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 

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 

http://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: http:// 

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, 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov. All documents in 

the docket are listed in the http://

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 

http://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 http://

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: 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82953 

1All 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). 

2For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. 

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; 

Continued 

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)) 

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 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. 

82954 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

(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)) 

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 

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 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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 consumers ........................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis. 

• Life-Cycle Cost Subgroup Analysis. 

• Shipments Analysis. 

2. Lifetime operating cost savings compared to increased cost for the 

product.

• Markups for Product Price Determination. 

• 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 competition ............................................... • Manufacturer Impact Analysis. 

6. Need for national energy and water conservation ............................... • Shipments Analysis. 

• National Impact Analysis. 

7. Other factors the Secretary considers relevant ................................... • Employment Impact 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 

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 ....... 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. 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82957 

4 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database can be 

found at https://www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/products.html (accessed 

September 26th, 2019). 

5As noted in Table II.1, DOE did not identify any 

Standard Size PTHP models with a cooling capacity 

greater than 15,000 Btu/h. 

TABLE II.1—CURRENT PTAC AND PTHP EQUIPMENT CLASSES—Continued 

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 ‘‘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 

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. 

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 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. 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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82959 

6The 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 

Continued 

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

Screened technology option Technological 

feasibility 

Screening Criteria 

(X = Basis for Screening Out) 

Practicability 

to manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse 

impact on 

equipment 

utility 

Adverse 

impacts on 

health and 

safety 

Unique-pathway 

proprietary 

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 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 designoption 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 

82960 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

current standards for all Non-Standard Size PTACs 

and PTHPs are applicable to equipment 

manufactured on or after October 7, 2010. 

7The July 2015 Final Rule TSD is available at: 

https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE2012-BT-STD-0029-0040. 

8The 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. 

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 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 ≤15,000 Btu/h ................... EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 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 ≤15,000 Btu/h ................... EER = 10.9¥(0.213 × Cap 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 ≤15,000 Btu/h ................... EER = 14.0¥(0.3 × Cap 1). 

COP = 3.7¥(0.052 × Cap 1). 

9 .............. PTHP2 ........ 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 ≤15,000 Btu/h ................... EER = 10.8¥(0.213 × Cap 1). 

COP = 2.9¥(0.026 × 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. 

2Based 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 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 Max-tech July 2015 Final Rule Maximum-available current 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/h ........................... EER = 16.3¥(0.354 × Cap b) ....... EER = 15.8¥(0.308 × Cap 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 .....................................

3.8 COPa ......................................

13.1 EER. 

4.0 COP. 

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 Maximum-available current market 

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) .........

EER = 15.8¥(0.308 × Cap b).c

COP = 4.6¥(0.075 × Cap b).c

Standard Size PTHP >15,000 Btu/h 3 ...................................................... 11.0 EER .......................................

3.2 COP. 

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, 

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 

(‘‘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 

82962 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

9RS Means Company, Inc. ‘‘RS Means Facilities 

Maintenance and Repair Cost Data,’’ 2013. 10RS Means Company, Inc. RSMeans Online, 

(Last accessed March 26, 2013.) http://

www.rsmeansonline.com. 

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 

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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 82963 

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) 

CCMS 

model count 

Fraction of models by EER bin 1

(percent) 

7.1–8 EER 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 

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 

1An 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 

82964 Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 

11Available online at https://www.sba.gov/ 

document/support--table-size-standards. 

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 

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. 

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 http://

www.regulations.gov. The http://

www.regulations.gov web page requires 

you to provide your name and contact 

information. Your contact information 

Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 245 / Monday, December 21, 2020 / Proposed Rules 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 http://

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 http://

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 http://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 http://

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 http:// 

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 

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 

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 

AGENCY: Federal Housing Finance 

Agency. 

ACTION: Advance notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: 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