Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for Consumer Products; Early Assessment Review; Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps, 82952-82965 [2020-27456]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
82952
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
assurance of funds for
decommissioning? If yes, please provide
details of the alternative criteria and the
financial data needed for its use.
Commenters are encouraged to
provide specific suggestions and
support for them. Comments received in
response to this request will be
considered in the development of any
subsequent proposed rule. The NRC will
provide another opportunity for public
comment on any subsequent proposed
rule.
V. Public Meeting
During the comment period, the NRC
will conduct a public meeting to discuss
the rulemaking and answer questions.
The NRC will publish a notice of the
location, time, and agenda of the
meeting on the NRC’s public meeting
website at least 10 calendar days before
the meeting. Stakeholders should
monitor the NRC’s public meeting
website for information about the public
meeting at: https://www.nrc.gov/pmns/
mtg. In addition, the meeting
information will be posted on https://
www.regulations.gov/ under Docket ID
NRC–2017–0021.
VI. Plain Writing
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Pub.
L. 111–274) requires Federal agencies to
write documents in a clear, concise, and
well-organized manner. The NRC has
written this document to be consistent
with the Plain Writing Act as well as the
Presidential Memorandum, ‘‘Plain
Language in Government Writing,’’
published June 10, 1998 (63 FR 31885).
The NRC requests comment on this
document with respect to the clarity and
effectiveness of the language used.
VII. Rulemaking Process
The NRC does not intend to provide
a detailed response to individual
comments submitted on this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking;
however, the NRC will evaluate all
public input in the development of a
proposed rule on financial assurance
mechanisms approved by NRC for the
decommissioning of nuclear power
plants and other nuclear facilities. If
NRC determines a need for supporting
guidance, NRC will also issue the draft
guidance for public comment.
Dated: December 14, 2020.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Annette L. Vietti-Cook,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2020–27776 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590–01–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035]
RIN 1904–AE66
Energy Conservation Program: Energy
Conservation Standards for Consumer
Products; Early Assessment Review;
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information; Early
Assessment Review.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (‘‘DOE’’) is initiating an early
assessment review to determine whether
any new or amended standards would
satisfy the relevant requirements of
EPCA for a new or amended energy
conservation standard for Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioners (‘‘PTACs’’)
and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
(‘‘PTHPs). Specifically, through this
request for information (‘‘RFI’’), 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: Would not result in
a significant savings of energy; is not
technologically feasible; is not
economically justified; or any
combination of foregoing. 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 concerning this early
assessment review.
DATES: Written comments and
information will be accepted on or
before March 8, 2021.
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–0035, by
any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: PTACHP2019STD0035@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035 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,
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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-STD0035. 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.
Mr.
Bryan Berringer, 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–
0371. Email:
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email:
Amelia.Whiting@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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
or amended energy conservation
standards are not warranted.
Conversely, if DOE makes an initial
determination that a new or amended
energy conservation standard would
satisfy the applicable statutory criteria
or DOE’s analysis is inconclusive, DOE
would undertake the preliminary stages
of a rulemaking to issue a new or
amended energy conservation standard.
Beginning such a rulemaking, however,
would not preclude DOE from later
making a determination that a new or
amended energy conservation standard
cannot satisfy the requirements in
EPCA, based upon the full suite of
DOE’s analyses. See 85 FR 8626, 8654
(Feb. 14, 2020).
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
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. Review of Current Market
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. Distribution Channels
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
H. Shipments
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards
Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Network Mode/‘‘Smart’’ Technology
3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE established an early assessment
review process to conduct a more
focused analysis of a specific set of facts
or circumstances that would allow DOE
to determine, based on one or more
statutory criteria, a new or amended
energy conservation standard is not
warranted. The purpose of this review is
to limit the resources, from both DOE
and stakeholders, committed to
rulemakings that will not satisfy the
requirements of EPCA that a new or
amended energy conservation standard
save a significant amount of energy, and
be economically justified and
technologically feasible. See 85 FR
8626, 8653, 8654 (Feb. 14, 2020).
As part of the early assessment, DOE
publishes an RFI in the Federal
Register, announcing that DOE is
considering initiating a rulemaking
proceeding and soliciting comments,
data, and information on whether a new
or amended energy conservation
standard would save a significant
amount of energy and be technologically
feasible and economically justified.
Based on the information received in
response to the RFI and DOE’s own
analysis, DOE will determine whether to
proceed with a rulemaking for a new or
amended energy conservation standard.
If DOE makes an initial determination
based upon available evidence that a
new or amended energy conservation
standard would not meet the applicable
statutory criteria, DOE would engage in
notice and comment rulemaking before
issuing a final determination that new
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (‘‘EPCA’’), as amended,1 among
other things authorizes DOE to regulate
the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain
industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–
6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added
by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, Section
441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified), established the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a
variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. This
equipment includes PTACs and PTHPs,
the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(I)) EPCA prescribed initial
standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(3))
The energy conservation program
under EPCA consists essentially of four
parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3)
Federal energy conservation standards,
and (4) certification and enforcement
procedures. Relevant provisions of
EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C.
6311), energy conservation standards
(42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42
U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42
U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy 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.
6297(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)) DOE may,
however, grant waivers of Federal
preemption in limited instances for
particular State laws or regulations, in
accordance with the procedures and
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82953
other provisions set forth under EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
In EPCA, Congress initially set
mandatory energy conservation
standards for certain types of
commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)) Specifically, the statute sets
standards for small, large, and very large
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, PTACs and
PTHPs, warm-air furnaces, packaged
boilers, storage water heaters,
instantaneous water heaters, and
unfired hot water storage tanks. Id. In
doing so, EPCA established Federal
energy conservation standards at levels
that generally corresponded to the levels
in American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’) Standard 90.1,
‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’, as in
effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e.,
‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1–1989’’), for
each type of covered equipment listed
in 42 U.S.C. 6313(a).
In acknowledgement of technological
changes that yield energy efficiency
benefits, Congress directed DOE through
EPCA to consider amending the existing
Federal energy conservation standard
for each type of equipment listed, 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 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 morestringent standard level as a national
standard would produce significant
additional energy savings and be
technologically feasible and
economically justified.3 (42 U.S.C.
3 In determining whether a more-stringent
standard is economically justified, EPCA directs
DOE to determine, after receiving views and
comments from the public, whether the benefits of
the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the
proposed standard by, to the maximum extent
practicable, considering the following:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the
manufacturers and consumers of the products
subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the
estimated average life of the product compared to
any increases in the initial cost or maintenance
expense;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings
likely to result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance
of the products likely to result from the standard;
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
Continued
21DEP1
82954
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to
adopt as a national standard the
minimum efficiency levels specified in
the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1,
DOE must establish such standard not
later than 18 months after publication of
the amended industry standard. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if
DOE determines, supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that a morestringent uniform national standard
would result in significant additional
conservation of energy and is
technologically feasible and
economically justified, then DOE must
establish such more-stringent uniform
national standard not later than 30
months after publication of the
amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B))
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
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 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 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)) 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 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)) This is a separate
statutory review obligation, as
differentiated from the obligation
triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1
amendment. 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
(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 considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
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.
As a preliminary step in the process
of reviewing the standards for PTACs
and PTHPs, DOE is requesting data and
information pursuant to the 6-yearlookback review. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)) Such information will
help DOE inform its decisions,
consistent with its obligations under
EPCA.
B. Rulemaking History
On July 21, 2015, DOE published
amendments to the PTAC and PTHP
standards in response to the 2013
update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e.,
‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013’’). 80 FR
43162 (‘‘July 2015 Final Rule’’). DOE
determined that ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2013 amended the standards for
three of the 12 PTAC and PTHP
equipment classes: PTAC Standard Size
<7,000 Btu/h, PTAC Standard Size
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h, and
PTAC Standard Size >15,000 Btu/h. 80
FR 43162, 43163. DOE adopted the
standard levels for the three equipment
classes as updated by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. Id. Compliance with the
amended standards was required as of
January 1, 2017. Id. DOE did not amend
the energy conservation standards for
the remaining equipment classes which
were already equivalent to the standards
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013. Id.
DOE was unable to show with clear and
convincing evidence that energy
conservation standards at levels more
stringent than the minimum levels
specified in the ASHRAE Standard
90.1–2013 for any of the 12 equipment
classes would be economically justified.
Id. The current energy conservation
standards are located in Title 10 Code
of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) section
431.97, Table 8.
DOE’s current test procedures for
PTACs and PTHPs were established in
a final rule on June 30, 2015. 80 FR
37136. The current test procedure for
cooling mode testing incorporates by
reference Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’)
Standard 310/380–2014, ‘‘Standard for
Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners
and Heat Pumps’’ (‘‘AHRI 310/380–
2014’’), with the following sections
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
applicable to the DOE test procedure:
Sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4. In
addition to the specified provisions of
AHRI 310/380–2014, the PTACs and
PTHPs must be tested according to
either American National Standards
Institute (‘‘ANSI’’)/ASHRAE 16–1983
(RA 2014), ‘‘Method of Testing for
Rating Room Air Conditioners and
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners’’
(‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 16–1983 (RA 2014)’’),
or ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ‘‘Methods
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat
Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009’’). The current test procedure
for heating mode testing incorporates by
reference AHRI Standard 310/380–2014,
with the following sections applicable
to the DOE test procedure: Sections 3,
4.1, 4.2 (except section 4.2.1.2(b)), 4.3,
and 4.4; and ANSI/ASHRAE 58–1986
(RA 2014), ‘‘Method of Testing for
Rating Room Air-Conditioner and
Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioner
Heating Capacity’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 58–
1986 (RA 2014)’’). (10 CFR 431.96(g))
The currently applicable DOE test
procedures for PTACs and PTHPs
appear at 10 CFR 431.96 in paragraph
(g).
The current test procedure also
requires that manufacturers adhere to
additional provisions in paragraphs (c)
and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96. (10 CFR
431.96(b)(1)) Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR
431.96 includes provisions for an
optional compressor break-in period,
while paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96
clarifies what information sources can
be used for unit set-up and provides
specific set-up instructions for
refrigerant parameters (e.g., superheat)
and air flow rate.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been
updated since the 2013 version, most
recently with the release of the 2019
version (i.e., ANSI/ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1–2019, ‘‘Energy Efficiency
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise
Residential Buildings’’) on October 24,
2019. However, the standard levels for
PTACs and PTHPs remain unchanged
from the 2013 version.
II. Request for Information and
Comments
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect
data and information during the early
assessment review to inform its
decision, consistent with its obligations
under EPCA, as to whether the
Department should proceed with an
energy conservation standards
rulemaking. Accordingly, in the
following sections, DOE has identified
specific issues on which it seeks input
to aid in its analysis of whether an
amended standard for PTAC or PTHP
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
would not save a significant amount of
energy or be technologically feasible or
economically justified. In particular,
DOE is interested in any information
indicating that there has been sufficient
technological or market changes since
DOE last conducted an energy
conservation standards rulemaking
analysis for PTAC or PTHPs to suggest
a more-stringent standard could satisfy
these criteria. DOE also welcomes
comment on other issues relevant to its
early assessment that may not
specifically identified in this document.
Pursuant to DOE’s recently amended
‘‘Process Rule’’ (85 FR 8626; Feb. 14,
2020), DOE stated that as a first step in
a proceeding to consider establishing or
amending an energy conservation
standard, such as the existing standards
for PTACs and PTHP at issue in this
document, DOE would publish a notice
in the Federal Register announcing that
DOE is considering initiation of a
proceeding, and as part of that notice,
DOE would request submission of
related comments, including data and
information showing whether any new
or amended standard would satisfy the
relevant requirements in EPCA for a
new or amended energy conservation
standard. Based on the information
received in response to the notice and
its own analysis, DOE would determine
whether to proceed with a rulemaking
for a new or amended standard, or issue
a proposed determination that the
standards do not need to be amended.
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)(I) (referencing 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))) To determine
whether a standard is economically
justified, EPCA requires that DOE
determine whether the benefits of the
standard exceed its burdens by
considering, to the greatest extent
practicable, the following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the
standard on manufacturers and
consumers of products subject to the
standard;
82955
2. The savings in operating costs
throughout the estimated average life of
the covered products in the type (or
class) compared to any increase in the
price, initial charges, or maintenance
expenses for the covered products
which 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 products
likely to result from the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of
competition, as determined in writing
by the Attorney General, that is likely to
result from the standard;
6. The need for national energy
conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of
Energy considers relevant. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II), referencing 42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
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 ...............................
7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ...................................
As noted in Section I.A., DOE is
publishing this early assessment review
RFI to collect data and information that
could enable the agency to determine
whether DOE should propose a ‘‘no new
standard’’ determination because a more
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
•
•
•
•
•
•
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.
Markups 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.
stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is
not technologically feasible; (3) is not
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
A. Equipment Covered by This Process
This RFI covers equipment that meets
the definitions of PTACs and PTHPs, as
codified at 10 CFR 431.92. The
definitions for PTACs and PTHPs were
established under EPCA and codified in
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
82956
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
a test procedure final rule issued
October 21, 2004. (42 U.S.C. 6311(10));
69 FR 61962, 61970.
DOE defines ‘‘packaged terminal air
conditioners’’ as a wall sleeve and a
separate un-encased combination of
heating and cooling assemblies
specified by the builder and intended
for mounting through the wall, and that
is industrial equipment. It includes a
prime source of refrigeration, separable
outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and
heating availability by builder’s choice
of hot water, steam, or electricity. (10
CFR 431.92)
DOE defines ‘‘packaged terminal heat
pumps’’ as a packaged terminal air
conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle
refrigeration as its prime heat source,
that has a supplementary heat source
available, with the choice of hot water,
steam, or electric resistant heat, and that
is industrial equipment. Id.
On October 7, 2008, DOE published a
final rule amending the energy
conservation standards for PTACs and
PTHPs in which DOE divided
equipment classes based on whether a
PTAC or PTHP is a standard size or nonstandard size. 73 FR 58772 (‘‘October
2008 Final Rule’’).
DOE defines ‘‘standard size’’ as a
PTAC or PTHP with wall sleeve
dimensions having an external wall
opening of greater than or equal to 16
inches high or greater than or equal to
42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional
area greater than or equal to 670 square
inches. (10 CFR 431.92)
DOE defines ‘‘non-standard size’’ as a
PTAC or PTHP with existing wall sleeve
dimensions having an external wall
opening of less than 16 inches high or
less than 42 inches wide, and a crosssectional area less than 670 square
inches. Id.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on
whether the definitions for PTACs and
PTHPs require any revisions—and if so,
DOE requests information on why
revisions are needed and how those
definitions should be revised. DOE also
requests feedback on whether the subcategory definitions currently in place
for standard size and non-standard size
are appropriate or whether further
modifications are needed. If these subcategory definitions need modifying,
DOE seeks specific input on how to
define these terms and information to
support any such changes.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on
whether additional equipment
definitions are necessary to close any
potential gaps in coverage between
equipment types. DOE also seeks input
on whether such equipment currently
exist in the market or whether they are
being planned for introduction. DOE
also requests comment on opportunities
to combine equipment classes that
could reduce regulatory burden.
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 PTACs and
PTHPs industry that will be used to
determine whether DOE should propose
a ‘‘no new standard’’ determination.
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 PTACs and PTHPs.
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 PTACs and PTHPs.
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
For PTACs and PTHPs, DOE currently
prescribes energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘EER’’) as the cooling mode efficiency
metric and coefficient of performance
(‘‘COP’’) as the heating mode efficiency
metric. (10 CFR 431.96) These energy
efficiency descriptors are the same as
those included in ASHRAE 90.1–2016
for PTACs and PTHPs. EER is the ratio
of the produced cooling effect of the
PTAC or PTHP 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 PTHP 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 PTACs and PTHPs does
not include a seasonal metric that
includes part-load performance.
On December 8, 2020, DOE published
an RFI (the ‘‘December 2020 TP RFI’’) to
collect information and data to consider
amendments to DOE’s test procedure for
PTACs and PTHPs. 85 FR 78967. As
part of the December 2020 TP RFI, DOE
requested comment on whether it
should consider adopting for PTACs
and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric that
integrates part-load performance to
better represent full-season efficiency.
85 FR 78967. In the December 2020 TP
RFI, DOE discusses in detail three
possible part-load efficiency metrics
that are used for rating other categories
of commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment:
• Integrated energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘IEER’’), as described in section 6.2 of
AHRI Standard 340/360 (I/P)-2019,
‘‘2019 Standard for Performance Rating
of Commercial and Industrial Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment’’,
• Seasonal energy efficiency ratio
(‘‘SEER’’), as described in Appendix M
to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, and
• Weighted-average combined energy
efficiency ratio (‘‘CEER’’), as described
in a Decision and Order granting a
petition for waiver for certain room air
conditioners. See 84 FR 20111, 20113
(May 8, 2019).
If DOE amends the PTAC and PTHP
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 PTACs and PTHPs, the current
energy conservation standards specified
in 10 CFR 431.97(c) are based on 12
equipment classes determined
according to the following: Whether the
equipment is an air conditioner or a
heat pump, whether the equipment is
standard size or non-standard size, and
cooling capacity in British thermal unit
per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’). Table II.1 lists the
current 12 equipment classes for PTACs
and PTHPs outlined in Table 7 to 10
CFR 431.97.
TABLE II.1—CURRENT PTAC AND PTHP EQUIPMENT CLASSES
Equipment Class
1
2
3
4
5
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
VerDate Sep<11>2014
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
Standard Size .........................................................................
Standard Size .........................................................................
Standard Size .........................................................................
Non-Standard Size .................................................................
Non-Standard Size .................................................................
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
<7,000 Btu/h.
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h.
>15,000 Btu/h.
<7,000 Btu/h.
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h.
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
82957
TABLE II.1—CURRENT PTAC AND PTHP EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued
6 .......
7 .......
8 .......
9 * .....
10 .....
11 .....
12 .....
PTAC
PTHP
PTHP
PTHP
PTHP
PTHP
PTHP
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
.......
Non-Standard Size .................................................................
Standard Size .........................................................................
Standard Size .........................................................................
Standard Size .........................................................................
Non-Standard Size .................................................................
Non-Standard Size .................................................................
Non-Standard Size .................................................................
>15,000 Btu/h.
<7,000 Btu/h.
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h.
>15,000 Btu/h.
<7,000 Btu/h.
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h.
>15,000 Btu/h.
* Based on DOE’s review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any Standard Size PTHP models with a cooling
capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
Issue 3: DOE requests feedback on the
current PTAC and PTHP 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 equipment 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 impact equipment utility by
eliminating any performance-related
features or reduce any compliance
burdens.
a. ‘‘Make-Up Air’’ PTACs and PTHPs
As part of the December 2020 TP RFI,
DOE described ‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs
and their additional function of
dehumidification. 85 FR 78967. As
discussed in section II.B.1, for PTACs
and PTHPs, DOE currently specifies
EER as the test metric for cooling
efficiency. For PTHPs, DOE specifies
COP as the test metric for heating
efficiency. Neither the current test
procedure, 10 CFR 431.96, nor the
industry test procedure, AHRI Standard
310/380–2014, account for the energy
associated with the conditioning of
make-up air introduced by the unit.
If DOE amends the PTAC and PTHP
test procedure to incorporate
measurement of dehumidification
energy for ‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs and
PTHPs, a separate equipment class for
this type of units may be warranted.
DOE would conduct any analysis for
future standards rulemakings, if any,
based on the amended test procedure.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on
how a ‘‘make-up air PTAC’’ and a
‘‘make-up air PTHP’’ could be defined,
and what characteristics could be used
to distinguish make-up air PTACs and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
PTHPs from other PTACs and PTHPs.
DOE requests information on the
consumer utility provided by a PTAC or
PTHP that provides make-up air. DOE
also requests information and data on
the associated energy use associated
with the function of providing ‘‘makeup air.’’ DOE also requests comment on
if the same capacity ranges used for
non-‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs and PTHPs
would be appropriate to use for
equipment classes for possible ‘‘makeup air’’ PTAC and PTHP equipment
classes (i.e., <7,000 Btu/h, ≥7,000 Btu/h
and ≤15,000 Btu/h, and >15,000 Btu/h).
Finally, DOE requests comment on if
there are both Standard Size and NonStandard Size ‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs
and PTHPs.
Issue 5: DOE seeks information
regarding any other new product classes
it should consider for inclusion in its
analysis. Specifically, DOE requests
information on the performance-related
features that provide unique consumer
utility and data detailing the
corresponding impacts on energy use
that would justify separate product
classes (i.e., explanation for why the
presence of these performance-related
features would increase energy
consumption).
3. Review of Current Market
To inform its evaluation of PTACs
and PTHPs, DOE initially reviewed data
in the DOE Compliance Certification
Database 4 (‘‘CCMS database’’) to
characterize the distribution of
efficiencies for PTAC and PTHP
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 PTACs and PTHPs in the 11
equipment classes listed in Table II.1 for
which DOE has identified models on the
4 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database can be
found at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/
certification-data/products.html (accessed
September 26th, 2019).
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
market 5 (see Docket No. EERE–2019–
BT–STD–0035–0001).
Based on the data shown in the
supplemental file DOE has made available for
comment (see Docket No. EERE–2019–BT–
STD–0035–0001), DOE requests feedback on
whether using the current established energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs
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.
4. Technology Assessment
In analyzing information to determine
whether DOE should propose a ‘‘no new
standards determination’’ for existing
PTAC and PTHPs 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
analyzed during its most recent
rulemaking for PTACs and PTHPs,
technology options DOE identified but
did not analyze, and newer technology
options that DOE may also consider in
a future PTAC and PTHP energy
conservation standards rulemaking.
Based on the technologies identified in
the analysis for the July 2015 Final Rule
and a preliminary survey of the current
market, DOE has separately provided
potential technology options in two
categories: Technologies that may
increase efficiency at both full-load and
part-load conditions, listed in Table II.2;
and technologies that may only increase
efficiency at part-load conditions, listed
in Table II.3.
5 As noted in Table II.1, DOE did not identify any
Standard Size PTHP models with a cooling capacity
greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
82958
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
TABLE II.2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR PTACS AND PTHPS THAT MAY
INCREASE EFFICIENCY AT BOTH
FULL-LOAD AND PART-LOAD CONDITIONS
Technology options
Heat Exchanger Improvements:
Increased Heat
Exchanger
Area.
Indoor Blower and
Outdoor Fan Improvements:
Higher Efficiency
Fan Motors.
Improved Air
Flow and Fan
Design.
More efficient fan
geometries.
Compressor Improvements:
Higher Efficiency
Compressors.
Scroll Compressors.
Other Improvements:
Heat Pipes ..........
Alternative Refrigerants.
Source
July 2015 Final Rule.
July 2015 Final Rule.
July 2015 Final Rule.
New Technology Option.
July 2015 Final Rule.
Screened out of July
2015 Final Rule.
Screened out of July
2015 Final Rule.
Screened out of July
2015 Final Rule.
TABLE II.3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS
FOR PTACS AND PTHPS THAT MAY
INCREASE EFFICIENCY AT ONLY
PART-LOAD CONDITIONS
Technology options
Indoor Blower and
Outdoor Fan Improvements:
Variable speed
condenser fan/
motor.
Variable speed
indoor blower/
motor.
Compressor Improvements:
Variable Speed
Compressors.
Other Improvements:
Electronic Expansion Valves
(‘‘EEV’’).
Thermal Expansion Valves
(‘‘TEV’’).
Source
New Technology Option.
New Technology Option.
July 2015 Final
Rule.*
New Technology Option.
July 2015 Final
Rule.*
* Identified technology not analyzed because
no full-load benefit.
Issue 6: DOE seeks information on the
technologies listed in Table II.2
regarding their applicability to the
current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency
of PTACs and PTHPs as measured
according to the DOE test procedure.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
DOE also seeks information on how
those technologies identified in
development of the July 2015 Final Rule
may have changed since that time.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on
the range of efficiencies or performance
characteristics that are currently
available for each technology option.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on
whether this new technology would
affect a determination as to whether
DOE could propose a ‘‘no new
standard’’ determination because a more
stringent standard: Would not result in
a significant savings of energy; is not
technologically feasible; is not
economically justified; or any
combination of the foregoing.
Specifically, DOE seeks information on
the new technologies listed in Table II.2
and Table II.3 of this RFI 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, etc.),
particularly as to changes that may have
occurred since the July 2015 Final Rule.
Issue 8: 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.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this
RFI, DOE may consider adopting for
PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode
metric that integrates part-load
performance.
TEVs and EEVs regulate the 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, TEVs
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. Variablespeed compressors enable modulation
of the refrigeration system cooling
capacity, allowing the unit to match the
cooling or heating 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. 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Issue 9: In the event DOE were to
amend the metric for the PTAC and
PTHP standards to account for part-load
performance, DOE requests data on the
market penetration and efficiency
improvement associated with the
technology options listed in Table II.3.
In addition, DOE requests data on any
other technology options not listed
above that would improve the efficiency
of equipment under part-load
conditions.
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. In this early assessment
RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to technologies previously
screened out or retained that could
enable the agency to determine whether
to propose a ‘‘no new standard’’
determination because a more stringent
standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of the foregoing.
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 product 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 product 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 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
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
82959
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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, due to the
potential for monopolistic concerns. (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.
Table II.4 summarizes the technology
options that DOE screened out in the
July 2015 Final Rule, and the applicable
screening criteria.
TABLE II.4—PREVIOUSLY SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE JULY 2015 FINAL RULE
Screening Criteria
(X = Basis for Screening Out)
Screened technology option
Technological
feasibility
Scroll Compressors ....................................................
Heat Pipes ..................................................................
Alternative Refrigerants ..............................................
X
X
X
Issue 10: With respect to the screened
out technology options listed in Table
II.4 of this RFI, DOE seeks information
on whether these options would, based
on current and projected assessments
regarding each of them, remain screened
out under the four screening criteria
described in this section. With respect
to each of these technology options,
what steps, if any, could be (or have
already been) taken to facilitate the
introduction of each option as a means
to improve the energy performance of
PTACs and PTHPs and the potential to
impact consumer utility of the PTACs
and PTHPs.
In development of the July 2015 Final
Rule, DOE identified two technology
options that were not included in the
engineering analysis because efficiency
benefits of the technologies were
negligible:
• Re-Circuiting Heat Exchanger Coils
and
• Rifled Interior Tube Walls.
80 FR 43162, 43172. In addition, DOE
did not consider the following
technology for the engineering analysis
because there was not data available to
evaluate the energy efficiency
characteristics of the technology:
• Microchannel Heat Exchanger.
Id. Finally, DOE did not consider the
following technologies for the
engineering analysis because the test
procedure and EER and COP metrics do
not measure the energy impact of the
technology:
• Complex Control Boards,
• Clutched Fan Motors,
• TEVs,
• Variable Speed Compressors,
• Corrosion Protection, and
• Hydrophobic Material Treatment of
Heat Exchangers.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
Practicability
to manufacture,
install, and
service
Adverse
impact on
equipment
utility
Id.
Issue 11: With respect to the
additional technologies identified in
development of the July 2015 Final Rule
but not included in the engineering
analysis, DOE seeks comment on its
prior exclusion of these technologies
and whether there have been changes
that would warrant further
consideration.
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
costs (‘‘MPCs’’) associated with
increasing the efficiency of equipment
above the baseline, up to the maximum
technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’)
efficiency level for each equipment
class. In this early assessment review
RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to these cost-benefit
calculations that could enable the
agency to determine whether to propose
a ‘‘no new standards’’ determination
because a more stringent standard: (1)
Would not result in a significant savings
of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically
justified; or (4) any combination of
foregoing.
DOE historically has used the
following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing
costs and establish efficiency levels
(‘‘ELs’’) for analysis: (1) The design-
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Adverse
impacts on
health and
safety
Unique-pathway
proprietary
technologies
option 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 material, 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 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 conservations standards 6 to
6 The current standards for Standard Size PTACs
at all cooling capacities are applicable to equipment
manufactured on or after January 1, 2017. The
current standards for Standard Size PTHPs at all
cooling capacities are applicable to equipment
manufactured on or after October 8, 2012. The
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
Continued
21DEP1
82960
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
establish the baseline efficiency levels
for each equipment class. As discussed
in section II.B.1 of this document, the
current standards for PTACs and PTHPs
are based on the full-load metrics, EER
and COP. The current standards for
PTACs and PTHPs are found at 10 CFR
431.97 and are presented in Table II.5 of
this document.
TABLE II.5—CURRENT PTAC AND PTHP ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARD LEVELS
Equipment class
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
..............
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTHP
Minimum energy conservation standard level
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
...........
Standard Size ............
Standard Size ............
Standard Size ............
Non-Standard Size ....
Non-Standard Size ....
Non-Standard Size ....
Standard Size ............
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
8 ..............
PTHP ...........
Standard Size ............
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
9 ..............
PTHP 2 ........
Standard Size ............
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
10 ............
PTHP ...........
Non-Standard Size ....
<7,000 Btu/h ..................................................
11 ............
PTHP ...........
Non-Standard Size ....
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...................
12 ............
PTHP ...........
Non-Standard Size ....
>15,000 Btu/h ................................................
EER = 11.9.
EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1).
EER = 9.5.
EER = 9.4.
EER = 10.9¥(0.213 × Cap 1).
EER = 7.7.
EER = 11.9.
COP = 3.3.
EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1).
COP = 3.7¥(0.052 × Cap 1).
EER = 9.5.
COP = 2.9.
EER = 9.3.
COP = 2.7.
EER = 10.8¥(0.213 × Cap 1).
COP = 2.9¥(0.026 × Cap 1).
EER = 7.6.
COP = 2.5.
1 Cap
means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
on DOE’s review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any Standard Size PTHP models with a cooling
capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
2 Based
2. Maximum Available and Maximum
Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE’s analysis, the
maximum available efficiency level 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 July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
determined the max-tech improvements
in energy efficiency for PTACs and
PTHPs in the engineering analysis using
the design parameters that passed the
screening analysis, a combination of the
efficiency-level approach, and the
reverse engineering approach. 80 FR
43162, 43173. In addition, DOE
surveyed the rated efficiencies of PTACs
listed in the AHRI Directory to
determine that the maximum efficiency
units extended up to 17.5 percent above
the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013
baseline. Id. at 80 FR 43175. In the July
2015 Final Rule DOE maintained the
standard levels for non-standard size
PTAC and PTHP equipment finding that
because of the small and declining
number of shipments in each of the nonstandard size equipment classes, clear
and convincing evidence was lacking to
support more stringent standards. Id. at
80 FR 43167. DOE only analyzed the six
standard size equipment classes for
PTACs and PTHPs for the engineering
analysis. Id. at 80 FR 43174. For
additional details regarding the
engineering analysis conducted for the
July 2015 Final Rule see Chapter 5 of
the July 2015 Final Rule Technical
Support Document (‘‘TSD’’).7
Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on
whether the technology improvements
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this
RFI are applicable to both standard size
and non-standard size units and if they
have similar impacts on efficiency.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on
whether it is necessary to individually
analyze all or some of the available
equipment classes.
Table II.6 shows the max-tech
efficiency levels considered for the July
2015 Final Rule, which were assumed to
be 16.2 percent above the baseline, and
the maximum-available based on the
current market for each equipment
classes. To develop preliminary
maximum-available linear equations for
both standard size PTAC and standard
size PTHP ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000
Btu/h, DOE created a linear fit between
the two models in the CCMS Database
that were the highest absolute value
above the baseline.8 This ensures that
all models are either at or below this
line.
TABLE II.6—MAX-TECH AND MAXIMUM-AVAILABLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS
Equipment class
Standard
Standard
Standard
Standard
Size
Size
Size
Size
PTAC
PTAC
PTAC
PTHP
Max-tech July 2015 Final Rule
<7,000 Btu/h ..........................................................
≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...........................
>15,000 Btu/h ........................................................
<7,000 Btu/h ..........................................................
current standards for all Non-Standard Size PTACs
and PTHPs are applicable to equipment
manufactured on or after October 7, 2010.
7 The July 2015 Final Rule TSD is available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2012-BT-STD-0029-0040.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
13.8 EER a .....................................
EER = 16.3¥(0.354 × Cap b) .......
11.0 EER .......................................
13.8 EER a .....................................
3.8 COP a ......................................
8 The preliminary maximum-available linear
equations were calculated with the following
models. For standard size PTACs ≥7,000 Btu/h and
≤15,000 Btu/h, these two models were rated at
9,700 Btu/h, 12.8 EER and 14,900 Btu/h, 11.2 EER.
For standard size PTHPs ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Maximum-available current market
13.0 EER.
EER = 15.8¥(0.308 × Cap b).c
9.7 EER.
13.1 EER.
4.0 COP.
Btu/h cooling efficiency, these two models were
rated at 9,700 Btu/h, 12.8 EER and 14,900 Btu/h,
11.2 EER. For standard size PTHPs ≥7,000 Btu/h
and ≤15,000 Btu/h heating efficiency, these two
models were rated at 7,000 Btu/h, 4.0 COP and
8,500 Btu/h, 3.8 COP.
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
82961
TABLE II.6—MAX-TECH AND MAXIMUM-AVAILABLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS—Continued
Equipment class
Max-tech July 2015 Final Rule
Standard Size PTHP ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h ...........................
EER = 16.3¥(0.354 × Cap b) .......
COP = 4.3¥(0.073 × Cap b) .........
11.0 EER .......................................
3.2 COP.
Standard Size PTHP >15,000 Btu/h 3 ......................................................
Maximum-available current market
EER = 15.8¥(0.308 × Cap b).c
COP = 4.6¥(0.075 × Cap b).c
N/A.d
a. Based on Max Tech equation shown in Table IV.4 of the July 2015 Final Rule at 7,000 Btu/h.
b. Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
c. Based on method of creating a linear fit between the two models in the CCMS Database that were the highest absolute value above the
baseline.
d. Based on DOE’s review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any PTHP models with a cooling capacity
greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
Issue 14: DOE seeks input on whether
the maximum available efficiency levels
are appropriate as the max-tech for
potential consideration as possible
energy conservation standards for the
equipment at issue—and if not, what
efficiency levels should be considered
max-tech?
Issue 15: DOE seeks feedback on what
design options would be incorporated at
a max-tech efficiency level. As part of
this request, 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
PTAC and PTHP test procedure to
incorporate a seasonal metric, it would
conduct any analysis for future
standards rulemaking based on the
amended test procedure, including
considering efficiency levels based on a
seasonal metric.
Issue 16: DOE seeks data and
information regarding incremental and
maximum-available efficiency levels for
each equipment class under seasonal
energy efficiency metrics. 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.
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 July 2015 Final Rule,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
DOE identified the efficiency levels for
the analysis based on the range of rated
efficiencies of PTAC and PTHP
equipment in the AHRI database. DOE
selected PTAC and PTHP equipment
that was representative of the market at
different efficiency levels, then
purchased, tested, and reverse
engineered the selected equipment. DOE
used the cost-assessment approach to
determine the MPCs for PTAC and
PTHP equipment across a range of
efficiencies from the baseline to maxtech efficiency levels. 80 FR 43162,
43173 See chapter 5 of the July 2015
Final Rule TSD for additional detail.
Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on
how manufacturers would incorporate
the technology options listed in Table
II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI to increase
energy efficiency in PTACs and PTHPs
beyond the baseline. This includes
information on the order in which
manufacturers would incorporate the
different technologies to incrementally
improve the efficiencies of equipment.
Issue 18: DOE also seeks input on the
increase in MPC associated with
incorporating each particular design
option. 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 19: DOE requests comment on
whether certain design options may not
be applicable to (or may be
incompatible with) specific equipment
classes.
Issue 20: DOE requests information on
how it could conduct the cost-efficiency
analyses for PTHPs >15,000 Btu/h, for
which there are no models on the
market and for which DOE does not
have data.
To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE
applies a non-production cost multiplier
(the manufacturer markup) to the MPC.
The resulting manufacturer selling price
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(‘‘MSP’’) is the price at which the
manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the July 2015 Final Rule,
DOE used a manufacturer markup of
1.27 for all PTACs and PTHPs. 80 FR
43162, 43177. See chapter 6 of the July
2015 Final Rule TSD for additional
detail.
Issue 21: DOE requests feedback on
whether manufacturer markup of 1.27 is
appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs.
E. Distribution Channels
In this early assessment review RFI,
DOE seeks information with respect to
the distribution channels that could
enable the department to determine
whether to propose a ‘‘no new
standard’’ determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is
not technologically feasible; (3) is not
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing. In generating
end-user price inputs for the life-cycle
cost (‘‘LCC’’) analysis and national
impact analysis (‘‘NIA’’), DOE must
identify distribution channels (i.e., how
the equipment are distributed from the
manufacturer to the consumer), and
estimate relative sales volumes through
each channel. DOE identified four
distribution channels for PTACs and
PTHPs to describe how the equipment
passes from the manufacturer to the
consumer. 80 FR 43162, 43177–43178.
The four distribution channels are listed
below:
The first distribution channel is only
used in the new construction market
and it represents sales directly from a
manufacturer to the end use customer
through a national account.
Manufacturer → National Account →
End user
The second distribution channel
represents replacement markets, where
a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler,
who sells to a mechanical contractor,
who in turn sells to the end user.
Manufacturer → Wholesaler →
Mechanical Contractor → End user
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
82962
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
The third distribution channel, which
is used in both new construction and
replacement markets, the manufacturer
sells the equipment to a wholesaler,
who in turn sells it to a mechanical
contractor, who in turn sells it to a
general contractor, who sells it to the
end user.
Manufacturer → Wholesaler →
Mechanical Contractor → General
Contractor → End user
Finally, in the fourth distribution
channel, which is also used in both the
new construction and replacement
markets, a manufacturer sells to a
wholesaler, who in turn sells directly to
the end user.
Manufacturer → Wholesaler → End User
Issue 22: DOE requests information on
the existence of any distribution
channels other than the four
distribution channels identified in the
July 2015 Final Rule that are used to
distribute PTACs and PTHPs into the
market. DOE also requests data on the
fraction of PTAC and PTHP sales that go
through each of the four identified
distribution channels as well as the
fraction of sales through any other
identified channels.
F. Energy Use Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI,
DOE seeks data and information with
respect to energy use of PTACs and
PTHPs that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ‘‘no
new standard’’ determination because a
more stringent standard: (1) Would not
result in a significant savings of energy;
(2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is
not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
As part of the 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. In the July
2015 Final Rule, DOE developed
estimates of the unit energy
consumption (‘‘UEC’’) in kilowatt hours
(‘‘kWh’’) by equipment type and EL.
Energy savings from higher efficiency
equipment was measured by comparing
the UECs of higher ELs to the UEC of the
ASHRAE baseline EL. 80 FR 43162,
43178–43179.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
began with the UECs developed for
PTACs and PTHPs in the October 2008
Final Rule. 73 FR 58772. DOE adjusted
the base-year UEC to account for
changes in climate between 2008 and
2013 using heating degree-days and
cooling degree-days from a typical
meteorological year (‘‘TMY’’) data set
(referred to as TMY2) and an updated
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
TMY3 data set. For each efficiency level
that was previously analyzed in the
October 2008 Final Rule, DOE used the
TMY3-adjusted UEC value for that level.
For efficiency levels that were not
previously analyzed, DOE scaled the
TMY3-adjusted cooling UECs based on
interpolations between the EER values
at different ELs and scaled the TMY3adjusted heating UECs based on
interpolations between the COP values
at different ELs. 80 FR 43162, 43178–
43179. Please refer to Chapter 7 of the
July 2015 Final Rule TSD for more
detail.
The UECs developed in the July 2015
Final Rule do not represent the energy
use of make-up air units. DOE plans to
use building loads from the small hotel
commercial building prototypes and
match those loads to performance data
to properly account for the different
operation of make-up air units and
determine UECs to use for make-up air
PTACs and PTHPs in the current energy
use analysis.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on
the approach that was used to develop
UECs in the energy use analysis for the
July 2015 Final Rule, as well as any
potential improvements in equipment
that might impact UECs, or data
indicating actual UECs for this
equipment.
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on
its approach to measure energy use of
make-up air PTACs and PTHPs.
Specifically, are these units used in any
applications other than lodging? Also,
are make-up air units primarily used in
new construction or they also installed
in replacement applications?
Issue 25: DOE requests performance
data for make-up air PTACs and PTHPs.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI,
DOE seeks data and information with
respect to life-cycle cost and payback
periods for PTACs and PTHPs that
could enable the agency to determine
whether to propose a ‘‘no new
standard’’ determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is
not technologically feasible; (3) is not
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
DOE conducts the LCC and payback
period (‘‘PBP’’) analysis to evaluate the
economic effects of potential energy
conservation standards for PTACs and
PTHPs 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
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
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 LCC analysis,
DOE estimates repair and maintenance
costs over the lifetime of the PTACs and
PTHPs. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
used typical PTAC and PTHP warranties
to estimate repair costs. DOE used a
report on component failure rates and
standard warranty terms prepared by
EER Consulting LLC along with RS
Means 9 for the labor and materials
repair cost of different components.
Most PTACs and PTHPs come with a
one-year warranty covering all repairs
and a 5-year limited warranty which
covers repairs of the refrigeration system
(non-refrigeration repairs would be paid
by the owner in the second through fifth
year of ownership). After the fifth year
of ownership, the owner bears the full
cost of a repair. DOE determined the
expected value of the total cost of a
repair and annualized it to determine
the annual repair cost. DOE scaled the
typical repair costs by cooling capacity
and manufacturer selling price to
determine the repair costs for the
equipment classes and efficiency levels
considered in the July 2015 Final Rule.
80 FR 43162, 43180. More information
on the development of repair costs can
be found in Chapter 8 of the July 2015
Final Rule TSD.
The maintenance costs used in the
July 2015 Final Rule were taken from
the October 2008 Final Rule, where the
annual maintenance cost for PTACs was
$50. DOE adjusted this figure for
inflation to arrive at an annual
maintenance cost of $55.56. The
annualized costs for PTHPs were
derived from the annualized
maintenance costs for PTACs based on
RS Means 10 data for both PTACs and
PTHPs. The percentage difference was
applied to the PTAC maintenance costs
to arrive at an annual maintenance cost
of $62.62 for PTHPs. More information
9 RS Means Company, Inc. ‘‘RS Means Facilities
Maintenance and Repair Cost Data,’’ 2013.
10 RS Means Company, Inc. RSMeans Online,
(Last accessed March 26, 2013.) https://
www.rsmeansonline.com.
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
82963
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
on the development of maintenance
costs can be found in Chapter 8 of the
July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 26: DOE requests information
and data on the frequency of repair and
repair costs by equipment class for the
technology options listed in Table II.2
and Table II.3 of this RFI. While DOE is
interested in information regarding each
of the listed technology options, DOE is
also interested in whether, and at what
point, consumers simply replace PTACs
and PTHPs when they fail as opposed
to repairing them.
Issue 27: DOE requests feedback and
data on whether maintenance costs for
any of the specific technology options
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this
RFI differ in comparison to the baseline
maintenance costs. To the extent that
these costs differ, DOE seeks supporting
data and the reasons for those
differences.
H. Shipments
In this early assessment review RFI,
DOE seeks data and information with
respect to PTACs and PTHPs shipments
that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ‘‘no
new standard’’ determination because a
more stringent standard: (1) Would not
result in a significant savings of energy;
(2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is
not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
DOE develops shipments forecasts of
PTACs and PTHPs 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. Up-to-date
sales estimates allow for a more accurate
model that captures recent trends in the
market.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
relied on historical shipments data
provided by AHRI from 1998–2012. The
shipments were distributed among the
six standard size equipment classes that
were analyzed in the prior rulemaking
based on the average shares of each
class from 1998–2004. 80 FR 43162,
43182. DOE assumed that this
shipments breakdown by equipment
class would stay constant throughout
the analysis period. For more detail on
the shipments analysis, please refer to
Chapter 9 of the July 2015 Final Rule
TSD.
Issue 28: DOE requests the most
recent annual sales data (i.e., number of
shipments) as well as historical annual
sales data going back to 2015 for all
equipment classes.
Issue 29: DOE requests the number of
shipments by equipment class and
efficiency level for the most recent year
available. If disaggregated fractions of
annual sales are not available at the
equipment type class or efficiency level,
DOE requests more aggregated fractions
of annual sales at the category level.
Table II.7 shows the model counts by
equipment class for PTACs and PTHPs
along with the fraction of models by
EER bin listed in the DOE CCMS
database. In Issue 32, DOE requests that
interested parties supplement this table
with shipments data from 2015–2018.
Interested parties are also encouraged to
provide additional shipment data as
may be relevant.
TABLE II.7—COUNT AND DISTRIBUTION OF PTAC AND PTHP MODELS BY EQUIPMENT CLASS
Product class
Cooling capacity (Btu/
h)
Fraction of models by EER bin 1
(percent)
CCMS
model count
7.1–8 EER
Standard size PTAC ..
Standard size PTHP ..
Non-Standard size
PTAC.
Non-Standard size
PTHP.
1 An
8.1–9.0
EER
9.1–10.0
EER
10.1–11.0
EER
11.1–12.0
EER
12.1–13.0
EER
>13.1 EER
<7,000 .......................
7,000 to 15,000 .........
>15,000 .....................
<7,000 .......................
7,000 to 15,000 .........
>15,000 .....................
<7,000 .......................
56
1,363
14
76
1,009
0
12
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0
N/A
N/A
11
100
N/A
8
0
0
N/A
35
0
N/A
35
0
0
64
34
0
64
36
0
100
9
20
0
33
21
0
0
27
1
0
3
0
0
0
7,000 to 15,000 .........
>15,000 .....................
<7,000 .......................
1,048
23
12
15
48
N/A
37
0
N/A
30
52
0
10
0
0
8
0
100
0
0
0
0
0
0
7,000 to 15,000 .........
>15,000 .....................
884
12
19
0
42
0
36
100
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
N/A indicates that the EER bin is below the federal minimum for that equipment class.
Issue 30: If available, DOE requests
shipment data covering the equipment
classes and efficiency bins in Table II.7
of this RFI for each year going back to
2015.
Issue 31: DOE requests the number of
shipments of make-up air PTACs and
PTHPs in 2018 along with any future
growth projections for make-up air
units.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE
received comments that PTAC and
PTHP lifetimes should be similar to the
renovation cycles at hotels, which occur
every 7 years on average. 80 FR 43162,
43180. DOE based equipment lifetime
on a retirement function in the form of
a Weibull probability distribution, with
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
a mean of 7 years for lodging
applications (70% of the market) and a
mean of 10 years for all other
applications. A Weibull distribution is a
probability distribution function that is
commonly used to measure failure rates.
Its form is similar to an exponential
distribution, which would model a fixed
failure rate, except that it allows for a
failure rate that changes over time. For
more detail on the lifetime
measurement, please refer to Chapter 8
of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on
the average lifetime of 7 years for
lodging applications and 10 years for all
other applications. DOE also requests
comment on the Weibull approach,
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
along with any new data or information
about the lifetimes of PTACs and
PTHPs. DOE also requests input on
whether equipment lifetimes vary by
equipment class, by efficiency, or by
end use.
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI,
DOE seeks data and information with
respect to manufacturer impacts that
could enable the agency to determine
whether to propose a ‘‘no new
standard’’ determination because a more
stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is
not technologically feasible; (3) is not
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
82964
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
The purpose of the manufacturer
impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’) is to estimate
the financial impact of amended energy
conservation standards on
manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs,
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 equipment in this
analysis, with the key output of industry
net present value (‘‘INPV’’). The
qualitative part of the MIA addresses the
potential impacts of energy conservation
standards on manufacturing capacity
and industry competition, as well as
factors such as equipment
characteristics, impacts on particular
subgroups of firms, and important
market and equipment 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.11
Manufacturing of consumer PTACs and
PTHPs is classified under NAICS
335415, ‘‘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.
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
11 Available online at https://www.sba.gov/
document/support--table-size-standards.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
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 33: To the extent feasible, DOE
seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreignbased manufacturers that distribute
PTACs and PTHPs in the United States.
Issue 34: 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 PTACs and PTHPs
that distribute equipment 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 35: DOE requests information
regarding the cumulative regulatory
burden impacts on manufacturers of
PTACs and PTHPs 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.
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 PTACs and
PTHPs.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2. Network Mode/‘‘Smart’’ Technology
DOE published an RFI on the
emerging smart technology appliance
and equipment market. 83 FR 46886
(Sept. 17, 2018) (‘‘2018 RFI’’). In the
2018 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 2018 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. As part of this
early assessment review, DOE seeks
comments, data and information on the
issues presented in the 2018 RFI as they
may be applicable to energy
conservation standards for PTACs and
PTHPs.
3. Other Issues
Additionally, DOE welcomes
comments on other issues relevant to
the conduct of this early assessment
review 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). Pursuant to 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 PTACs and PTHPs 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 PTACs and
PTHPs. 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 document.
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
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules
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.
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
VerDate Sep<11>2014
21:22 Dec 18, 2020
Jkt 253001
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.
According 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 to
PTACHP2019STD0035@ee.doe.gov 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
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
82965
in the rulemaking process. Anyone who
wishes to be added to the DOE mailing
list to receive future notices and
information about this process or would
like to request a public meeting should
contact Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program staff at (202) 287–
1445 or via email at
ApplianceStandardsQuestions@
ee.doe.gov.
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of
Energy was signed on December 8, 2020,
by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant
Secretary for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy,
pursuant to delegated authority from the
Secretary of Energy. That document
with the original signature and date is
maintained by DOE. For administrative
purposes only, and in compliance with
requirements of the Office of the Federal
Register, the undersigned DOE Federal
Register Liaison Officer has been
authorized to sign and submit the
document in electronic format for
publication, as an official document of
the Department of Energy. This
administrative process in no way alters
the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 9,
2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S.
Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020–27456 Filed 12–18–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
12 CFR Part 1282
RIN 2590–AB12
Enterprise Housing Goals
Federal Housing Finance
Agency.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking.
AGENCY:
The Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA) is publishing an
Advance Notice of Proposed
Rulemaking (ANPR) requesting public
comment on a variety of questions
related to potential changes to the
regulation establishing housing goals for
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac
(Enterprises). FHFA will consider
public comments received on these
questions in order to inform rulemaking
that is planned for 2021 to establish
single-family and multifamily housing
goals benchmark levels for 2022 and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\21DEP1.SGM
21DEP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82952-82965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27456]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Part 431
[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035]
RIN 1904-AE66
Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for
Consumer Products; Early Assessment Review; Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Request for information; Early Assessment Review.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an early
assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards
would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended
energy conservation standard for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners
(``PTACs'') and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps (``PTHPs). Specifically,
through this request for information (``RFI''), 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: Would not result in a significant savings of
energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified;
or any combination of foregoing. 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 concerning this early assessment
review.
DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before
March 8, 2021.
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-0035, 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-0035 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-0035. 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: Mr. Bryan Berringer, 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) 586-0371. Email:
[email protected].
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. 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:
[[Page 82953]]
Table of Contents
I. Introduction
A. Authority
B. Rulemaking History
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. Review of Current Market
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. Distribution Channels
F. Energy Use Analysis
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
H. Shipments
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
1. Market Failures
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments
I. Introduction
DOE established an early assessment review process to conduct a
more focused analysis of a specific set of facts or circumstances that
would allow DOE to determine, based on one or more statutory criteria,
a new or amended energy conservation standard is not warranted. The
purpose of this review is to limit the resources, from both DOE and
stakeholders, committed to rulemakings that will not satisfy the
requirements of EPCA that a new or amended energy conservation standard
save a significant amount of energy, and be economically justified and
technologically feasible. See 85 FR 8626, 8653, 8654 (Feb. 14, 2020).
As part of the early assessment, DOE publishes an RFI in the
Federal Register, announcing that DOE is considering initiating a
rulemaking proceeding and soliciting comments, data, and information on
whether a new or amended energy conservation standard would save a
significant amount of energy and be technologically feasible and
economically justified. Based on the information received in response
to the RFI and DOE's own analysis, DOE will determine whether to
proceed with a rulemaking for a new or amended energy conservation
standard.
If DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence
that a new or amended energy conservation standard would not meet the
applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment
rulemaking before issuing a final determination that new or amended
energy conservation standards are not warranted. Conversely, if DOE
makes an initial determination that a new or amended energy
conservation standard would satisfy the applicable statutory criteria
or DOE's analysis is inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary
stages of a rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation
standard. Beginning such a rulemaking, however, would not preclude DOE
from later making a determination that a new or amended energy
conservation standard cannot satisfy the requirements in EPCA, based
upon the full suite of DOE's analyses. See 85 FR 8626, 8654 (Feb. 14,
2020).
A. Authority
The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), as amended,\1\
among other things authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law
95-619, Title IV, Section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified),
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve
energy efficiency. This equipment includes PTACs and PTHPs, the subject
of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(I)) EPCA prescribed initial standards
for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C.
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
Federal energy 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. 6297(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of
Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
In EPCA, Congress initially set mandatory energy conservation
standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning,
and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the
statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, PTACs and PTHPs, warm-
air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous
water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. Id. In doing so,
EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards at levels that
generally corresponded to the levels in American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard
90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential
Buildings'', as in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., ``ASHRAE Standard
90.1-1989''), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C.
6313(a).
In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy
efficiency benefits, Congress directed DOE through EPCA to consider
amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for each
type of equipment listed, 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 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.\3\ (42 U.S.C.
[[Page 82954]]
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the
minimum efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard
90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after
publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C.
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines, supported by clear
and convincing evidence, that a more-stringent uniform national
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy
and is technologically feasible and economically justified, then DOE
must establish such more-stringent uniform national standard not later
than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ In determining whether a more-stringent standard is
economically justified, EPCA directs DOE to determine, after
receiving views and comments from the public, whether the benefits
of the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the proposed standard
by, to the maximum extent practicable, considering the following:
(1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
(2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial
cost or maintenance expense;
(3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to
result directly from the standard;
(4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the
products likely to result from the standard;
(5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
(6) The need for national energy conservation; and
(7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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 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 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)) 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 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)) This is a separate statutory
review obligation, as differentiated from the obligation triggered by
an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment. 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.
As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the standards for
PTACs and PTHPs, DOE is requesting data and information pursuant to the
6-year-lookback review. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Such information will
help DOE inform its decisions, consistent with its obligations under
EPCA.
B. Rulemaking History
On July 21, 2015, DOE published amendments to the PTAC and PTHP
standards in response to the 2013 update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e.,
``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013''). 80 FR 43162 (``July 2015 Final Rule'').
DOE determined that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 amended the standards for
three of the 12 PTAC and PTHP equipment classes: PTAC Standard Size
<7,000 Btu/h, PTAC Standard Size >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h, and
PTAC Standard Size >15,000 Btu/h. 80 FR 43162, 43163. DOE adopted the
standard levels for the three equipment classes as updated by ASHRAE
Standard 90.1. Id. Compliance with the amended standards was required
as of January 1, 2017. Id. DOE did not amend the energy conservation
standards for the remaining equipment classes which were already
equivalent to the standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. Id. DOE was
unable to show with clear and convincing evidence that energy
conservation standards at levels more stringent than the minimum levels
specified in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for any of the 12 equipment
classes would be economically justified. Id. The current energy
conservation standards are located in Title 10 Code of Federal
Regulations (``CFR'') section 431.97, Table 8.
DOE's current test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs were established
in a final rule on June 30, 2015. 80 FR 37136. The current test
procedure for cooling mode testing incorporates by reference Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') Standard
310/380-2014, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and
Heat Pumps'' (``AHRI 310/380-2014''), with the following sections
applicable to the DOE test procedure: Sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and
4.4. In addition to the specified provisions of AHRI 310/380-2014, the
PTACs and PTHPs must be tested according to either American National
Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014), ``Method of
Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014)''), or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009''). The
current test procedure for heating mode testing incorporates by
reference AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, with the following sections
applicable to the DOE test procedure: Sections 3, 4.1, 4.2 (except
section 4.2.1.2(b)), 4.3, and 4.4; and ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 2014),
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air-Conditioner and Packaged
Terminal Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA
2014)''). (10 CFR 431.96(g)) The currently applicable DOE test
procedures for PTACs and PTHPs appear at 10 CFR 431.96 in paragraph
(g).
The current test procedure also requires that manufacturers adhere
to additional provisions in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96.
(10 CFR 431.96(b)(1)) Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 431.96 includes
provisions for an optional compressor break-in period, while paragraph
(e) of 10 CFR 431.96 clarifies what information sources can be used for
unit set-up and provides specific set-up instructions for refrigerant
parameters (e.g., superheat) and air flow rate.
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been updated since the 2013 version, most
recently with the release of the 2019 version (i.e., ANSI/ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1-2019, ``Energy Efficiency Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings'') on October 24, 2019. However, the
standard levels for PTACs and PTHPs remain unchanged from the 2013
version.
II. Request for Information and Comments
DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during
the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its
obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed
with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Accordingly, in the
following sections, DOE has identified specific issues on which it
seeks input to aid in its analysis of whether an amended standard for
PTAC or PTHP
[[Page 82955]]
would not save a significant amount of energy or be technologically
feasible or economically justified. In particular, DOE is interested in
any information indicating that there has been sufficient technological
or market changes since DOE last conducted an energy conservation
standards rulemaking analysis for PTAC or PTHPs to suggest a more-
stringent standard could satisfy these criteria. DOE also welcomes
comment on other issues relevant to its early assessment that may not
specifically identified in this document.
Pursuant to DOE's recently amended ``Process Rule'' (85 FR 8626;
Feb. 14, 2020), DOE stated that as a first step in a proceeding to
consider establishing or amending an energy conservation standard, such
as the existing standards for PTACs and PTHP at issue in this document,
DOE would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that DOE
is considering initiation of a proceeding, and as part of that notice,
DOE would request submission of related comments, including data and
information showing whether any new or amended standard would satisfy
the relevant requirements in EPCA for a new or amended energy
conservation standard. Based on the information received in response to
the notice and its own analysis, DOE would determine whether to proceed
with a rulemaking for a new or amended standard, or issue a proposed
determination that the standards do not need to be amended.
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)(I) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))) To
determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires
that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its
burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the
following seven factors:
1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and
consumers of products subject to the standard;
2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the
covered products which 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
products likely to result from the standard;
5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the
standard;
6. The need for national energy conservation; and
7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II), referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
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 manufacturers and Manufacturer Impact
consumers. Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
Life-Cycle Cost
Subgroup Analysis.
Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings Markups for Product
compared to increased cost for the Price Determination.
product. Energy and Water Use
Determination.
Life-Cycle Cost and
Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings...... Shipments Analysis.
National Impact
Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance.... Screening Analysis.
Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of Manufacturer Impact
competition. Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and water Shipments Analysis.
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 noted in Section I.A., DOE is publishing this early assessment
review RFI to collect 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 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 meets the definitions of PTACs and
PTHPs, as codified at 10 CFR 431.92. The definitions for PTACs and
PTHPs were established under EPCA and codified in
[[Page 82956]]
a test procedure final rule issued October 21, 2004. (42 U.S.C.
6311(10)); 69 FR 61962, 61970.
DOE defines ``packaged terminal air conditioners'' as a wall sleeve
and a separate un-encased combination of heating and cooling assemblies
specified by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall,
and that is industrial equipment. It includes a prime source of
refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and
heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or
electricity. (10 CFR 431.92)
DOE defines ``packaged terminal heat pumps'' as a packaged terminal
air conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime
heat source, that has a supplementary heat source available, with the
choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant heat, and that is
industrial equipment. Id.
On October 7, 2008, DOE published a final rule amending the energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs in which DOE divided
equipment classes based on whether a PTAC or PTHP is a standard size or
non-standard size. 73 FR 58772 (``October 2008 Final Rule'').
DOE defines ``standard size'' as a PTAC or PTHP with wall sleeve
dimensions having an external wall opening of greater than or equal to
16 inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and a cross-
sectional area greater than or equal to 670 square inches. (10 CFR
431.92)
DOE defines ``non-standard size'' as a PTAC or PTHP with existing
wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of less than 16
inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area
less than 670 square inches. Id.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for PTACs
and PTHPs require any revisions--and if so, DOE requests information on
why revisions are needed and how those definitions should be revised.
DOE also requests feedback on whether the sub-category definitions
currently in place for standard size and non-standard size are
appropriate or whether further modifications are needed. If these sub-
category definitions need modifying, DOE seeks specific input on how to
define these terms and information to support any such changes.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether additional equipment
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage
between equipment types. DOE also seeks input on whether such equipment
currently exist in the market or whether they are being planned for
introduction. DOE also requests comment on opportunities to combine
equipment classes that could reduce regulatory burden.
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 PTACs and PTHPs
industry that will be used to determine whether DOE should propose a
``no new standard'' determination. 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 PTACs and PTHPs. 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 PTACs and
PTHPs.
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
For PTACs and PTHPs, DOE currently prescribes energy efficiency
ratio (``EER'') as the cooling mode efficiency metric and coefficient
of performance (``COP'') as the heating mode efficiency metric. (10 CFR
431.96) These energy efficiency descriptors are the same as those
included in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 for PTACs and PTHPs. EER is the ratio of
the produced cooling effect of the PTAC or PTHP 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 PTHP 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
PTACs and PTHPs does not include a seasonal metric that includes part-
load performance.
On December 8, 2020, DOE published an RFI (the ``December 2020 TP
RFI'') to collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE's
test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs. 85 FR 78967. As part of the
December 2020 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should
consider adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric that
integrates part-load performance to better represent full-season
efficiency. 85 FR 78967. In the December 2020 TP RFI, DOE discusses in
detail three possible part-load efficiency metrics that are used for
rating other categories of commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment:
Integrated energy efficiency ratio (``IEER''), as
described in section 6.2 of AHRI Standard 340/360 (I/P)-2019, ``2019
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'',
Seasonal energy efficiency ratio (``SEER''), as described
in Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, and
Weighted-average combined energy efficiency ratio
(``CEER''), as described in a Decision and Order granting a petition
for waiver for certain room air conditioners. See 84 FR 20111, 20113
(May 8, 2019).
If DOE amends the PTAC and PTHP 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 PTACs and PTHPs, the current energy conservation standards
specified in 10 CFR 431.97(c) are based on 12 equipment classes
determined according to the following: Whether the equipment is an air
conditioner or a heat pump, whether the equipment is standard size or
non-standard size, and cooling capacity in British thermal unit per
hour (``Btu/h''). Table II.1 lists the current 12 equipment classes for
PTACs and PTHPs outlined in Table 7 to 10 CFR 431.97.
Table II.1--Current PTAC and PTHP Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1....... PTAC........... Standard Size......... <7,000 Btu/h.
2....... PTAC........... Standard Size......... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
3....... PTAC........... Standard Size......... >15,000 Btu/h.
4....... PTAC........... Non-Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h.
5....... PTAC........... Non-Standard Size..... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
[[Page 82957]]
6....... PTAC........... Non-Standard Size..... >15,000 Btu/h.
7....... PTHP........... Standard Size......... <7,000 Btu/h.
8....... PTHP........... Standard Size......... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
9 *..... PTHP........... Standard Size......... >15,000 Btu/h.
10...... PTHP........... Non-Standard Size..... <7,000 Btu/h.
11...... PTHP........... Non-Standard Size..... >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h.
12...... PTHP........... Non-Standard Size..... >15,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market,
DOE did not identify any Standard Size PTHP models with a cooling
capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
Issue 3: DOE requests feedback on the current PTAC and PTHP
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 equipment 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 impact equipment utility by eliminating any performance-
related features or reduce any compliance burdens.
a. ``Make-Up Air'' PTACs and PTHPs
As part of the December 2020 TP RFI, DOE described ``make-up air''
PTACs and their additional function of dehumidification. 85 FR 78967.
As discussed in section II.B.1, for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE currently
specifies EER as the test metric for cooling efficiency. For PTHPs, DOE
specifies COP as the test metric for heating efficiency. Neither the
current test procedure, 10 CFR 431.96, nor the industry test procedure,
AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, account for the energy associated with the
conditioning of make-up air introduced by the unit.
If DOE amends the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate
measurement of dehumidification energy for ``make-up air'' PTACs and
PTHPs, a separate equipment class for this type of units may be
warranted. DOE would conduct any analysis for future standards
rulemakings, if any, based on the amended test procedure.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on how a ``make-up air PTAC'' and a
``make-up air PTHP'' could be defined, and what characteristics could
be used to distinguish make-up air PTACs and PTHPs from other PTACs and
PTHPs. DOE requests information on the consumer utility provided by a
PTAC or PTHP that provides make-up air. DOE also requests information
and data on the associated energy use associated with the function of
providing ``make-up air.'' DOE also requests comment on if the same
capacity ranges used for non-``make-up air'' PTACs and PTHPs would be
appropriate to use for equipment classes for possible ``make-up air''
PTAC and PTHP equipment classes (i.e., <7,000 Btu/h, >=7,000 Btu/h and
<=15,000 Btu/h, and >15,000 Btu/h). Finally, DOE requests comment on if
there are both Standard Size and Non-Standard Size ``make-up air''
PTACs and PTHPs.
Issue 5: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically,
DOE requests information on the performance-related features that
provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the corresponding
impacts on energy use that would justify separate product classes
(i.e., explanation for why the presence of these performance-related
features would increase energy consumption).
3. Review of Current Market
To inform its evaluation of PTACs and PTHPs, DOE initially reviewed
data in the DOE Compliance Certification Database \4\ (``CCMS
database'') to characterize the distribution of efficiencies for PTAC
and PTHP 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 PTACs and
PTHPs in the 11 equipment classes listed in Table II.1 for which DOE
has identified models on the market \5\ (see Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0035-0001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html
(accessed September 26th, 2019).
\5\ As noted in Table II.1, DOE did not identify any Standard
Size PTHP models with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
Based on the data shown in the supplemental file DOE has made
available for comment (see Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035-0001),
DOE requests feedback on whether using the current established
energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs 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.
4. Technology Assessment
In analyzing information to determine whether DOE should propose a
``no new standards determination'' for existing PTAC and PTHPs
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 analyzed during its most recent
rulemaking for PTACs and PTHPs, technology options DOE identified but
did not analyze, and newer technology options that DOE may also
consider in a future PTAC and PTHP energy conservation standards
rulemaking. Based on the technologies identified in the analysis for
the July 2015 Final Rule and a preliminary survey of the current
market, DOE has separately provided potential technology options in two
categories: Technologies that may increase efficiency at both full-load
and part-load conditions, listed in Table II.2; and technologies that
may only increase efficiency at part-load conditions, listed in Table
II.3.
[[Page 82958]]
Table II.2--Technology Options for PTACs and PTHPs That May Increase
Efficiency at Both Full-Load and Part-Load Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements:
Increased Heat Exchanger Area......... July 2015 Final Rule.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan
Improvements:
Higher Efficiency Fan Motors.......... July 2015 Final Rule.
Improved Air Flow and Fan Design...... July 2015 Final Rule.
More efficient fan geometries......... New Technology Option.
Compressor Improvements:
Higher Efficiency Compressors......... July 2015 Final Rule.
Scroll Compressors.................... Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
Other Improvements:
Heat Pipes............................ Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
Alternative Refrigerants.............. Screened out of July 2015
Final Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3--Technology Options for PTACs and PTHPs That May Increase
Efficiency at Only Part-Load Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology options Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan
Improvements:
Variable speed condenser fan/motor.... New Technology Option.
Variable speed indoor blower/motor.... New Technology Option.
Compressor Improvements:
Variable Speed Compressors............ July 2015 Final Rule.*
Other Improvements:
Electronic Expansion Valves (``EEV''). New Technology Option.
Thermal Expansion Valves (``TEV'').... July 2015 Final Rule.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Identified technology not analyzed because no full-load benefit.
Issue 6: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table
II.2 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these
technologies may impact the efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs as measured
according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how
those technologies identified in development of the July 2015 Final
Rule may have changed since that time. Specifically, DOE seeks
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics
that are currently available for each technology option.
Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether this new technology would
affect a determination as to whether DOE could propose a ``no new
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: Would not
result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically
feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of the
foregoing. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the new technologies
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI 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, etc.),
particularly as to changes that may have occurred since the July 2015
Final Rule.
Issue 8: 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.
As discussed in section II.B.1 of this RFI, DOE may consider
adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric that integrates
part-load performance.
TEVs and EEVs regulate the 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, TEVs 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. Variable-
speed compressors enable modulation of the refrigeration system cooling
capacity, allowing the unit to match the cooling or heating 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. 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.
Issue 9: In the event DOE were to amend the metric for the PTAC and
PTHP standards to account for part-load performance, DOE requests data
on the market penetration and efficiency improvement associated with
the technology options listed in Table II.3. In addition, DOE requests
data on any other technology options not listed above that would
improve the efficiency of equipment under part-load conditions.
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.
In this early assessment RFI, DOE seeks data and information with
respect to technologies previously screened out or retained that could
enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
the foregoing.
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 product 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 product
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 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
[[Page 82959]]
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, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. (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.
Table II.4 summarizes the technology options that DOE screened out
in the July 2015 Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.
Table II.4--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the July 2015 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening Criteria (X = Basis for Screening Out)
-------------------------------------------------------------
Technological Practicability to Adverse Adverse
Screened technology option feasibility manufacture, impact on impacts on Unique-pathway
install, and equipment health and proprietary
service utility safety technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll Compressors.............. X ................. ............ .......... ...............
Heat Pipes...................... X ................. ............ .......... ...............
Alternative Refrigerants........ X ................. ............ .......... ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 10: With respect to the screened out technology options
listed in Table II.4 of this RFI, DOE seeks information on whether
these options would, based on current and projected assessments
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the four screening
criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these
technology options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been)
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to
improve the energy performance of PTACs and PTHPs and the potential to
impact consumer utility of the PTACs and PTHPs.
In development of the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE identified two
technology options that were not included in the engineering analysis
because efficiency benefits of the technologies were negligible:
Re-Circuiting Heat Exchanger Coils and
Rifled Interior Tube Walls.
80 FR 43162, 43172. In addition, DOE did not consider the following
technology for the engineering analysis because there was not data
available to evaluate the energy efficiency characteristics of the
technology:
Microchannel Heat Exchanger.
Id. Finally, DOE did not consider the following technologies for
the engineering analysis because the test procedure and EER and COP
metrics do not measure the energy impact of the technology:
Complex Control Boards,
Clutched Fan Motors,
TEVs,
Variable Speed Compressors,
Corrosion Protection, and
Hydrophobic Material Treatment of Heat Exchangers.
Id.
Issue 11: With respect to the additional technologies identified in
development of the July 2015 Final Rule but not included in the
engineering analysis, DOE seeks comment on its prior exclusion of these
technologies and whether there have been changes that would warrant
further consideration.
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 costs (``MPCs'') associated with
increasing the efficiency of equipment above the baseline, up to the
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for
each equipment class. In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks
data and information with respect to these cost-benefit calculations
that could enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new
standards'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option 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
material, 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 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 conservations standards \6\ to
[[Page 82960]]
establish the baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class. As
discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, the current standards for
PTACs and PTHPs are based on the full-load metrics, EER and COP. The
current standards for PTACs and PTHPs are found at 10 CFR 431.97 and
are presented in Table II.5 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The current standards for Standard Size PTACs at all cooling
capacities are applicable to equipment manufactured on or after
January 1, 2017. The current standards for Standard Size PTHPs at
all cooling capacities are applicable to equipment manufactured on
or after October 8, 2012. The current standards for all Non-Standard
Size PTACs and PTHPs are applicable to equipment manufactured on or
after October 7, 2010.
Table II.5--Current PTAC and PTHP Energy Conservation Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class Minimum energy
conservation standard
level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................ PTAC................ Standard Size...... <7,000 Btu/h............ EER = 11.9.
2................ PTAC................ Standard Size...... >=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 14.0-(0.3 x Cap
<=15,000 Btu/h. \1\).
3................ PTAC................ Standard Size...... >15,000 Btu/h........... EER = 9.5.
4................ PTAC................ Non-Standard Size.. <7,000 Btu/h............ EER = 9.4.
5................ PTAC................ Non-Standard Size.. >=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.9-(0.213 x Cap
<=15,000 Btu/h. \1\).
6................ PTAC................ Non-Standard Size.. >15,000 Btu/h........... EER = 7.7.
7................ PTHP................ Standard Size...... <7,000 Btu/h............ EER = 11.9.
COP = 3.3.
8................ PTHP................ Standard Size...... >=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 14.0-(0.3 x Cap
<=15,000 Btu/h. \1\).
COP = 3.7-(0.052 x Cap
\1\).
9................ PTHP \2\............ Standard Size...... >15,000 Btu/h........... EER = 9.5.
COP = 2.9.
10............... PTHP................ Non-Standard Size.. <7,000 Btu/h............ EER = 9.3.
COP = 2.7.
11............... PTHP................ Non-Standard Size.. >=7,000 Btu/h and EER = 10.8-(0.213 x Cap
<=15,000 Btu/h. \1\).
COP = 2.9-(0.026 x Cap
\1\).
12............... PTHP................ Non-Standard Size.. >15,000 Btu/h........... EER = 7.6.
COP = 2.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
\2\ Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any Standard Size
PTHP models with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level
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 July 2015 Final Rule, DOE determined the max-tech
improvements in energy efficiency for PTACs and PTHPs in the
engineering analysis using the design parameters that passed the
screening analysis, a combination of the efficiency-level approach, and
the reverse engineering approach. 80 FR 43162, 43173. In addition, DOE
surveyed the rated efficiencies of PTACs listed in the AHRI Directory
to determine that the maximum efficiency units extended up to 17.5
percent above the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 baseline. Id. at 80 FR
43175. In the July 2015 Final Rule DOE maintained the standard levels
for non-standard size PTAC and PTHP equipment finding that because of
the small and declining number of shipments in each of the non-standard
size equipment classes, clear and convincing evidence was lacking to
support more stringent standards. Id. at 80 FR 43167. DOE only analyzed
the six standard size equipment classes for PTACs and PTHPs for the
engineering analysis. Id. at 80 FR 43174. For additional details
regarding the engineering analysis conducted for the July 2015 Final
Rule see Chapter 5 of the July 2015 Final Rule Technical Support
Document (``TSD'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ The July 2015 Final Rule TSD is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0029-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on whether the technology improvements
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI are applicable to both
standard size and non-standard size units and if they have similar
impacts on efficiency.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on whether it is necessary to
individually analyze all or some of the available equipment classes.
Table II.6 shows the max-tech efficiency levels considered for the
July 2015 Final Rule, which were assumed to be 16.2 percent above the
baseline, and the maximum-available based on the current market for
each equipment classes. To develop preliminary maximum-available linear
equations for both standard size PTAC and standard size PTHP >=7,000
Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h, DOE created a linear fit between the two
models in the CCMS Database that were the highest absolute value above
the baseline.\8\ This ensures that all models are either at or below
this line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The preliminary maximum-available linear equations were
calculated with the following models. For standard size PTACs
>=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h, these two models were rated at
9,700 Btu/h, 12.8 EER and 14,900 Btu/h, 11.2 EER. For standard size
PTHPs >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h cooling efficiency, these two
models were rated at 9,700 Btu/h, 12.8 EER and 14,900 Btu/h, 11.2
EER. For standard size PTHPs >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h
heating efficiency, these two models were rated at 7,000 Btu/h, 4.0
COP and 8,500 Btu/h, 3.8 COP.
Table II.6--Max-Tech and Maximum-Available Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maximum-available current
Equipment class Max-tech July 2015 Final Rule market
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size PTAC <7,000 Btu/h................... 13.8 EER \a\................. 13.0 EER.
Standard Size PTAC >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/ EER = 16.3-(0.354 x Cap \b\). EER = 15.8-(0.308 x Cap
h. \b\).\c\
Standard Size PTAC >15,000 Btu/h.................. 11.0 EER..................... 9.7 EER.
Standard Size PTHP <7,000 Btu/h................... 13.8 EER \a\................. 13.1 EER.
3.8 COP \a\.................. 4.0 COP.
[[Page 82961]]
Standard Size PTHP >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/ EER = 16.3-(0.354 x Cap \b\). EER = 15.8-(0.308 x Cap
h. COP = 4.3-(0.073 x Cap \b\).. \b\).\c\
COP = 4.6-(0.075 x Cap
\b\).\c\
Standard Size PTHP >15,000 Btu/h \3\.............. 11.0 EER..................... N/A.\d\
3.2 COP......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Based on Max Tech equation shown in Table IV.4 of the July 2015 Final Rule at 7,000 Btu/h.
b. Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
c. Based on method of creating a linear fit between the two models in the CCMS Database that were the highest
absolute value above the baseline.
d. Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any PTHP models
with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.
Issue 14: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available
efficiency levels are appropriate as the max-tech for potential
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the
equipment at issue--and if not, what efficiency levels should be
considered max-tech?
Issue 15: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level. As part of this request,
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 PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate a seasonal
metric, it would conduct any analysis for future standards rulemaking
based on the amended test procedure, including considering efficiency
levels based on a seasonal metric.
Issue 16: DOE seeks data and information regarding incremental and
maximum-available efficiency levels for each equipment class under
seasonal energy efficiency metrics. 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 July 2015 Final Rule, DOE identified the efficiency
levels for the analysis based on the range of rated efficiencies of
PTAC and PTHP equipment in the AHRI database. DOE selected PTAC and
PTHP equipment that was representative of the market at different
efficiency levels, then purchased, tested, and reverse engineered the
selected equipment. DOE used the cost-assessment approach to determine
the MPCs for PTAC and PTHP equipment across a range of efficiencies
from the baseline to max-tech efficiency levels. 80 FR 43162, 43173 See
chapter 5 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD for additional detail.
Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3
of this RFI to increase energy efficiency in PTACs and PTHPs beyond the
baseline. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers
would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve
the efficiencies of equipment.
Issue 18: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated
with incorporating each particular design option. 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 19: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options
may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific
equipment classes.
Issue 20: DOE requests information on how it could conduct the
cost-efficiency analyses for PTHPs >15,000 Btu/h, for which there are
no models on the market and for which DOE does not have data.
To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'')
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into
commerce. For the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE used a manufacturer markup
of 1.27 for all PTACs and PTHPs. 80 FR 43162, 43177. See chapter 6 of
the July 2015 Final Rule TSD for additional detail.
Issue 21: DOE requests feedback on whether manufacturer markup of
1.27 is appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs.
E. Distribution Channels
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks information with
respect to the distribution channels that could enable the department
to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. In
generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (``LCC'')
analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE must identify
distribution channels (i.e., how the equipment are distributed from the
manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales volumes
through each channel. DOE identified four distribution channels for
PTACs and PTHPs to describe how the equipment passes from the
manufacturer to the consumer. 80 FR 43162, 43177-43178. The four
distribution channels are listed below:
The first distribution channel is only used in the new construction
market and it represents sales directly from a manufacturer to the end
use customer through a national account.
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] End user
The second distribution channel represents replacement markets,
where a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler, who sells to a mechanical
contractor, who in turn sells to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Mechanical Contractor [rarr] End
user
[[Page 82962]]
The third distribution channel, which is used in both new
construction and replacement markets, the manufacturer sells the
equipment to a wholesaler, who in turn sells it to a mechanical
contractor, who in turn sells it to a general contractor, who sells it
to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Mechanical Contractor [rarr]
General Contractor [rarr] End user
Finally, in the fourth distribution channel, which is also used in
both the new construction and replacement markets, a manufacturer sells
to a wholesaler, who in turn sells directly to the end user.
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] End User
Issue 22: DOE requests information on the existence of any
distribution channels other than the four distribution channels
identified in the July 2015 Final Rule that are used to distribute
PTACs and PTHPs into the market. DOE also requests data on the fraction
of PTAC and PTHP sales that go through each of the four identified
distribution channels as well as the fraction of sales through any
other identified channels.
F. Energy Use Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to energy use of PTACs and PTHPs that could enable the
agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard''
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of
foregoing.
As part of the 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. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE developed estimates of
the unit energy consumption (``UEC'') in kilowatt hours (``kWh'') by
equipment type and EL. Energy savings from higher efficiency equipment
was measured by comparing the UECs of higher ELs to the UEC of the
ASHRAE baseline EL. 80 FR 43162, 43178-43179.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE began with the UECs developed for
PTACs and PTHPs in the October 2008 Final Rule. 73 FR 58772. DOE
adjusted the base-year UEC to account for changes in climate between
2008 and 2013 using heating degree-days and cooling degree-days from a
typical meteorological year (``TMY'') data set (referred to as TMY2)
and an updated TMY3 data set. For each efficiency level that was
previously analyzed in the October 2008 Final Rule, DOE used the TMY3-
adjusted UEC value for that level. For efficiency levels that were not
previously analyzed, DOE scaled the TMY3-adjusted cooling UECs based on
interpolations between the EER values at different ELs and scaled the
TMY3-adjusted heating UECs based on interpolations between the COP
values at different ELs. 80 FR 43162, 43178-43179. Please refer to
Chapter 7 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD for more detail.
The UECs developed in the July 2015 Final Rule do not represent the
energy use of make-up air units. DOE plans to use building loads from
the small hotel commercial building prototypes and match those loads to
performance data to properly account for the different operation of
make-up air units and determine UECs to use for make-up air PTACs and
PTHPs in the current energy use analysis.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on the approach that was used to
develop UECs in the energy use analysis for the July 2015 Final Rule,
as well as any potential improvements in equipment that might impact
UECs, or data indicating actual UECs for this equipment.
Issue 24: DOE requests comment on its approach to measure energy
use of make-up air PTACs and PTHPs. Specifically, are these units used
in any applications other than lodging? Also, are make-up air units
primarily used in new construction or they also installed in
replacement applications?
Issue 25: DOE requests performance data for make-up air PTACs and
PTHPs.
G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to life-cycle cost and payback periods for PTACs and PTHPs
that could enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any
combination of foregoing.
DOE conducts the LCC and payback period (``PBP'') analysis to
evaluate the economic effects of potential energy conservation
standards for PTACs and PTHPs 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 LCC
analysis, DOE estimates repair and maintenance costs over the lifetime
of the PTACs and PTHPs. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE used typical
PTAC and PTHP warranties to estimate repair costs. DOE used a report on
component failure rates and standard warranty terms prepared by EER
Consulting LLC along with RS Means \9\ for the labor and materials
repair cost of different components. Most PTACs and PTHPs come with a
one-year warranty covering all repairs and a 5-year limited warranty
which covers repairs of the refrigeration system (non-refrigeration
repairs would be paid by the owner in the second through fifth year of
ownership). After the fifth year of ownership, the owner bears the full
cost of a repair. DOE determined the expected value of the total cost
of a repair and annualized it to determine the annual repair cost. DOE
scaled the typical repair costs by cooling capacity and manufacturer
selling price to determine the repair costs for the equipment classes
and efficiency levels considered in the July 2015 Final Rule. 80 FR
43162, 43180. More information on the development of repair costs can
be found in Chapter 8 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ RS Means Company, Inc. ``RS Means Facilities Maintenance and
Repair Cost Data,'' 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The maintenance costs used in the July 2015 Final Rule were taken
from the October 2008 Final Rule, where the annual maintenance cost for
PTACs was $50. DOE adjusted this figure for inflation to arrive at an
annual maintenance cost of $55.56. The annualized costs for PTHPs were
derived from the annualized maintenance costs for PTACs based on RS
Means \10\ data for both PTACs and PTHPs. The percentage difference was
applied to the PTAC maintenance costs to arrive at an annual
maintenance cost of $62.62 for PTHPs. More information
[[Page 82963]]
on the development of maintenance costs can be found in Chapter 8 of
the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ RS Means Company, Inc. RSMeans Online, (Last accessed March
26, 2013.) https://www.rsmeansonline.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Issue 26: DOE requests information and data on the frequency of
repair and repair costs by equipment class for the technology options
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI. While DOE is
interested in information regarding each of the listed technology
options, DOE is also interested in whether, and at what point,
consumers simply replace PTACs and PTHPs when they fail as opposed to
repairing them.
Issue 27: DOE requests feedback and data on whether maintenance
costs for any of the specific technology options listed in Table II.2
and Table II.3 of this RFI differ in comparison to the baseline
maintenance costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks
supporting data and the reasons for those differences.
H. Shipments
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to PTACs and PTHPs shipments that could enable the agency
to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
DOE develops shipments forecasts of PTACs and PTHPs 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. Up-to-date sales estimates allow for a more accurate model
that captures recent trends in the market.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE relied on historical shipments
data provided by AHRI from 1998-2012. The shipments were distributed
among the six standard size equipment classes that were analyzed in the
prior rulemaking based on the average shares of each class from 1998-
2004. 80 FR 43162, 43182. DOE assumed that this shipments breakdown by
equipment class would stay constant throughout the analysis period. For
more detail on the shipments analysis, please refer to Chapter 9 of the
July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 28: DOE requests the most recent annual sales data (i.e.,
number of shipments) as well as historical annual sales data going back
to 2015 for all equipment classes.
Issue 29: DOE requests the number of shipments by equipment class
and efficiency level for the most recent year available. If
disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the
equipment type class or efficiency level, DOE requests more aggregated
fractions of annual sales at the category level.
Table II.7 shows the model counts by equipment class for PTACs and
PTHPs along with the fraction of models by EER bin listed in the DOE
CCMS database. In Issue 32, DOE requests that interested parties
supplement this table with shipments data from 2015-2018. Interested
parties are also encouraged to provide additional shipment data as may
be relevant.
Table II.7--Count and Distribution of PTAC and PTHP Models by Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fraction of models by EER bin \1\ (percent)
Cooling capacity CCMS model ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class (Btu/h) count 9.1-10.0 10.1-11.0 11.1-12.0 12.1-13.0
7.1-8 EER 8.1-9.0 EER EER EER EER EER >13.1 EER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard size PTAC............ <7,000.......... 56 N/A N/A N/A N/A 64 9 27
7,000 to 15,000. 1,363 N/A N/A 11 35 34 20 1
>15,000......... 14 N/A N/A 100 0 0 0 0
Standard size PTHP............ <7,000.......... 76 N/A N/A N/A N/A 64 33 3
7,000 to 15,000. 1,009 N/A N/A 8 35 36 21 0
>15,000......... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Non-Standard size PTAC........ <7,000.......... 12 N/A N/A 0 0 100 0 0
7,000 to 15,000. 1,048 15 37 30 10 8 0 0
>15,000......... 23 48 0 52 0 0 0 0
Non-Standard size PTHP........ <7,000.......... 12 N/A N/A 0 0 100 0 0
7,000 to 15,000. 884 19 42 36 1 1 0 0
>15,000......... 12 0 0 100 0 0 0 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An N/A indicates that the EER bin is below the federal minimum for that equipment class.
Issue 30: If available, DOE requests shipment data covering the
equipment classes and efficiency bins in Table II.7 of this RFI for
each year going back to 2015.
Issue 31: DOE requests the number of shipments of make-up air PTACs
and PTHPs in 2018 along with any future growth projections for make-up
air units.
In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE received comments that PTAC and
PTHP lifetimes should be similar to the renovation cycles at hotels,
which occur every 7 years on average. 80 FR 43162, 43180. DOE based
equipment lifetime on a retirement function in the form of a Weibull
probability distribution, with a mean of 7 years for lodging
applications (70% of the market) and a mean of 10 years for all other
applications. A Weibull distribution is a probability distribution
function that is commonly used to measure failure rates. Its form is
similar to an exponential distribution, which would model a fixed
failure rate, except that it allows for a failure rate that changes
over time. For more detail on the lifetime measurement, please refer to
Chapter 8 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
Issue 32: DOE requests comment on the average lifetime of 7 years
for lodging applications and 10 years for all other applications. DOE
also requests comment on the Weibull approach, along with any new data
or information about the lifetimes of PTACs and PTHPs. DOE also
requests input on whether equipment lifetimes vary by equipment class,
by efficiency, or by end use.
I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information
with respect to manufacturer impacts that could enable the agency to
determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3)
is not
[[Page 82964]]
economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards
on manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs, 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 equipment in this analysis, with the key output of industry
net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses
the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as equipment
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and
important market and equipment 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.\11\ Manufacturing of consumer PTACs and PTHPs is
classified under NAICS 335415, ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ 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 33: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that
distribute PTACs and PTHPs in the United States.
Issue 34: 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 PTACs and PTHPs that distribute equipment 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 35: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs
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.
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 PTACs and PTHPs.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018) (``2018 RFI''). In the
2018 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 2018 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. As part of this early assessment
review, DOE seeks comments, data and information on the issues
presented in the 2018 RFI as they may be applicable to energy
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs.
3. Other Issues
Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the
conduct of this early assessment review 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).
Pursuant to 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 PTACs and PTHPs 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 PTACs and PTHPs. 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 document.
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
[[Page 82965]]
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. 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. According 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 to
[email protected] 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 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 rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes
to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and
information about this process or would like to request a public
meeting should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff
at (202) 287-1445 or via email at
[email protected].
Signing Authority
This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 8,
2020, by Daniel R Simmons, Assistant Secretary for the Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from
the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and
date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in
compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the
undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to
sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as
an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative
process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon
publication in the Federal Register.
Signed in Washington, DC, on December 9, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-27456 Filed 12-18-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
