four identified
distribution channels, as well as the fraction of sales that go through
any other identified channels. DOE also welcomes comment on its
approach to estimating mark-ups and any financial data available that
would assist DOE in developing mark-ups for the various segments in the
above-mentioned distribution channels.
F. Energy Use Analysis
As part of a typical rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use
analysis to identify how equipment is used by consumers, and thereby
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency
improvements. To determine the energy savings potential, DOE develops
estimates of the annual unit energy consumption (UEC) for each
efficiency level developed in the engineering analysis. The energy
savings are calculated by comparing the UEC of a baseline product to
the UECs of higher-efficiency products. In the September 2015 final
rule, DOE used Energy Plus,\9\ a whole building energy simulation
program, to develop estimates of the UECs for SPVUs. SPVUs are most
commonly used in modular buildings, such as classrooms,
telecommunications shelters, and modular offices for a variety of other
industries. In the September 2015 final rule, DOE simulated the energy
use in three types of buildings: Modular offices, modular schools, and
telecommunications structures. DOE developed State-specific unit energy
consumption estimates in order to account for the variability of energy
use by climate. 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept. 23, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Model Buildings
DOE developed three prototypical building models to simulate
modular offices, modular schools, and telecommunications structures.
For offices and schools, a 1,568 sq. ft. wood-frame structure was
developed that had performance characteristics (lighting density,
ventilation, envelope, economizer usage) meeting the requirements of
ASHRAE 90.1-2004. Schedules and load profiles were taken from the DOE
commercial reference buildings for primary schools and small offices.
For telecommunications shelters, a 240 sq. ft. precast concrete
structure was developed. These shelters were assumed to operate with a
constant thermal load of 6.86 kW (23,400 Btu/h)
[[Page 22967]]
during all hours of the year, thus requiring year-round cooling. DOE
plans to continue to use the model building approach as it provides DOE
with the capability to measure the diverse loads conditions that SPVUs
encounter in the field. For a detailed discussion of the building
models see Chapter 7 of the 2015 final rule TSD.
Issue F.1 DOE requests comment on the simulation approach that was
used in the analysis for the September 2015 final rule. Specifically,
should any other types of commercial buildings be included in the
energy use analysis?
Issue F.2 DOE seeks input on the assumption that the internal
cooling load of telecommunications structures is constant. As part of
the energy use analysis for the September 2015 final rule, DOE could
not identify a source for the typical load profiles of
telecommunications structures, as it did for schools and offices.
Instead, DOE based its cooling load assumptions on computer server room
environments, which maintain a constant cooling load. DOE requests
input on whether this was a valid basis for comparison and how cooling
loads may vary as telecommunications traffic changes throughout the
day.
Issue F.3 DOE requests feedback on the use of economizers in
telecommunications structures. As part of the energy use analysis for
the September 2015 final rule, DOE assigned economizers to offices and
schools in all climate zones except for the hot-humid regions (zones
1A, 2A, 3A, and 4A), in line with ASHRAE guidelines for economizer use.
There are no ASHRAE guidelines for economizers in telecommunications
structures, and discussions with manufacturers indicated that
economizer use is driven by individual corporate user specifications,
not climate zone. Manufacturers estimated that 45 percent of
telecommunications structures have economizers and that 55 percent do
not. Therefore, in the energy use analysis, DOE simulated all
telecommunications buildings with and without economizers and weighted
the results using the 45 percent and 55 percent market share breakdown.
DOE seeks input on this approach and requests input about whether
economizers should be assigned by climate zone.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
DOE conducts the LCC and PBP analysis to evaluate the economic
effects of potential energy conservation standards for SPVUs on
individual customers. For any given efficiency level, DOE measures the
PBP and the change in LCC relative to an estimated baseline level. The
LCC is the total customer expense over the life of the equipment,
consisting of purchase, installation, and operating costs (expenses for
energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the calculation of
total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--which includes
MSPs, distribution channel markups, and sales taxes--and installation
costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses include annual
energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, repair and
maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and the year
that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
In order to develop annual operating costs and savings for the
life-cycle cost analysis, DOE must estimate repair and maintenance
costs over the lifetime of the SPVU. In the September 2015 final rule,
DOE used RS Means \10\ in order to develop annualized repair and
maintenance costs. The repair costs represent the expenses associated
with repairing or replacing a damaged component of an SPVU that has
failed, and the first instance of a significant repair typically occurs
about 10 years after purchase. The materials portion of the repair cost
scales with the manufacturer selling price, although the labor portion
stays constant, so higher-efficiency units will typically have higher
repair costs. The annual maintenance cost represents expenses
associated with ensuring continued operation of the covered equipment
over time, something which remained constant across all efficiency
levels. For a detailed discussion of the repair and maintenance cost
estimates, see Chapter 8 of the 2015 final rule TSD. RS Means is a
leading source for facility repair and maintenance data for space
conditioning equipment, and, as such, DOE intends to continue to use RS
Means for any future rulemakings for SPVUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ RS Means, CostWorks 2014 (2014) (Available at: https://www.rsmeansonline.com) (Last accessed Feb. 27, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue G.1 DOE requests feedback and data on whether maintenance
costs differ in comparison to the baseline maintenance costs for any of
the specific technology options listed in Table II.3 and Table II.4. To
the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting data and an
explanation of the reasons for those differences.
Issue G.2 DOE requests information and data on the frequency of
repair and repair costs by equipment class for the technology options
listed in Table II.3 and Table II.4. While DOE is interested in
information regarding each of the listed technology options, DOE is
also interested in the extent to which consumers simply replace, as
opposed to repair, failed equipment.
H. Shipments Analysis
DOE develops shipments forecasts of SPVUs to calculate the national
impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards on energy
consumption, net present value (NPV), and future manufacturer cash
flows. DOE shipments projections are based on available historical data
broken out by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales
estimates allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends
in the market. In the September 2015 final rule, DOE used three data
sources to develop its shipments model: (1) Actual shipments of SPVUs
in 2005 provided by AHRI; (2) a graph displaying the shipments trend
from 2006-2014 provided by AHRI, and (3) floor space production data
from the modular building institute from 1994-2005. 80 FR 57438, 57469-
57470 (Sept. 23, 2015). The modular building floor space production
data was used to develop shipments prior to 2005, which is necessary to
account for replacement shipments in future years once the older stock
of SPVUs reach the end of their useful life. Future new construction
shipments for offices and schools were based on floor space projections
from the 2015 Energy Information Administration's Annual Energy Outlook
(AEO).\11\ New construction shipments for the telecommunication sector
were based on data of power and communication line construction from
the U.S. Census.\12\ DOE intends to project future shipments using the
most current AEO and Census data, as new shipments of SPVUs should
track floor space of the industries that use SPVUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Available at: https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/aeo/pdf/0383(2015).pdf (Last accessed April 18, 2015).
\12\ Available at: U.S. Census Bureau. County Business Patterns.
www.census.gov/econ/cbp/ (Last accessed April 15, 2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue H.1 DOE requests the most recent annual sales data for SPVUs
(i.e., number of shipments), as well as historical annual sales data
going back to 2015. DOE also requests the shipments by equipment class
and efficiency level for the most recent year available and if
possible, for each year going back to 2015.
Table II.8 presents the shipments and market shares from the year
2015 in the
[[Page 22968]]
National Impact Analysis \13\ spreadsheet for the September 2015 final
rule. As requested in Issue H.1 DOE seeks to update this table with
shipments and market shares by EER bin for the most recent year
available. Interested parties are also encouraged to provide additional
shipments data as may be relevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0041-0029 (Last accessed Sept 2, 2019).
Table II.8--Summary Table of Shipments-Related Data Requests for SPVUs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of annual sales (%)
Equipment class Annual sales ---------------------------------------------------------------
(2015) 9-10 EER 10-11 EER 11-12 EER >12 EER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPVAC <65,000 Btu/h............. 41,741 80.8 18.1 1.1 0
SPVHP <65,000 Btu/h............. 17,343 80.8 18.1 1.1 0
SPVAC >=65,000 Btu/h and 1,868 80.8 18.1 1.1 0
<135,000 Btu/h.................
SPVHP >=65,000 Btu/h and 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
<135,000 Btu/h *...............
SPVAC >=135,000 Btu/h and 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
<240,000 Btu/h *...............
SPVHP >=135,000 Btu/h and 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A
<240,000 Btu/h *...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* DOE did not identify any SPVAC models with a cooling capacity greater than 135,000 Btu/h or SPVHP models with
cooling capacities greater than 65,000 Btu/h.
If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the
equipment class or efficiency level, DOE requests more aggregated
fractions of annual sales at the equipment category level.
Issue H.2 In the September 2015 final rule, DOE determined that
SPVU lifetimes range from 10 to 25 years, with an average lifetime of
15 years. 80 FR 57438, 57467 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE requests comment on
the estimated average lifetime of 15 years, as well as any new data or
information about the lifetimes of SPVUs. DOE also requests input on
whether the lifetimes changes by equipment class, efficiency, or end
use.
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of SPVUs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such
standards on direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA
includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative
part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact
Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow model adapted for each product in
this analysis, with the key output being industry net present value
(INPV). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts
of energy conservation standards on manufacturing capacity and
manufacturing employment, as well as factors such as product
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and product trends.
As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small
Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System
(NAICS) code.\14\ Manufacturing of SPVUs is classified under NAICS
333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and
Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing,'' and
the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or less for a domestic
entity to be considered as a small business. This employee threshold
includes all employees in a business' parent company and any other
subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers,
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to
appliance efficiency.
Issue I.1 To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute SPVUs in commerce in the United States.
Issue I.2 DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact
information of small business manufacturers (as defined by the SBA's
size threshold) of SPVUs that distribute products in commerce in the
United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other
manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by
amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any
potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on
manufacturers, including small businesses.
Issue I.3 DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of SPVUs associated with:
(1) Other DOE standards applying to different equipment that these
manufacturers may also make and (2) equipment-specific regulatory
actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its
methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether
there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this
burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
[[Page 22969]]
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of
amended energy conservation standards for SPVUs.
2. Emerging Smart Technology Market
DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that RFI, DOE sought
information to better understand market trends and issues in the
emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment that
incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was to
ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data, and
information on the issues presented in that RFI as they may be
applicable to energy conservation standards for SPVUs.
3. Other Issues
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on any other aspects of energy
conservation standards for SPVUs that may not specifically be
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage
the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to
comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017).
Consistent with that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to
provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its
energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting
requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable
to SPVUs while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
III. Submission of Comments
DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments
and information on matters addressed in this document and on other
matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations
standards for SPVUs. After the close of the comment period, DOE will
review the public comments received and may begin collecting data and
conducting the analyses discussed in this RFI.
Submitting comments via https://www.regulations.gov. The https://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies Office staff only. Your contact information will
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names,
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your
comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Following such instructions, 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 https://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
https://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 https://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 https://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your
comment.
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to https://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier 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. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of
the process
[[Page 22970]]
for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively encourages
the participation and interaction of the public during the comment
period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and
between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the
issues and assist DOE in the process. Anyone who wishes to be added to
the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about
this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signed in Washington, DC, on February 21, 2020.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-08318 Filed 4-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
