[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 245 (Monday, December 21, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 82952-82965]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27456]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035]
RIN 1904-AE66


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Consumer Products; Early Assessment Review; Packaged Terminal Air 
Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps

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

ACTION: Request for information; Early Assessment Review.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an early 
assessment review to determine whether any new or amended standards 
would satisfy the relevant requirements of EPCA for a new or amended 
energy conservation standard for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners 
(``PTACs'') and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps (``PTHPs). Specifically, 
through this request for information (``RFI''), DOE seeks data and 
information that could enable the agency to determine whether DOE 
should propose a ``no new standard'' determination because a more 
stringent standard: Would not result in a significant savings of 
energy; is not technologically feasible; is not economically justified; 
or any combination of foregoing. DOE welcomes written comments from the 
public on any subject within the scope of this document (including 
those topics not specifically raised in this RFI), as well as the 
submission of data and other relevant concerning this early assessment 
review.

DATES: Written comments and information will be accepted on or before 
March 8, 2021.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e0b0b4a1a3a8b0d2d0d1d9b3b4a4d0d0d3d5a08585ce848f85ce878f96"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fcaca8bdbfb4accecccdc5afa8b8cccccfc9bc9999d2989399d29b938a">[email protected]</span></a>. 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-STD-0035. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through 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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fabb8a8a96939b94999fa98e9b949e9b889e89ab8f9f898e93959489ba9f9fd49e959fd49d958c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="04457474686d656a67615770656a606576607755716177706d6b6a774461612a606b612a636b72">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2e6f434b42474f007946475a4740496e665f006a414b00694158"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e4a58981888d85cab38c8d908d8a83a4ac95caa08b81caa38b92">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80c1f0f0ece9e1eee3e5d3f4e1eee4e1f2e4f3d1f5e5f3f4e9efeef3c0e5e5aee4efe5aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a9e8d9d9c5c0c8c7caccfaddc8c7cdc8dbcddaf8dcccdaddc0c6c7dae9cccc87cdc6cc87cec6df">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

[[Page 82953]]

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority
    B. Rulemaking History
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Equipment Covered by This Process
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
    2. Equipment Classes
    3. Review of Current Market
    4. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    E. Distribution Channels
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
    1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    H. Shipments
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
    3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

    DOE established an early assessment review process to conduct a 
more focused analysis of a specific set of facts or circumstances that 
would allow DOE to determine, based on one or more statutory criteria, 
a new or amended energy conservation standard is not warranted. The 
purpose of this review is to limit the resources, from both DOE and 
stakeholders, committed to rulemakings that will not satisfy the 
requirements of EPCA that a new or amended energy conservation standard 
save a significant amount of energy, and be economically justified and 
technologically feasible. See 85 FR 8626, 8653, 8654 (Feb. 14, 2020).
    As part of the early assessment, DOE publishes an RFI in the 
Federal Register, announcing that DOE is considering initiating a 
rulemaking proceeding and soliciting comments, data, and information on 
whether a new or amended energy conservation standard would save a 
significant amount of energy and be technologically feasible and 
economically justified. Based on the information received in response 
to the RFI and DOE's own analysis, DOE will determine whether to 
proceed with a rulemaking for a new or amended energy conservation 
standard.
    If DOE makes an initial determination based upon available evidence 
that a new or amended energy conservation standard would not meet the 
applicable statutory criteria, DOE would engage in notice and comment 
rulemaking before issuing a final determination that new or amended 
energy conservation standards are not warranted. Conversely, if DOE 
makes an initial determination that a new or amended energy 
conservation standard would satisfy the applicable statutory criteria 
or DOE's analysis is inconclusive, DOE would undertake the preliminary 
stages of a rulemaking to issue a new or amended energy conservation 
standard. Beginning such a rulemaking, however, would not preclude DOE 
from later making a determination that a new or amended energy 
conservation standard cannot satisfy the requirements in EPCA, based 
upon the full suite of DOE's analyses. See 85 FR 8626, 8654 (Feb. 14, 
2020).

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (``EPCA''), as amended,\1\ 
among other things authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 
95-619, Title IV, Section 441(a) (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), 
established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial 
Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve 
energy efficiency. This equipment includes PTACs and PTHPs, the subject 
of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(I)) EPCA prescribed initial standards 
for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(3))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through America's Water Infrastructure Act of 2018, 
Public Law 115-270 (Oct. 23, 2018).
    \2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy 
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6297(a); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)) DOE may, however, grant waivers of 
Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State laws or 
regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions set 
forth under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
    In EPCA, Congress initially set mandatory energy conservation 
standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning, 
and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the 
statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment, PTACs and PTHPs, warm-
air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water heaters, instantaneous 
water heaters, and unfired hot water storage tanks. Id. In doing so, 
EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards at levels that 
generally corresponded to the levels in American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (``ASHRAE'') Standard 
90.1, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 
Buildings'', as in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., ``ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-1989''), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a).
    In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy 
efficiency benefits, Congress directed DOE through EPCA to consider 
amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for each 
type of equipment listed, each time ASHRAE amends Standard 90.1 with 
respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When triggered in 
this manner, DOE must undertake and publish an analysis of the energy 
savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards, and amend the 
Federal standards to establish a uniform national standard at the level 
specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, unless DOE determines 
that there is clear and convincing evidence to support a determination 
that a more-stringent standard level as a national standard would 
produce significant additional energy savings and be technologically 
feasible and economically justified.\3\ (42 U.S.C.

[[Page 82954]]

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the 
minimum efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 
90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 months after 
publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines, supported by clear 
and convincing evidence, that a more-stringent uniform national 
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy 
and is technologically feasible and economically justified, then DOE 
must establish such more-stringent uniform national standard not later 
than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1. 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In determining whether a more-stringent standard is 
economically justified, EPCA directs DOE to determine, after 
receiving views and comments from the public, whether the benefits 
of the proposed standard exceed the burdens of the proposed standard 
by, to the maximum extent practicable, considering the following:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on the manufacturers and 
consumers of the products subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated 
average life of the product compared to any increases in the initial 
cost or maintenance expense;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to 
result directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the 
products likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary considers relevant.
    (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels 
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute, 
EPCA provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the potential for 
amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) 
Specifically, pursuant to EPCA, DOE is required to conduct an 
evaluation of each class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
``every 6 years'' to determine whether the applicable energy 
conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 
DOE must publish either a NOPR to propose amended standards or a notice 
of determination that existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) In making a determination, DOE must evaluate 
whether amended standards would result in significant additional 
conservation of energy and are technologically feasible and 
economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I); 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)) In proposing new standards under the 6-year review, DOE 
must undertake the same considerations as if it were adopting a 
standard that is more stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) This is a separate statutory 
review obligation, as differentiated from the obligation triggered by 
an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment. While the statute continues to defer 
to ASHRAE's lead on covered equipment subject to Standard 90.1, it does 
allow for a comprehensive review of all such equipment and the 
potential for adopting more-stringent standards, where supported by the 
requisite clear and convincing evidence. That is, DOE interprets 
ASHRAE's not amending Standard 90.1 with respect to a product or 
equipment type as ASHRAE's determination that the standard applicable 
to that product or equipment type is already at an appropriate level of 
stringency, and DOE will not amend that standard unless there is clear 
and convincing evidence that a more stringent level is justified.
    As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the standards for 
PTACs and PTHPs, DOE is requesting data and information pursuant to the 
6-year-lookback review. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) Such information will 
help DOE inform its decisions, consistent with its obligations under 
EPCA.

B. Rulemaking History

    On July 21, 2015, DOE published amendments to the PTAC and PTHP 
standards in response to the 2013 update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., 
``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013''). 80 FR 43162 (``July 2015 Final Rule''). 
DOE determined that ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 amended the standards for 
three of the 12 PTAC and PTHP equipment classes: PTAC Standard Size 
<7,000 Btu/h, PTAC Standard Size >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h, and 
PTAC Standard Size >15,000 Btu/h. 80 FR 43162, 43163. DOE adopted the 
standard levels for the three equipment classes as updated by ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1. Id. Compliance with the amended standards was required 
as of January 1, 2017. Id. DOE did not amend the energy conservation 
standards for the remaining equipment classes which were already 
equivalent to the standards in ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013. Id. DOE was 
unable to show with clear and convincing evidence that energy 
conservation standards at levels more stringent than the minimum levels 
specified in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 for any of the 12 equipment 
classes would be economically justified. Id. The current energy 
conservation standards are located in Title 10 Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') section 431.97, Table 8.
    DOE's current test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs were established 
in a final rule on June 30, 2015. 80 FR 37136. The current test 
procedure for cooling mode testing incorporates by reference Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') Standard 
310/380-2014, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioners and 
Heat Pumps'' (``AHRI 310/380-2014''), with the following sections 
applicable to the DOE test procedure: Sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 
4.4. In addition to the specified provisions of AHRI 310/380-2014, the 
PTACs and PTHPs must be tested according to either American National 
Standards Institute (``ANSI'')/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014), ``Method of 
Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Air 
Conditioners'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 (RA 2014)''), or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009''). The 
current test procedure for heating mode testing incorporates by 
reference AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, with the following sections 
applicable to the DOE test procedure: Sections 3, 4.1, 4.2 (except 
section 4.2.1.2(b)), 4.3, and 4.4; and ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 2014), 
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air-Conditioner and Packaged 
Terminal Air-Conditioner Heating Capacity'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986 (RA 
2014)''). (10 CFR 431.96(g)) The currently applicable DOE test 
procedures for PTACs and PTHPs appear at 10 CFR 431.96 in paragraph 
(g).
    The current test procedure also requires that manufacturers adhere 
to additional provisions in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96. 
(10 CFR 431.96(b)(1)) Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 431.96 includes 
provisions for an optional compressor break-in period, while paragraph 
(e) of 10 CFR 431.96 clarifies what information sources can be used for 
unit set-up and provides specific set-up instructions for refrigerant 
parameters (e.g., superheat) and air flow rate.
    ASHRAE Standard 90.1 has been updated since the 2013 version, most 
recently with the release of the 2019 version (i.e., ANSI/ASHRAE/IES 
Standard 90.1-2019, ``Energy Efficiency Standard for Buildings Except 
Low-Rise Residential Buildings'') on October 24, 2019. However, the 
standard levels for PTACs and PTHPs remain unchanged from the 2013 
version.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    DOE is publishing this RFI to collect data and information during 
the early assessment review to inform its decision, consistent with its 
obligations under EPCA, as to whether the Department should proceed 
with an energy conservation standards rulemaking. Accordingly, in the 
following sections, DOE has identified specific issues on which it 
seeks input to aid in its analysis of whether an amended standard for 
PTAC or PTHP

[[Page 82955]]

would not save a significant amount of energy or be technologically 
feasible or economically justified. In particular, DOE is interested in 
any information indicating that there has been sufficient technological 
or market changes since DOE last conducted an energy conservation 
standards rulemaking analysis for PTAC or PTHPs to suggest a more-
stringent standard could satisfy these criteria. DOE also welcomes 
comment on other issues relevant to its early assessment that may not 
specifically identified in this document.
    Pursuant to DOE's recently amended ``Process Rule'' (85 FR 8626; 
Feb. 14, 2020), DOE stated that as a first step in a proceeding to 
consider establishing or amending an energy conservation standard, such 
as the existing standards for PTACs and PTHP at issue in this document, 
DOE would publish a notice in the Federal Register announcing that DOE 
is considering initiation of a proceeding, and as part of that notice, 
DOE would request submission of related comments, including data and 
information showing whether any new or amended standard would satisfy 
the relevant requirements in EPCA for a new or amended energy 
conservation standard. Based on the information received in response to 
the notice and its own analysis, DOE would determine whether to proceed 
with a rulemaking for a new or amended standard, or issue a proposed 
determination that the standards do not need to be amended.
    As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each 
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every 6 years. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) In making a determination of whether standards 
for such equipment need to be amended, DOE must follow specific 
statutory criteria. DOE must evaluate whether amended Federal standards 
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II))) To 
determine whether a standard is economically justified, EPCA requires 
that DOE determine whether the benefits of the standard exceed its 
burdens by considering, to the greatest extent practicable, the 
following seven factors:
    1. The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of products subject to the standard;
    2. The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered products in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the price, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for the 
covered products which are likely to result from the standard;
    3. The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the standard;
    4. Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
products likely to result from the standard;
    5. The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    6. The need for national energy conservation; and
    7. Other factors the Secretary of Energy considers relevant. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II), referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii))
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I.1 EPCA--Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.............  <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
                                         <bullet> National Impact
                                          Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Energy and Water Use
                                          Determination.
Technological Feasibility..............  <bullet> Market and Technology
                                          Assessment.
                                         <bullet> Screening Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and  <bullet> Manufacturer Impact
 consumers.                               Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Life-Cycle Cost and
                                          Payback Period Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Life-Cycle Cost
                                          Subgroup Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings       <bullet> Markups for Product
 compared to increased cost for the       Price Determination.
 product.                                <bullet> Energy and Water Use
                                          Determination.
                                         <bullet> Life-Cycle Cost and
                                          Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings......  <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
                                         <bullet> National Impact
                                          Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance....  <bullet> Screening Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of            <bullet> Manufacturer Impact
 competition.                             Analysis.
6. Need for national energy and water    <bullet> Shipments Analysis.
 conservation.                           <bullet> National Impact
                                          Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary           <bullet> Employment Impact
 considers relevant.                      Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Utility Impact
                                          Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Emissions Analysis.
                                         <bullet> Monetization of
                                          Emission Reductions Benefits.
                                         <bullet> Regulatory Impact
                                          Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in Section I.A., DOE is publishing this early assessment 
review RFI to collect data and information that could enable the agency 
to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result 
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically 
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of 
foregoing.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers equipment that meets the definitions of PTACs and 
PTHPs, as codified at 10 CFR 431.92. The definitions for PTACs and 
PTHPs were established under EPCA and codified in

[[Page 82956]]

a test procedure final rule issued October 21, 2004. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(10)); 69 FR 61962, 61970.
    DOE defines ``packaged terminal air conditioners'' as a wall sleeve 
and a separate un-encased combination of heating and cooling assemblies 
specified by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall, 
and that is industrial equipment. It includes a prime source of 
refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and 
heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or 
electricity. (10 CFR 431.92)
    DOE defines ``packaged terminal heat pumps'' as a packaged terminal 
air conditioner that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime 
heat source, that has a supplementary heat source available, with the 
choice of hot water, steam, or electric resistant heat, and that is 
industrial equipment. Id.
    On October 7, 2008, DOE published a final rule amending the energy 
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs in which DOE divided 
equipment classes based on whether a PTAC or PTHP is a standard size or 
non-standard size. 73 FR 58772 (``October 2008 Final Rule'').
    DOE defines ``standard size'' as a PTAC or PTHP with wall sleeve 
dimensions having an external wall opening of greater than or equal to 
16 inches high or greater than or equal to 42 inches wide, and a cross-
sectional area greater than or equal to 670 square inches. (10 CFR 
431.92)
    DOE defines ``non-standard size'' as a PTAC or PTHP with existing 
wall sleeve dimensions having an external wall opening of less than 16 
inches high or less than 42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional area 
less than 670 square inches. Id.
    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for PTACs 
and PTHPs require any revisions--and if so, DOE requests information on 
why revisions are needed and how those definitions should be revised. 
DOE also requests feedback on whether the sub-category definitions 
currently in place for standard size and non-standard size are 
appropriate or whether further modifications are needed. If these sub-
category definitions need modifying, DOE seeks specific input on how to 
define these terms and information to support any such changes.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether additional equipment 
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage 
between equipment types. DOE also seeks input on whether such equipment 
currently exist in the market or whether they are being planned for 
introduction. DOE also requests comment on opportunities to combine 
equipment classes that could reduce regulatory burden.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended energy 
conservation standard provides information about the PTACs and PTHPs 
industry that will be used to determine whether DOE should propose a 
``no new standard'' determination. DOE uses qualitative and 
quantitative information to characterize the structure of the industry 
and market. DOE identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and 
trends, addresses regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to 
improve energy efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores 
the potential for efficiency improvements in the design and 
manufacturing of PTACs and PTHPs. DOE also reviews product literature, 
industry publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE 
considers conducting interviews with manufacturers to improve its 
assessment of the market and available technologies for PTACs and 
PTHPs.
1. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
    For PTACs and PTHPs, DOE currently prescribes energy efficiency 
ratio (``EER'') as the cooling mode efficiency metric and coefficient 
of performance (``COP'') as the heating mode efficiency metric. (10 CFR 
431.96) These energy efficiency descriptors are the same as those 
included in ASHRAE 90.1-2016 for PTACs and PTHPs. EER is the ratio of 
the produced cooling effect of the PTAC or PTHP to its net work input, 
expressed in Btu/watt-hour, and measured at standard rating conditions. 
COP is the ratio of the produced heating effect of the PTHP to its net 
work input, when both are expressed in identical units of measurement, 
and measured at standard rating conditions. DOE's test procedure for 
PTACs and PTHPs does not include a seasonal metric that includes part-
load performance.
    On December 8, 2020, DOE published an RFI (the ``December 2020 TP 
RFI'') to collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE's 
test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs. 85 FR 78967. As part of the 
December 2020 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should 
consider adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric that 
integrates part-load performance to better represent full-season 
efficiency. 85 FR 78967. In the December 2020 TP RFI, DOE discusses in 
detail three possible part-load efficiency metrics that are used for 
rating other categories of commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment:
    <bullet> 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'',
    <bullet> Seasonal energy efficiency ratio (``SEER''), as described 
in Appendix M to Subpart B of 10 CFR part 430, and
    <bullet> Weighted-average combined energy efficiency ratio 
(``CEER''), as described in a Decision and Order granting a petition 
for waiver for certain room air conditioners. See 84 FR 20111, 20113 
(May 8, 2019).
    If DOE amends the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate a 
part-load metric, it would conduct any analysis for future standards 
rulemakings, if any, based on the amended test procedure.
2. Equipment Classes
    For PTACs and PTHPs, the current energy conservation standards 
specified in 10 CFR 431.97(c) are based on 12 equipment classes 
determined according to the following: Whether the equipment is an air 
conditioner or a heat pump, whether the equipment is standard size or 
non-standard size, and cooling capacity in British thermal unit per 
hour (``Btu/h''). Table II.1 lists the current 12 equipment classes for 
PTACs and PTHPs outlined in Table 7 to 10 CFR 431.97.

           Table II.1--Current PTAC and PTHP Equipment Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                             Equipment Class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.......  PTAC...........  Standard Size.........  <7,000 Btu/h.
2.......  PTAC...........  Standard Size.........  >=7,000 Btu/h and
                                                    <=15,000 Btu/h.
3.......  PTAC...........  Standard Size.........  >15,000 Btu/h.
4.......  PTAC...........  Non-Standard Size.....  <7,000 Btu/h.
5.......  PTAC...........  Non-Standard Size.....  >=7,000 Btu/h and
                                                    <=15,000 Btu/h.

[[Page 82957]]

 
6.......  PTAC...........  Non-Standard Size.....  >15,000 Btu/h.
7.......  PTHP...........  Standard Size.........  <7,000 Btu/h.
8.......  PTHP...........  Standard Size.........  >=7,000 Btu/h and
                                                    <=15,000 Btu/h.
9 *.....  PTHP...........  Standard Size.........  >15,000 Btu/h.
10......  PTHP...........  Non-Standard Size.....  <7,000 Btu/h.
11......  PTHP...........  Non-Standard Size.....  >=7,000 Btu/h and
                                                    <=15,000 Btu/h.
12......  PTHP...........  Non-Standard Size.....  >15,000 Btu/h.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market,
  DOE did not identify any Standard Size PTHP models with a cooling
  capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.

    Issue 3: DOE requests feedback on the current PTAC and PTHP 
equipment classes and whether changes to these individual equipment 
classes and their descriptions should be made or whether certain 
classes should be merged or separated. Specifically, DOE requests 
comment on opportunities to combine equipment classes that could reduce 
regulatory burden. DOE further requests feedback on whether combining 
certain classes could impact equipment utility by eliminating any 
performance-related features or impact the stringency of the current 
energy conservation standard for these equipment. DOE also requests 
comment on separating any of the existing equipment classes and whether 
it would impact equipment utility by eliminating any performance-
related features or reduce any compliance burdens.
a. ``Make-Up Air'' PTACs and PTHPs
    As part of the December 2020 TP RFI, DOE described ``make-up air'' 
PTACs and their additional function of dehumidification. 85 FR 78967. 
As discussed in section II.B.1, for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE currently 
specifies EER as the test metric for cooling efficiency. For PTHPs, DOE 
specifies COP as the test metric for heating efficiency. Neither the 
current test procedure, 10 CFR 431.96, nor the industry test procedure, 
AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, account for the energy associated with the 
conditioning of make-up air introduced by the unit.
    If DOE amends the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate 
measurement of dehumidification energy for ``make-up air'' PTACs and 
PTHPs, a separate equipment class for this type of units may be 
warranted. DOE would conduct any analysis for future standards 
rulemakings, if any, based on the amended test procedure.
    Issue 4: DOE requests comment on how a ``make-up air PTAC'' and a 
``make-up air PTHP'' could be defined, and what characteristics could 
be used to distinguish make-up air PTACs and PTHPs from other PTACs and 
PTHPs. DOE requests information on the consumer utility provided by a 
PTAC or PTHP that provides make-up air. DOE also requests information 
and data on the associated energy use associated with the function of 
providing ``make-up air.'' DOE also requests comment on if the same 
capacity ranges used for non-``make-up air'' PTACs and PTHPs would be 
appropriate to use for equipment classes for possible ``make-up air'' 
PTAC and PTHP equipment classes (i.e., <7,000 Btu/h, >=7,000 Btu/h and 
<=15,000 Btu/h, and >15,000 Btu/h). Finally, DOE requests comment on if 
there are both Standard Size and Non-Standard Size ``make-up air'' 
PTACs and PTHPs.
    Issue 5: DOE seeks information regarding any other new product 
classes it should consider for inclusion in its analysis. Specifically, 
DOE requests information on the performance-related features that 
provide unique consumer utility and data detailing the corresponding 
impacts on energy use that would justify separate product classes 
(i.e., explanation for why the presence of these performance-related 
features would increase energy consumption).
3. Review of Current Market
    To inform its evaluation of PTACs and PTHPs, DOE initially reviewed 
data in the DOE Compliance Certification Database \4\ (``CCMS 
database'') to characterize the distribution of efficiencies for PTAC 
and PTHP equipment currently available on the market, analyzing cooling 
and heating efficiency separately. DOE is making available for comment 
a document that provides the distributions of EER and COP for PTACs and 
PTHPs in the 11 equipment classes listed in Table II.1 for which DOE 
has identified models on the market \5\ (see Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0035-0001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database can be found at 
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html 
(accessed September 26th, 2019).
    \5\ As noted in Table II.1, DOE did not identify any Standard 
Size PTHP models with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.

    Based on the data shown in the supplemental file DOE has made 
available for comment (see Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0035-0001), 
DOE requests feedback on whether using the current established 
energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs are appropriate 
baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply to each equipment class 
in evaluating whether to amend the current energy conservation 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
standards for this equipment.

4. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing information to determine whether DOE should propose a 
``no new standards determination'' for existing PTAC and PTHPs 
standards, DOE uses information about existing and past technology 
options and prototype designs to help identify technologies that 
manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of energy 
conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously analyzed during its most recent 
rulemaking for PTACs and PTHPs, technology options DOE identified but 
did not analyze, and newer technology options that DOE may also 
consider in a future PTAC and PTHP energy conservation standards 
rulemaking. Based on the technologies identified in the analysis for 
the July 2015 Final Rule and a preliminary survey of the current 
market, DOE has separately provided potential technology options in two 
categories: Technologies that may increase efficiency at both full-load 
and part-load conditions, listed in Table II.2; and technologies that 
may only increase efficiency at part-load conditions, listed in Table 
II.3.

[[Page 82958]]



  Table II.2--Technology Options for PTACs and PTHPs That May Increase
          Efficiency at Both Full-Load and Part-Load Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Technology options                         Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Heat Exchanger Improvements:
    Increased Heat Exchanger Area.........  July 2015 Final Rule.
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan
 Improvements:
    Higher Efficiency Fan Motors..........  July 2015 Final Rule.
    Improved Air Flow and Fan Design......  July 2015 Final Rule.
    More efficient fan geometries.........  New Technology Option.
Compressor Improvements:
    Higher Efficiency Compressors.........  July 2015 Final Rule.
    Scroll Compressors....................  Screened out of July 2015
                                             Final Rule.
Other Improvements:
    Heat Pipes............................  Screened out of July 2015
                                             Final Rule.
    Alternative Refrigerants..............  Screened out of July 2015
                                             Final Rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table II.3--Technology Options for PTACs and PTHPs That May Increase
                 Efficiency at Only Part-Load Conditions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            Technology options                         Source
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan
 Improvements:
    Variable speed condenser fan/motor....  New Technology Option.
    Variable speed indoor blower/motor....  New Technology Option.
Compressor Improvements:
    Variable Speed Compressors............  July 2015 Final Rule.*
Other Improvements:
    Electronic Expansion Valves (``EEV'').  New Technology Option.
    Thermal Expansion Valves (``TEV'')....  July 2015 Final Rule.*
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Identified technology not analyzed because no full-load benefit.

    Issue 6: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.2 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs as measured 
according to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how 
those technologies identified in development of the July 2015 Final 
Rule may have changed since that time. Specifically, DOE seeks 
information on the range of efficiencies or performance characteristics 
that are currently available for each technology option.
    Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on whether this new technology would 
affect a determination as to whether DOE could propose a ``no new 
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: Would not 
result in a significant savings of energy; is not technologically 
feasible; is not economically justified; or any combination of the 
foregoing. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the new technologies 
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI regarding their market 
adoption, costs, and any concerns with incorporating them into 
equipment (e.g., impacts on consumer utility, potential safety 
concerns, manufacturing/production/implementation issues, etc.), 
particularly as to changes that may have occurred since the July 2015 
Final Rule.
    Issue 8: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact equipment features or consumer utility.
    As discussed in section II.B.1 of this RFI, DOE may consider 
adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode metric that integrates 
part-load performance.
    TEVs and EEVs regulate the flow of liquid refrigerant entering the 
evaporator and can adapt to changes in operating conditions, such as 
variations in temperature, humidity, and compressor staging. As a 
result, TEVs and EEVs can control for optimum system operating 
parameters over a wide range of operating conditions and are a 
consideration in evaluating improved seasonal efficiency. Variable-
speed compressors enable modulation of the refrigeration system cooling 
capacity, allowing the unit to match the cooling or heating load. This 
modulation can improve efficiency by reducing off-cycle losses and can 
improve heat exchanger effectiveness at part-load conditions by 
operating at a lower mass flow rate. Variable speed condenser fan 
motors and variable speed indoor blower motors would likewise not have 
a measured impact on energy consumption based on the current test 
procedure. These technologies allow for varying fan speed to reduce 
airflow rate at part-load operation, which is not accounted for under 
the current metric.
    Issue 9: In the event DOE were to amend the metric for the PTAC and 
PTHP standards to account for part-load performance, DOE requests data 
on the market penetration and efficiency improvement associated with 
the technology options listed in Table II.3. In addition, DOE requests 
data on any other technology options not listed above that would 
improve the efficiency of equipment under part-load conditions.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration. 
In this early assessment RFI, DOE seeks data and information with 
respect to technologies previously screened out or retained that could 
enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result 
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically 
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of 
the foregoing.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial product or in working prototypes will not be 
considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial product 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a

[[Page 82959]]

technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.
    (5) Unique-Pathway Proprietary Technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further, due to the potential for monopolistic concerns. (10 
CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(c)(3) and 7(b))
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Table II.4 summarizes the technology options that DOE screened out 
in the July 2015 Final Rule, and the applicable screening criteria.

              Table II.4--Previously Screened Out Technology Options From the July 2015 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                          Screening Criteria (X = Basis for Screening Out)
                                                   -------------------------------------------------------------
                                    Technological   Practicability to     Adverse      Adverse
   Screened technology option        feasibility       manufacture,      impact on   impacts on   Unique-pathway
                                                       install, and      equipment   health and    proprietary
                                                         service          utility      safety      technologies
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scroll Compressors..............  X                 .................  ............  ..........  ...............
Heat Pipes......................  X                 .................  ............  ..........  ...............
Alternative Refrigerants........  X                 .................  ............  ..........  ...............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 10: With respect to the screened out technology options 
listed in Table II.4 of this RFI, DOE seeks information on whether 
these options would, based on current and projected assessments 
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the four screening 
criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these 
technology options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) 
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to 
improve the energy performance of PTACs and PTHPs and the potential to 
impact consumer utility of the PTACs and PTHPs.
    In development of the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE identified two 
technology options that were not included in the engineering analysis 
because efficiency benefits of the technologies were negligible:
    <bullet> Re-Circuiting Heat Exchanger Coils and
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> 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:
    <bullet> Complex Control Boards,
    <bullet> Clutched Fan Motors,
    <bullet> TEVs,
    <bullet> Variable Speed Compressors,
    <bullet> Corrosion Protection, and
    <bullet> Hydrophobic Material Treatment of Heat Exchangers.
    Id.
    Issue 11: With respect to the additional technologies identified in 
development of the July 2015 Final Rule but not included in the 
engineering analysis, DOE seeks comment on its prior exclusion of these 
technologies and whether there have been changes that would warrant 
further consideration.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(``efficiency levels''). This relationship serves as the basis for the 
cost-benefit calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. 
In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the 
increase in manufacturer production costs (``MPCs'') associated with 
increasing the efficiency of equipment above the baseline, up to the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for 
each equipment class. In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks 
data and information with respect to these cost-benefit calculations 
that could enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new 
standards'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would 
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not 
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any 
combination of foregoing.
    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design 
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or 
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up'' 
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and 
material, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model 
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or 
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline 
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common 
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one 
that meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and 
provides basic consumer utility.
    If it determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with 
this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current 
minimum energy conservations standards \6\ to

[[Page 82960]]

establish the baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class. As 
discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, the current standards for 
PTACs and PTHPs are based on the full-load metrics, EER and COP. The 
current standards for PTACs and PTHPs are found at 10 CFR 431.97 and 
are presented in Table II.5 of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The current standards for Standard Size PTACs at all cooling 
capacities are applicable to equipment manufactured on or after 
January 1, 2017. The current standards for Standard Size PTHPs at 
all cooling capacities are applicable to equipment manufactured on 
or after October 8, 2012. The current standards for all Non-Standard 
Size PTACs and PTHPs are applicable to equipment manufactured on or 
after October 7, 2010.

                      Table II.5--Current PTAC and PTHP Energy Conservation Standard Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment class                                                                         Minimum energy
                                                                                         conservation standard
                                                                                         level
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1................  PTAC................  Standard Size......  <7,000 Btu/h............  EER = 11.9.
2................  PTAC................  Standard Size......  >=7,000 Btu/h and         EER = 14.0-(0.3 x Cap
                                                               <=15,000 Btu/h.           \1\).
3................  PTAC................  Standard Size......  >15,000 Btu/h...........  EER = 9.5.
4................  PTAC................  Non-Standard Size..  <7,000 Btu/h............  EER = 9.4.
5................  PTAC................  Non-Standard Size..  >=7,000 Btu/h and         EER = 10.9-(0.213 x Cap
                                                               <=15,000 Btu/h.           \1\).
6................  PTAC................  Non-Standard Size..  >15,000 Btu/h...........  EER = 7.7.
7................  PTHP................  Standard Size......  <7,000 Btu/h............  EER = 11.9.
                                                                                        COP = 3.3.
8................  PTHP................  Standard Size......  >=7,000 Btu/h and         EER = 14.0-(0.3 x Cap
                                                               <=15,000 Btu/h.           \1\).
                                                                                        COP = 3.7-(0.052 x Cap
                                                                                         \1\).
9................  PTHP \2\............  Standard Size......  >15,000 Btu/h...........  EER = 9.5.
                                                                                        COP = 2.9.
10...............  PTHP................  Non-Standard Size..  <7,000 Btu/h............  EER = 9.3.
                                                                                        COP = 2.7.
11...............  PTHP................  Non-Standard Size..  >=7,000 Btu/h and         EER = 10.8-(0.213 x Cap
                                                               <=15,000 Btu/h.           \1\).
                                                                                        COP = 2.9-(0.026 x Cap
                                                                                         \1\).
12...............  PTHP................  Non-Standard Size..  >15,000 Btu/h...........  EER = 7.6.
                                                                                        COP = 2.5.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
\2\ Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any Standard Size
  PTHP models with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.

2. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest efficiency unit currently available on the market. DOE 
also considers the max-tech efficiency level, which it defines as the 
level that represents the theoretical maximum possible efficiency if 
all available design options are incorporated in a model. In many 
cases, the max-tech efficiency level is not commercially available 
because it is not economically feasible.
    For the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE determined the max-tech 
improvements in energy efficiency for PTACs and PTHPs in the 
engineering analysis using the design parameters that passed the 
screening analysis, a combination of the efficiency-level approach, and 
the reverse engineering approach. 80 FR 43162, 43173. In addition, DOE 
surveyed the rated efficiencies of PTACs listed in the AHRI Directory 
to determine that the maximum efficiency units extended up to 17.5 
percent above the ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 baseline. Id. at 80 FR 
43175. In the July 2015 Final Rule DOE maintained the standard levels 
for non-standard size PTAC and PTHP equipment finding that because of 
the small and declining number of shipments in each of the non-standard 
size equipment classes, clear and convincing evidence was lacking to 
support more stringent standards. Id. at 80 FR 43167. DOE only analyzed 
the six standard size equipment classes for PTACs and PTHPs for the 
engineering analysis. Id. at 80 FR 43174. For additional details 
regarding the engineering analysis conducted for the July 2015 Final 
Rule see Chapter 5 of the July 2015 Final Rule Technical Support 
Document (``TSD'').\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The July 2015 Final Rule TSD is available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2012-BT-STD-0029-0040.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on whether the technology improvements 
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI are applicable to both 
standard size and non-standard size units and if they have similar 
impacts on efficiency.
    Issue 13: DOE requests comment on whether it is necessary to 
individually analyze all or some of the available equipment classes.
    Table II.6 shows the max-tech efficiency levels considered for the 
July 2015 Final Rule, which were assumed to be 16.2 percent above the 
baseline, and the maximum-available based on the current market for 
each equipment classes. To develop preliminary maximum-available linear 
equations for both standard size PTAC and standard size PTHP >=7,000 
Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h, DOE created a linear fit between the two 
models in the CCMS Database that were the highest absolute value above 
the baseline.\8\ This ensures that all models are either at or below 
this line.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ The preliminary maximum-available linear equations were 
calculated with the following models. For standard size PTACs 
>=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h, these two models were rated at 
9,700 Btu/h, 12.8 EER and 14,900 Btu/h, 11.2 EER. For standard size 
PTHPs >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h cooling efficiency, these two 
models were rated at 9,700 Btu/h, 12.8 EER and 14,900 Btu/h, 11.2 
EER. For standard size PTHPs >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h 
heating efficiency, these two models were rated at 7,000 Btu/h, 4.0 
COP and 8,500 Btu/h, 3.8 COP.

                          Table II.6--Max-Tech and Maximum-Available Efficiency Levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Maximum-available current
                  Equipment class                   Max-tech July 2015 Final Rule              market
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard Size PTAC <7,000 Btu/h...................  13.8 EER \a\.................  13.0 EER.
Standard Size PTAC >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/  EER = 16.3-(0.354 x Cap \b\).  EER = 15.8-(0.308 x Cap
 h.                                                                                 \b\).\c\
Standard Size PTAC >15,000 Btu/h..................  11.0 EER.....................  9.7 EER.
Standard Size PTHP <7,000 Btu/h...................  13.8 EER \a\.................  13.1 EER.
                                                    3.8 COP \a\..................  4.0 COP.

[[Page 82961]]

 
Standard Size PTHP >=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/  EER = 16.3-(0.354 x Cap \b\).  EER = 15.8-(0.308 x Cap
 h.                                                 COP = 4.3-(0.073 x Cap \b\)..   \b\).\c\
                                                                                   COP = 4.6-(0.075 x Cap
                                                                                    \b\).\c\
Standard Size PTHP >15,000 Btu/h \3\..............  11.0 EER.....................  N/A.\d\
                                                    3.2 COP......................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a. Based on Max Tech equation shown in Table IV.4 of the July 2015 Final Rule at 7,000 Btu/h.
b. Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h.
c. Based on method of creating a linear fit between the two models in the CCMS Database that were the highest
  absolute value above the baseline.
d. Based on DOE's review of equipment currently available on the market, DOE did not identify any PTHP models
  with a cooling capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h.

    Issue 14: DOE seeks input on whether the maximum available 
efficiency levels are appropriate as the max-tech for potential 
consideration as possible energy conservation standards for the 
equipment at issue--and if not, what efficiency levels should be 
considered max-tech?
    Issue 15: DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level. As part of this request, 
DOE also seeks information as to whether there are limitations on the 
use of certain combinations of design options.
    As discussed in section II.B.1 of this document, if DOE were to 
amend the PTAC and PTHP test procedure to incorporate a seasonal 
metric, it would conduct any analysis for future standards rulemaking 
based on the amended test procedure, including considering efficiency 
levels based on a seasonal metric.
    Issue 16: DOE seeks data and information regarding incremental and 
maximum-available efficiency levels for each equipment class under 
seasonal energy efficiency metrics. In particular, DOE seeks energy use 
data for equipment operating at part-load capacities, for example, at 
the part-load test conditions specified in AHRI Standard 340/360 (I/P)-
2019, 2019 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment. In addition, DOE 
requests information on the technologies for improving part-load 
operation, including the order in which manufacturers would likely add 
such technologies.
3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturing Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency equipment for the analyzed equipment 
classes. For the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE identified the efficiency 
levels for the analysis based on the range of rated efficiencies of 
PTAC and PTHP equipment in the AHRI database. DOE selected PTAC and 
PTHP equipment that was representative of the market at different 
efficiency levels, then purchased, tested, and reverse engineered the 
selected equipment. DOE used the cost-assessment approach to determine 
the MPCs for PTAC and PTHP equipment across a range of efficiencies 
from the baseline to max-tech efficiency levels. 80 FR 43162, 43173 See 
chapter 5 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD for additional detail.
    Issue 17: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 
of this RFI to increase energy efficiency in PTACs and PTHPs beyond the 
baseline. This includes information on the order in which manufacturers 
would incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve 
the efficiencies of equipment.
    Issue 18: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated 
with incorporating each particular design option. DOE also requests 
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design 
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or 
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production 
impacts.
    Issue 19: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options 
may not be applicable to (or may be incompatible with) specific 
equipment classes.
    Issue 20: DOE requests information on how it could conduct the 
cost-efficiency analyses for PTHPs >15,000 Btu/h, for which there are 
no models on the market and for which DOE does not have data.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
markup) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce. For the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE used a manufacturer markup 
of 1.27 for all PTACs and PTHPs. 80 FR 43162, 43177. See chapter 6 of 
the July 2015 Final Rule TSD for additional detail.
    Issue 21: DOE requests feedback on whether manufacturer markup of 
1.27 is appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs.

E. Distribution Channels

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks information with 
respect to the distribution channels that could enable the department 
to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination 
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a 
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) 
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing. In 
generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (``LCC'') 
analysis and national impact analysis (``NIA''), DOE must identify 
distribution channels (i.e., how the equipment are distributed from the 
manufacturer to the consumer), and estimate relative sales volumes 
through each channel. DOE identified four distribution channels for 
PTACs and PTHPs to describe how the equipment passes from the 
manufacturer to the consumer. 80 FR 43162, 43177-43178. The four 
distribution channels are listed below:
    The first distribution channel is only used in the new construction 
market and it represents sales directly from a manufacturer to the end 
use customer through a national account.

Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] End user

    The second distribution channel represents replacement markets, 
where a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler, who sells to a mechanical 
contractor, who in turn sells to the end user.

Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Mechanical Contractor [rarr] End 
user


[[Page 82962]]


    The third distribution channel, which is used in both new 
construction and replacement markets, the manufacturer sells the 
equipment to a wholesaler, who in turn sells it to a mechanical 
contractor, who in turn sells it to a general contractor, who sells it 
to the end user.

Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Mechanical Contractor [rarr] 
General Contractor [rarr] End user

    Finally, in the fourth distribution channel, which is also used in 
both the new construction and replacement markets, a manufacturer sells 
to a wholesaler, who in turn sells directly to the end user.

Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] End User

    Issue 22: DOE requests information on the existence of any 
distribution channels other than the four distribution channels 
identified in the July 2015 Final Rule that are used to distribute 
PTACs and PTHPs into the market. DOE also requests data on the fraction 
of PTAC and PTHP sales that go through each of the four identified 
distribution channels as well as the fraction of sales through any 
other identified channels.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to energy use of PTACs and PTHPs that could enable the 
agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' 
determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result 
in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically 
feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of 
foregoing.
    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how equipment is used by consumers, and thereby 
determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE developed estimates of 
the unit energy consumption (``UEC'') in kilowatt hours (``kWh'') by 
equipment type and EL. Energy savings from higher efficiency equipment 
was measured by comparing the UECs of higher ELs to the UEC of the 
ASHRAE baseline EL. 80 FR 43162, 43178-43179.
    In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE began with the UECs developed for 
PTACs and PTHPs in the October 2008 Final Rule. 73 FR 58772. DOE 
adjusted the base-year UEC to account for changes in climate between 
2008 and 2013 using heating degree-days and cooling degree-days from a 
typical meteorological year (``TMY'') data set (referred to as TMY2) 
and an updated TMY3 data set. For each efficiency level that was 
previously analyzed in the October 2008 Final Rule, DOE used the TMY3-
adjusted UEC value for that level. For efficiency levels that were not 
previously analyzed, DOE scaled the TMY3-adjusted cooling UECs based on 
interpolations between the EER values at different ELs and scaled the 
TMY3-adjusted heating UECs based on interpolations between the COP 
values at different ELs. 80 FR 43162, 43178-43179. Please refer to 
Chapter 7 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD for more detail.
    The UECs developed in the July 2015 Final Rule do not represent the 
energy use of make-up air units. DOE plans to use building loads from 
the small hotel commercial building prototypes and match those loads to 
performance data to properly account for the different operation of 
make-up air units and determine UECs to use for make-up air PTACs and 
PTHPs in the current energy use analysis.
    Issue 23: DOE requests comment on the approach that was used to 
develop UECs in the energy use analysis for the July 2015 Final Rule, 
as well as any potential improvements in equipment that might impact 
UECs, or data indicating actual UECs for this equipment.
    Issue 24: DOE requests comment on its approach to measure energy 
use of make-up air PTACs and PTHPs. Specifically, are these units used 
in any applications other than lodging? Also, are make-up air units 
primarily used in new construction or they also installed in 
replacement applications?
    Issue 25: DOE requests performance data for make-up air PTACs and 
PTHPs.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to life-cycle cost and payback periods for PTACs and PTHPs 
that could enable the agency to determine whether to propose a ``no new 
standard'' determination because a more stringent standard: (1) Would 
not result in a significant savings of energy; (2) is not 
technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) any 
combination of foregoing.
    DOE conducts the LCC and payback period (``PBP'') analysis to 
evaluate the economic effects of potential energy conservation 
standards for PTACs and PTHPs on individual customers. For any given 
efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative 
to an estimated baseline level. The LCC is the total customer expense 
over the life of the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, 
and operating costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). 
Inputs to the calculation of total installed cost include the cost of 
the equipment--which includes MSPs, distribution channel markups, and 
sales taxes--and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of 
operating expenses include annual energy consumption, energy prices and 
price projections, repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, 
discount rates, and the year that compliance with new and amended 
standards is required.
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    In order to develop annual operating costs and savings for the LCC 
analysis, DOE estimates repair and maintenance costs over the lifetime 
of the PTACs and PTHPs. In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE used typical 
PTAC and PTHP warranties to estimate repair costs. DOE used a report on 
component failure rates and standard warranty terms prepared by EER 
Consulting LLC along with RS Means \9\ for the labor and materials 
repair cost of different components. Most PTACs and PTHPs come with a 
one-year warranty covering all repairs and a 5-year limited warranty 
which covers repairs of the refrigeration system (non-refrigeration 
repairs would be paid by the owner in the second through fifth year of 
ownership). After the fifth year of ownership, the owner bears the full 
cost of a repair. DOE determined the expected value of the total cost 
of a repair and annualized it to determine the annual repair cost. DOE 
scaled the typical repair costs by cooling capacity and manufacturer 
selling price to determine the repair costs for the equipment classes 
and efficiency levels considered in the July 2015 Final Rule. 80 FR 
43162, 43180. More information on the development of repair costs can 
be found in Chapter 8 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ RS Means Company, Inc. ``RS Means Facilities Maintenance and 
Repair Cost Data,'' 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The maintenance costs used in the July 2015 Final Rule were taken 
from the October 2008 Final Rule, where the annual maintenance cost for 
PTACs was $50. DOE adjusted this figure for inflation to arrive at an 
annual maintenance cost of $55.56. The annualized costs for PTHPs were 
derived from the annualized maintenance costs for PTACs based on RS 
Means \10\ data for both PTACs and PTHPs. The percentage difference was 
applied to the PTAC maintenance costs to arrive at an annual 
maintenance cost of $62.62 for PTHPs. More information

[[Page 82963]]

on the development of maintenance costs can be found in Chapter 8 of 
the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ RS Means Company, Inc. RSMeans Online, (Last accessed March 
26, 2013.) http://www.rsmeansonline.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 26: DOE requests information and data on the frequency of 
repair and repair costs by equipment class for the technology options 
listed in Table II.2 and Table II.3 of this RFI. While DOE is 
interested in information regarding each of the listed technology 
options, DOE is also interested in whether, and at what point, 
consumers simply replace PTACs and PTHPs when they fail as opposed to 
repairing them.
    Issue 27: DOE requests feedback and data on whether maintenance 
costs for any of the specific technology options listed in Table II.2 
and Table II.3 of this RFI differ in comparison to the baseline 
maintenance costs. To the extent that these costs differ, DOE seeks 
supporting data and the reasons for those differences.

H. Shipments

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to PTACs and PTHPs shipments that could enable the agency 
to determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination 
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a 
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) 
is not economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
    DOE develops shipments forecasts of PTACs and PTHPs to calculate 
the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation standards 
on energy consumption, net present value (``NPV''), and future 
manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are based on 
available historical data broken out by equipment class, capacity, and 
efficiency. Up-to-date sales estimates allow for a more accurate model 
that captures recent trends in the market.
    In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE relied on historical shipments 
data provided by AHRI from 1998-2012. The shipments were distributed 
among the six standard size equipment classes that were analyzed in the 
prior rulemaking based on the average shares of each class from 1998-
2004. 80 FR 43162, 43182. DOE assumed that this shipments breakdown by 
equipment class would stay constant throughout the analysis period. For 
more detail on the shipments analysis, please refer to Chapter 9 of the 
July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
    Issue 28: DOE requests the most recent annual sales data (i.e., 
number of shipments) as well as historical annual sales data going back 
to 2015 for all equipment classes.
    Issue 29: DOE requests the number of shipments by equipment class 
and efficiency level for the most recent year available. If 
disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at the 
equipment type class or efficiency level, DOE requests more aggregated 
fractions of annual sales at the category level.
    Table II.7 shows the model counts by equipment class for PTACs and 
PTHPs along with the fraction of models by EER bin listed in the DOE 
CCMS database. In Issue 32, DOE requests that interested parties 
supplement this table with shipments data from 2015-2018. Interested 
parties are also encouraged to provide additional shipment data as may 
be relevant.

                                      Table II.7--Count and Distribution of PTAC and PTHP Models by Equipment Class
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                      Fraction of models by EER bin \1\ (percent)
                                Cooling capacity   CCMS model ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
         Product class               (Btu/h)         count                                 9.1-10.0    10.1-11.0    11.1-12.0    12.1-13.0
                                                                7.1-8 EER   8.1-9.0 EER      EER          EER          EER          EER       >13.1 EER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Standard size PTAC............  <7,000..........           56          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A           64            9           27
                                7,000 to 15,000.        1,363          N/A          N/A           11           35           34           20            1
                                >15,000.........           14          N/A          N/A          100            0            0            0            0
Standard size PTHP............  <7,000..........           76          N/A          N/A          N/A          N/A           64           33            3
                                7,000 to 15,000.        1,009          N/A          N/A            8           35           36           21            0
                                >15,000.........            0            0            0            0            0            0            0            0
Non-Standard size PTAC........  <7,000..........           12          N/A          N/A            0            0          100            0            0
                                7,000 to 15,000.        1,048           15           37           30           10            8            0            0
                                >15,000.........           23           48            0           52            0            0            0            0
Non-Standard size PTHP........  <7,000..........           12          N/A          N/A            0            0          100            0            0
                                7,000 to 15,000.          884           19           42           36            1            1            0            0
                                >15,000.........           12            0            0          100            0            0            0            0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An N/A indicates that the EER bin is below the federal minimum for that equipment class.

    Issue 30: If available, DOE requests shipment data covering the 
equipment classes and efficiency bins in Table II.7 of this RFI for 
each year going back to 2015.
    Issue 31: DOE requests the number of shipments of make-up air PTACs 
and PTHPs in 2018 along with any future growth projections for make-up 
air units.
    In the July 2015 Final Rule, DOE received comments that PTAC and 
PTHP lifetimes should be similar to the renovation cycles at hotels, 
which occur every 7 years on average. 80 FR 43162, 43180. DOE based 
equipment lifetime on a retirement function in the form of a Weibull 
probability distribution, with a mean of 7 years for lodging 
applications (70% of the market) and a mean of 10 years for all other 
applications. A Weibull distribution is a probability distribution 
function that is commonly used to measure failure rates. Its form is 
similar to an exponential distribution, which would model a fixed 
failure rate, except that it allows for a failure rate that changes 
over time. For more detail on the lifetime measurement, please refer to 
Chapter 8 of the July 2015 Final Rule TSD.
    Issue 32: DOE requests comment on the average lifetime of 7 years 
for lodging applications and 10 years for all other applications. DOE 
also requests comment on the Weibull approach, along with any new data 
or information about the lifetimes of PTACs and PTHPs. DOE also 
requests input on whether equipment lifetimes vary by equipment class, 
by efficiency, or by end use.

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    In this early assessment review RFI, DOE seeks data and information 
with respect to manufacturer impacts that could enable the agency to 
determine whether to propose a ``no new standard'' determination 
because a more stringent standard: (1) Would not result in a 
significant savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) 
is not

[[Page 82964]]

economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.
    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs, and to evaluate the potential 
impact of such standards on direct employment and manufacturing 
capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and qualitative aspects. 
The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies on the Government 
Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), an industry cash-flow model adapted 
for each equipment in this analysis, with the key output of industry 
net present value (``INPV''). The qualitative part of the MIA addresses 
the potential impacts of energy conservation standards on manufacturing 
capacity and industry competition, as well as factors such as equipment 
characteristics, impacts on particular subgroups of firms, and 
important market and equipment trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(``NAICS'') code.\11\ Manufacturing of consumer PTACs and PTHPs is 
classified under NAICS 335415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or 
less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This 
employee threshold includes all employees in a business' parent company 
and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the product-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    Issue 33: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute PTACs and PTHPs in the United States.
    Issue 34: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE requests the names and contact 
information of small business manufacturers, as defined by the SBA's 
size threshold, of PTACs and PTHPs that distribute equipment in the 
United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other 
manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by 
amended energy conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any 
potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on 
manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue 35: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs 
associated with (1) other DOE standards applying to different equipment 
that these manufacturers may also make and (2) equipment-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment 
on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory burden and 
whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that would reduce 
this burden while remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.

J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

1. Market Failures
    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
    DOE published an RFI on the emerging smart technology appliance and 
equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018) (``2018 RFI''). In the 
2018 RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and 
issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment 
that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the 2018 RFI 
was to ensure that DOE did not inadvertently impede such innovation in 
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards 
for covered products and equipment. As part of this early assessment 
review, DOE seeks comments, data and information on the issues 
presented in the 2018 RFI as they may be applicable to energy 
conservation standards for PTACs and PTHPs.
3. Other Issues
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this early assessment review that may not specifically be 
identified in this document. In particular, DOE notes that under 
Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory 
Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE are directed to manage 
the costs associated with the imposition of expenditures required to 
comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). 
Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages the public to provide 
input on measures DOE could take to lower the cost of its energy 
conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements, and compliance and certification requirements applicable 
to PTACs and PTHPs while remaining consistent with the requirements of 
EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments 
and information on matters addressed in this document and on other 
matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations 
standards for PTACs and PTHPs. After the close of the comment period, 
DOE will review the public comments received and may begin collecting 
data and conducting the analyses discussed in this document.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information

[[Page 82965]]

will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies Office staff only. Your 
contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first 
and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter 
representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly 
because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to 
contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical 
difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be 
able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#44141005070c147674757d171000747477710421216a202b216a232b32"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="55050114161d056765646c060111656566601530307b313a307b323a23">[email protected]</span></a> 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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e6a796968a8f87888583b59287888287948295b7938395928f898895a68383c8828983c8818990"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="400130302c29212e23251334212e24213224331135253334292f2e330025256e242f256e272f36">[email protected]</span></a>.

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


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>