37934 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

10 CFR Part 431 

[EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035] 

RIN 1904–AE66 

Energy Conservation Program: Energy 

Conservation Standards for Packaged 

Terminal Air Conditioners and 

Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Notification of proposed 

determination and request for comment. 

SUMMARY: The Energy Policy and 

Conservation Act, as amended 

(‘‘EPCA’’), prescribes energy 

conservation standards for various 

consumer products and certain 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including Packaged Terminal Air 

Conditioners (‘‘PTACs’’) and Packaged 

Terminal Heat Pumps (‘‘PTHPs’’). EPCA 

also requires the U.S. Department of 

Energy (‘‘DOE’’) to periodically review 

standards. In this notification of 

proposed determination (‘‘NOPD’’), DOE 

has preliminarily determined that it 

lacks clear and convincing evidence that 

more-stringent standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs would be economically justified. 

As such, DOE has preliminarily 

determined that energy conservation 

standards for PTACs and PHTPs do not 

need to be amended. DOE requests 

comment on this proposed 

determination and the associated 

analyses and results. 

DATES: Meeting: DOE will hold a public 

meeting via webinar on Wednesday, 

July 20, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 

p.m. See section VII, ‘‘Public 

Participation,’’ for webinar registration 

information, participant instructions, 

and information about the capabilities 

available to webinar participants. 

Comments: Written comments and 

information are requested and will be 

accepted on or before August 23, 2022. 

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are 

encouraged to submit comments using 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov under docket 

number EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035. 

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) Email: PTACHP2019STD0035@

ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035in the subject 

line of the message. 

(2) 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. 

(3) 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 telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be 

accepted. For detailed instructions on 

submitting comments and additional 

information on this process, see section 

VII of this document. 

Docket: The docket, which includes 

Federal Register notices, webinar 

attendee lists and transcripts, 

comments, and other supporting 

documents/materials, is available for 

review at www.regulations.gov. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov index. 

However, not all documents listed in 

the index may be publicly available, 

such as information that is exempt from 

public disclosure. 

The docket web page can be found at 

www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2019-BT-STD-0035. The docket web 

page contains instructions on how to 

access all documents, including public 

comments, in the docket. See section 

VII, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further 

information on how to submit 

comments through 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Mr. Lucas Adin, 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) 287– 

5904. Email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department 

of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, 

GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, 

Washington, DC, 20585–0121. 

Telephone: (202) 586–2588. Email: 

Amelia.Whiting@Hq.Doe.Gov. 

For further information on how to 

submit a comment or review other 

public comments and the docket contact 

the Appliance and Equipment 

Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 

1445 or by email: 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed Determination 

II. Introduction 

A. Authority 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

PTACs and PTHPs 

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

III. General Discussion 

A. Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

B. Test Procedure 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

2. Significance of Savings 

E. Economic Justification 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers and 

Consumers 

2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared To 

Increase in Price 

3. Energy Savings 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of Competition 

6. Need for National Energy Conservation 

7. Other Factors 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of Related 

Comments 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

1. Scope of Coverage 

2. Equipment Classes 

a. Make-Up Air PTACs and PTHPs 

3. Technology Options 

4. Screening Analysis 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

b. Other Technologies Not Considered in 

the Engineering Analysis 

c. Remaining Technologies 

B. Engineering Analysis 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

2. Equipment Classes Analyzed 

3. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

4. Maximum Available and Maximum 

Technologically Feasible Levels 

5. Incremental Efficiency levels 

6. Cost Analysis 

7. Cost-Efficiency Results 

C. Markups Analysis 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

1. PTAC and PTHP Equipment Cost 

2. Installation Cost 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

4. Energy Prices 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

6. Product Lifetime 

7. Discount Rates 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the NoNew-Standards Case 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

F. Shipments Analysis 

G. National Impact Analysis 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

2. National Energy Savings 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37935 

1For editorial reasons, upon codification in the 

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

2All references to EPCA in this document refer 

to the statute as amended through the Energy Act 

of 2020, Pub. L. 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which 

reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 

Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

A. Economic Impacts on PTAC and PTHP 

Consumers 

B. National Impact Analysis 

a. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

C. Proposed Determination 

1. Technological Feasibility 

2. Significant Conservation of Energy 

3. Economic Justification 

4. Summary 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility 

Act 

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 

H. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 1999 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

J. Review Under the Treasury and General 

Government Appropriations Act, 2001 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

L. Review Under the Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review 

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

D. Submission of Comments 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the Secretary 

I. Synopsis of the Proposed 

Determination 

Title III, Part C1 of EPCA,2 established 

the Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment. (42 U.S.C. 

6311–6317) Such equipment includes 

PTACs and PTHPs, the subject of this 

rulemaking. Pursuant to EPCA, DOE is 

to consider amending the energy 

efficiency standards for certain types of 

commercial and industrial equipment, 

including the equipment at issue in this 

document, whenever the American 

Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and 

Air-Conditioning Engineers 

(‘‘ASHRAE’’) amends the standard 

levels or design requirements prescribed 

in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy 

Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise 

Residential Buildings,’’ (‘‘ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1’’). Under a separate 

provision of EPCA, DOE is required to 

review the existing energy conservation 

standards for those types of covered 

equipment subject to ASHRAE Standard 

90.1 every six 6 years to determine 

whether those standards need to be 

amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)–(C)) 

DOE is conducting this review of the 

energy conservation standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs under EPCA’s sixyear-lookback authority. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)) 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

analyzed PTACs and PTHPs subject to 

standards specified in Title 10 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) 

part 431.97. DOE first analyzed the 

technological feasibility of more energy 

efficient PTACs and PTHPs. For those 

PTACs and PTHPs for which DOE 

determined higher standards to be 

technologically feasible, DOE estimated 

energy savings that would result from 

potential energy conservation standards 

by conducting a national impacts 

analysis (‘‘NIA’’). DOE also considered 

whether potential energy conservation 

standards would be economically 

justified. As discussed in the following 

sections, DOE has tentatively 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs would be 

economically justified. DOE evaluated 

whether higher standards would be cost 

effective by conducting life-cycle cost 

(‘‘LCC’’) and payback period (‘‘PBP’’) 

analyses, and estimated the net present 

value (‘‘NPV’’) of the total costs and 

benefits experienced by consumers. 

Based on the results of the analyses, 

summarized in section V of this 

document, DOE has tentatively 

determined that it lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that more-stringent 

standards would result in significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. 

II. Introduction 

The following section briefly 

discusses the statutory authority 

underlying this proposed determination, 

as well as some of the historical 

background relevant to the 

establishment of standards for PTACs 

and PTHPs. 

A. Authority 

EPCA authorizes DOE to regulate the 

energy efficiency of a number of 

consumer products and certain 

industrial equipment. Title III, Part C of 

EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as 

codified), added by Public Law 95–619, 

Title IV, section 441(a), established the 

Energy Conservation Program for 

Certain Industrial Equipment, which 

sets forth a variety of provisions 

designed to improve energy efficiency. 

This equipment includes PTACs and 

PTHPs, the subject of this document. (42 

U.S.C. 6311(1)(I)) EPCA prescribed 

initial standards for this equipment. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(3)) 

The energy conservation program 

under EPCA consists essentially of four 

parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) the 

establishment of Federal energy 

conservation standards, and (4) 

certification and enforcement 

procedures. Relevant provisions of 

EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 

6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), 

labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), 

energy conservation standards (42 

U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to 

require information and reports from 

manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 

U.S.C. 6296). 

Subject to certain criteria and 

conditions, DOE is required to develop 

test procedures to measure the energy 

efficiency, energy use, or estimated 

annual operating cost of covered 

equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use the Federal test procedures as 

the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that 

their equipment complies with the 

applicable energy conservation 

standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 

U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) 

making representations about the 

efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 

6314(d)) Similarly, DOE uses these test 

procedures to determine whether the 

equipment complies with relevant 

standards promulgated under EPCA. 

The DOE test procedures for PTACs and 

PTHPs appear at title 10 of the CFR part 

431 section 96(g). 

EPCA contains mandatory energy 

conservation standards for commercial 

heating, air-conditioning, and waterheating 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, packaged 

terminal air conditioners and packaged 

terminal heat pumps, 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 

that generally corresponded to the levels 

in the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 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) 

If ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended 

with respect to the standard levels or 

design requirements applicable under 

that standard for certain commercial 

equipment, including PTACs and 

PTHPs, not later than 180 days after the 

amendment of the standard, DOE must 

publish in the Federal Register for 

public comment an analysis of the 

energy savings potential of amended 

energy efficiency standards. (42 U.S.C. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37936 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) DOE must adopt 

amended energy conservation standards 

at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1, unless clear and 

convincing evidence supports a 

determination that adoption of a morestringent efficiency level as a national 

standard would produce significant 

additional energy savings and be 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) 

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 the 

products subject to the standard; 

(2) The savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of the 

product in the type (or class) compared to 

any increase in the price, initial charges, or 

maintenance expenses of the products 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 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)) 

If DOE adopts as a national standard 

the efficiency levels specified in the 

amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 

must establish such a standard not later 

than 18 months after publication of the 

amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If DOE determines 

that a more-stringent standard is 

appropriate under the statutory criteria, 

DOE must establish the more-stringent 

standard not later than 30 months after 

publication of the revised ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(i)) 

EPCA also requires that every six 

years DOE shall evaluate the energy 

conservation standards for each class of 

certain covered commercial equipment, 

including PTACs and PTHPs, and 

publish either a notice of determination 

that the standards do not need to be 

amended, or a notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘NOPR’’) that includes new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) 

EPCA further provides that, not later 

than three years after the issuance of a 

final determination not to amend 

standards, DOE must publish either a 

notice of determination that standards 

for the product do not need to be 

amended, or a NOPR including new 

proposed energy conservation standards 

(proceeding to a final rule, as 

appropriate). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II)) DOE must make the 

analysis on which the determination is 

based publicly available and provide an 

opportunity for written comment. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(ii)) 

DOE is publishing this NOPD in 

satisfaction of the 6-year review 

requirement in EPCA, having initially 

determined that DOE lacks clear and 

convincing evidence that amended 

standards for PTACs and PTHPs would 

be economically justified. 

B. Background 

1. Current Standards 

In a final rule published on July 21, 

2015 (‘‘July 2015 final rule’’), DOE 

prescribed the current energy 

conservation standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs. 80 FR 43162. These levels are 

expressed in energy efficiency ratio 

(‘‘EER’’) for the cooling mode and in 

coefficient of performance (‘‘COP’’) for 

the heating mode for PTHPs. EER is 

defined as the ratio of the produced 

cooling effect of an air conditioner or 

heat pump to its net work input, 

expressed in British thermal units 

(‘‘Btu’’)/watt-hour. 10 CFR 431.92. COP 

is defined as the ratio of the produced 

cooling effect of an air conditioner or 

heat pump (or its produced heating 

effect, depending on the mode of 

operation) to its net work input, when 

both the cooling (or heating) effect and 

the net work input are expressed in 

identical units of measurement. 10 CFR 

431.92. 

The current energy conservation 

standards are located at 10 CFR 431.97, 

Table 7 and Table 8 and repeated in 

Table II–1. 

TABLE II–1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS

Equipment Class 

Efficiency level *

Compliance 

date: products 

manufactured 

on or after 

Equipment 

type Category Cooling capacity (British thermal units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’)) 

PTAC ............. Standard Size ** ..................... <7,000 Btu/h ................................................... EER ¥ 11.9 ........................... January 1, 

2017. 

................................................ ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h .................... EER-14.0—(0.300 × Cap‡) .... January 1, 

2017. 

................................................ >15,000 Btu/h ................................................. EER-9.5 ................................. January 1, 

2017. 

\ Non-Standard Size † .............. <7,000 Btu/h ................................................... EER-9.4 ................................. October 7,

2010. 

................................................ ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h .................... EER-10.9—(0.213 × Cap †) .... October 7, 

2010. 

................................................ >15,000 Btu/h ................................................. EER-7.7 ................................. October 7, 

2010. 

PTHP ............. Standard Size ** ..................... <7,000 Btu/h ................................................... EER-11.9 ...............................

COP = 3.3 ..............................

October 8, 

2012. 

................................................ ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h .................... EER-14.0—(0.300 × Cap‡) ....

COP = 3.7—(0.052 × Cap ‡) ..

October 8, 

2012. 

................................................ >15,000 Btu/h ................................................. EER-9.5 .................................

COP-2.9 .................................

October 8, 

2012. 

Non-Standard Size † .............. <7,000 Btu/h ................................................... EER-9.3 .................................

COP-2.7 .................................

October 7, 

2010. 

................................................ ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h .................... EER-10.8—(0.213 × Cap ‡) ....

COP = 2.9—(0.026 × Cap ‡) ..

October 7, 

2010. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37937 

3The parenthetical reference provides a reference 

for information located in the docket. (Docket No. 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035, which is maintained at 

www.regulations.gov). The references are arranged 

as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID 

number, page of that document). 

TABLE II–1—FEDERAL ENERGY CONSERVATION STANDARDS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS—Continued 

Equipment Class 

Efficiency level *

Compliance 

date: products 

manufactured 

on or after 

Equipment 

type Category Cooling capacity (British thermal units per hour (‘‘Btu/h’’)) 

................................................ >15,000 Btu/h ................................................. EER-7.6 .................................

COP-2.5 .................................

October 7, 

2010. 

* For equipment rated according to the DOE test procedure prescribed at 10 CFR 431.96(g). 

** Standard size means 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. † Non-standard size means 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. †† Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95ßF outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

2. History of Standards Rulemakings for 

PTACs and PTHPs 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

published amendments to the PTAC and 

PTHP standards in response to the 2013 

update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

(‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013’’). 80 FR 

43162. DOE determined that ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013 amended the 

standards for three of the 12 PTAC and 

PTHP equipment classes: PTAC 

standard size less than 7,000 Btu/h, 

PTAC standard size greater than or 

equal 7,000 Btu/h and less than or equal 

to 15,000 Btu/h, and PTAC standard 

size greater than 15,000 Btu/h. 80 FR 

43162, 43163. DOE adopted the 

standard levels for these three 

equipment classes as updated by 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013, with 

compliance with the amended standards 

required for equipment manufactured 

on or after January 1, 2017. Id. DOE did 

not amend the energy conservation 

standards for the remaining nine 

equipment classes which were already 

aligned with the standards in ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1–2013. 80 FR 43162, 

43166. 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. 

80 FR 43162, 43163. 

Since ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013 

was published, ASHRAE Standard 90.1 

has undergone two further revisions. A 

revision was published on October 26, 

2016 (‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016’’) 

and a revision was published on 

October 24, 2019 (‘‘ASHRAE Standard 

90.1–2019’’). Neither of these 

publications amended the minimum 

EER and COP levels for PTACs and 

PTHPs. 

In support of the present review of the 

PTACs and PTHPs energy conservation 

standards, DOE published an early 

assessment review request for 

information (‘‘RFI’’) on December 21, 

2020 (‘‘December 2020 ECS RFI’’), 

which identified various issues on 

which DOE sought comment to inform 

its determination of whether the 

standards need to be amended. 85 FR 

82952. 

DOE received comments in response 

to the December 2020 ECS RFI from the 

interested parties listed in Table II–2 of 

this document. These comments are 

discussed in detail in section IV of this 

document. 

TABLE II–2—DECEMBER 2020 ECS RFI WRITTEN COMMENTS

Commenter(s) Reference in this 

NOPD Commenter type 

Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ............................................. AHRI ...................... Trade Association. 

Appliance Standards Awareness Project ................................................................ ASAP ..................... Efficiency Organizations. 

GE Appliances ......................................................................................................... GEA ....................... Manufacturer. 

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ..................................................................... NEEA ..................... Efficiency Organizations. 

Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern 

California Edison.

CA IOUs ................ Utilities. 

A parenthetical reference at the end of 

a comment quotation or paraphrase 

provides the location of the item in the 

public record.3

C. Deviation From Appendix A 

In accordance with section 3(a) of 10 

CFR part 430 subpart C, appendix A 

(‘‘appendix A’’), applicable to covered 

equipment under 10 CFR 431.4, DOE 

notes that it is deviating from the 

provision in appendix A regarding the 

comment period for a NOPR. Section 

6(f)(2) of appendix A specifies that the 

length of the public comment period for 

a NOPR will not be less than 75 days. 

For this proposed determination, DOE 

has opted to instead provide a 60-day 

comment period. As stated previously, 

DOE requested comment in the 

December 2020 ECS RFI on the 

technical and economic analyses that 

would be used to determine whether a 

more stringent standard would result in 

significant conservation of energy and is 

technologically feasible and 

economically justified. DOE has 

determined that a 60-day comment 

period, in conjunction with the prior 

December 2020 ECS RFI, provides 

sufficient time for interested parties to 

review the proposed rule and develop 

comments. 

III. General Discussion 

DOE developed this proposed 

determination after considering 

comments, data, and information from 

interested parties that represent a 

variety of interests. This proposed 

determination addresses issues raised 

by these commenters. 

A. Equipment Classes and Scope of 

Coverage 

When evaluating and establishing 

energy conservation standards, DOE 

divides covered equipment into 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37938 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

4The amendatory instructions in the June 2015 

TP final rule for PTACs and PTHPs includes the 

reference to AHRI Standard 310/380–2014 in 

paragraphs (c) and (e), indicating that the 

requirements do apply to this equipment, even 

though the current CFR does not include this 

reference. 80 FR 37136, 37149 (June 30, 2015). 

equipment classes by the type of energy 

used or by capacity or other 

performance-related features that justify 

differing standards. This proposed 

determination covers PTACs and 

PTHPs. 

PTAC is defined 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. 10 CFR 431.92. 

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. Id. 

PTHP is defined as a PTAC 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. 

The scope of coverage is discussed in 

further detail in section IV.A.1 of this 

document. The PTAC and PTHP classes 

for this proposed determination are 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.A.2 of this document. 

B. Test Procedure 

EPCA sets forth generally applicable 

criteria and procedures for DOE’s 

adoption and amendment of test 

procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)) 

Manufacturers of covered equipment 

must use these test procedures to certify 

to DOE that their product complies with 

energy conservation standards and to 

quantify the efficiency of their product. 

(42 U.S.C. 6314(d)) As discussed, DOE’s 

current energy conservation standards 

for PTACs and PTHPs are expressed in 

terms of EER and COP. 10 CFR 431.97. 

DOE’s current test procedures for 

PTACs and PTHPs were last updated in 

a test procedure final rule on June 30, 

2015 (‘‘June 2015 TP final rule’’). 80 FR 

37136. The current test procedure for 

cooling mode incorporates by reference 

AHRI Standard 310/380–2014, 

‘‘Standard for Packaged Terminal AirConditioners and Heat Pumps’’ (‘‘AHRI 

Standard 310/380–2014’’) with the 

following sections applicable to the 

DOE test procedure: sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 

4.3, and 4.4; 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 Standard 16–1983’’) 

and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ‘‘Methods 

of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven 

Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat 

Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 37–2009’’). 10 CFR 

431.96(g)(1) 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 Standard 

58–1986 (RA 2014), ‘‘Method of Testing 

for Rating Room Air-Conditioner and 

Packaged Terminal Air-Conditioner 

Heating Capacity’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 

Standard 58–1986’’). 10 CFR 

431.96(g)(2). The currently applicable 

DOE test procedures for PTACs and 

PTHPs appear at 10 CFR 431.96 (g). 

The current test procedures also 

include 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 specifies provisions for an 

optional compressor break-in period, 

and paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 

details 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.4

DOE’s current test procedure for 

PTACs and PTHPs do not include a 

seasonal metric that includes part-load 

performance. As part of an ongoing test 

procedure rulemaking, DOE published a 

RFI on May 25, 2021 (‘‘May 2021 TP 

RFI’’), in which DOE requested 

information and data to consider 

amendments to DOE’s test procedure for 

PTACs and PTHPs. 86 FR 28005. 

Specifically, DOE requested comment 

on whether it should consider adopting 

for PTACs and PTHPs a cooling-mode 

metric and a heating-mode metric that 

integrates part-load performance to 

better represent full-season efficiency. 

86 FR 28005, 28010–28011. Were DOE 

to amend 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. 

DOE received general comments 

related to the test procedure in response 

to the December 2020 ECS RFI. DOE 

will consider such comments in the 

ongoing test procedure rulemaking. 

Discussion of part-load technologies as 

they relate to standards is contained in 

section IV.A.3 of this document. 

For the purpose of this NOPD, DOE 

relied on the test procedures for PTACs 

and PTHPs as currently established at 

10 CFR 431.96(g). 

C. Technological Feasibility 

1. General 

In evaluating potential amendments 

to energy conservation standards, DOE 

conducts a screening analysis based on 

information gathered on all current 

technology options and prototype 

designs that could improve the 

efficiency of the products or equipment 

that are the subject of the determination. 

As the first step in such an analysis, 

DOE develops a list of technology 

options for consideration in 

consultation with manufacturers, design 

engineers, and other interested parties. 

These technology options are discussed 

in detail in section IV.A.3 of this 

document. DOE then determines which 

of those means for improving efficiency 

are technologically feasible. DOE 

considers technologies incorporated in 

commercially available products or in 

working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. See generally 

10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(i) and 

7(b)(1) of appendix A to 10 CFR part 430 

subpart C (‘‘Process Rule’’). 

After DOE has determined that 

particular technology options are 

technologically feasible, it further 

evaluates each technology option in 

light of the following additional 

screening criteria: (1) practicability to 

manufacture, install, and service; (2) 

adverse impacts on product utility or 

availability; (3) adverse impacts on 

health or safety; and (4) unique-pathway 

proprietary technologies. See generally 

10 CFR 431.4; sections 6(b)(3)(ii)–(v) 

and 7(b)(2)–(5) of the Process Rule. 

Section IV.A.4 of this document 

discusses the results of the screening 

analysis for PTACs and PTHPs, 

particularly the designs DOE 

considered, those it screened out, and 

those that are the basis for the standards 

considered in this proposed 

determination. For further details on the 

screening analysis for this proposed 

determination, see section IV.A.4 of this 

document. 

2. Maximum Technologically Feasible 

Levels 

As when DOE proposes to adopt an 

amended standard for a type or class of 

covered equipment, in this analysis it 

would result in significant conservation 

of energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (See 42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) Accordingly, 

in the engineering analysis, DOE 

determined the maximum 

technologically feasible (‘‘max-tech’’) 

improvements in energy efficiency for 

PTACs and PTHPs, using the design 

parameters for the most efficient 

products available on the market or in 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37939 

5The FFC metric is discussed in DOE’s statement 

of policy and notice of policy amendment. 76 FR 

51282 (Aug. 18, 2011), as amended at 77 FR 49701 

(Aug. 17, 2012). 

6 In setting a more stringent standard for ASHRAE 

equipment, DOE must have ‘‘clear and convincing 

evidence’’ that doing so ‘‘would result in significant 

additional conservation of energy’’ in addition to 

being technologically feasible and economically 

justified. 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II). This 

language indicates that Congress had intended for 

DOE to ensure that, in addition to the savings from 

the ASHRAE standards, DOE’s standards would 

yield additional energy savings that are significant. 

In DOE’s view, this statutory provision shares the 

requirement with the statutory provision applicable 

to covered products and non-ASHRAE equipment 

that ‘‘significant conservation of energy’’ must be 

present (42 U.S.C. 6295(o)(3)(B)) —and supported 

with ‘‘clear and convincing evidence’’—to permit 

DOE to set a more stringent requirement than 

ASHRAE. 

7See 86 FR 70892, 70901 (Dec. 13, 2021). 

8See Executive Order 14008, 86 FR 7619 (Feb. 1, 

2021) (‘‘Tackling the Climate Crisis at Home and 

Abroad’’). 

working prototypes. The max-tech 

levels that DOE determined for this 

analysis are described in section IV.B.4 

of this proposed determination. 

D. Energy Savings 

1. Determination of Savings 

For each efficiency level (‘‘EL’’) 

evaluated, DOE projected energy savings 

from application of the EL to the PTACs 

and PTHPs purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the assumed year 

of compliance with the potential 

standards (2026–2055). The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of the 

PTACs and PTHPs purchased in the 

previous 30-year period. DOE quantified 

the energy savings attributable to each 

EL as the difference in energy 

consumption between each standards 

case and the no-new-standards case. 

The no-new-standards case represents a 

projection of energy consumption that 

reflects how the market for a product 

would likely evolve in the absence of 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE used its NIA 

spreadsheet model to estimate national 

energy savings (‘‘NES’’) from potential 

amended or new standards for PTACs 

and PTHPs. The NIA spreadsheet model 

(described in section V.B of this 

document) calculates energy savings in 

terms of site energy, which is the energy 

directly consumed by products at the 

locations where they are used. For 

electricity, DOE reports NES in terms of 

primary energy savings, which is the 

savings in the energy that is used to 

generate and transmit the site 

electricity. DOE also calculates NES in 

terms of full-fuel-cycle (‘‘FFC’’) energy 

savings. The FFC metric includes the 

energy consumed in extracting, 

processing, and transporting primary 

fuels (i.e., coal, natural gas, petroleum 

fuels), and thus presents a more 

complete picture of the impacts of 

energy conservation standards.5 DOE’s 

approach is based on the calculation of 

an FFC multiplier for each of the energy 

types used by covered products or 

equipment. For more information on 

FFC energy savings, see section IV.G of 

this document. 

2. Significance of Savings 

In determining whether amended 

standards are needed, DOE must 

consider whether such standards will 

result in significant conservation of 

energy.6 (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(I)); 

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The 

significance of energy savings offered by 

a new or amended energy conservation 

standard cannot be determined without 

knowledge of the specific circumstances 

surrounding a given rulemaking.7 For 

example, the United States has now 

rejoined the Paris Agreement on 

February 19, 2021. As part of that 

agreement, the United States has 

committed to reducing GHG emissions 

in order to limit the rise in mean global 

temperature.8 As such, energy savings 

that reduce GHG emission have taken 

on greater importance. Additionally, 

some covered products and equipment 

have most of their energy consumption 

occur during periods of peak energy 

demand. The impacts of these products 

on the energy infrastructure can be more 

pronounced than products with 

relatively constant demand. In 

evaluating the significance of energy 

savings, DOE considers differences in 

primary energy and FFC effects for 

different covered products and 

equipment when determining whether 

energy savings are significant. 

Accordingly, DOE evaluates the 

significance of energy savings on a caseby-case basis. 

E. Economic Justification 

As noted, EPCA provides seven 

factors to be evaluated in determining 

whether a potential energy conservation 

standard is economically justified. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)) The 

following sections discuss how DOE has 

addressed each of those seven factors in 

this proposed determination. 

1. Economic Impact on Manufacturers 

and Consumers 

In determining the impacts of a 

potential amended standard on 

manufacturers, DOE conducts a 

manufacturing impact analysis (‘‘MIA’’). 

DOE first uses an annual cash-flow 

approach to determine the quantitative 

impacts. This step includes both a shortterm assessment—based on the cost and 

capital requirements during the period 

between when a regulation is issued and 

when entities must comply with the 

regulation—and a long-term assessment 

over a 30-year period. The industrywide impacts analyzed include (1) 

industry net present value, which 

values the industry on the basis of 

expected future cash flows, (2) cash 

flows by year, (3) changes in revenue 

and income, and (4) other measures of 

impact, as appropriate. However, DOE is 

not proposing amended standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs, and, therefore, this 

proposed determination would have no 

cash-flow impacts on manufacturers. 

Accordingly, as discussed further in 

section IV.G of this document, DOE did 

not conduct an MIA for this NOPD. 

For individual consumers, measures 

of economic impact include the changes 

in LCC and PBP associated with new or 

amended standards. These measures are 

discussed further in the following 

section. For consumers in the aggregate, 

DOE also calculates the national net 

present value (‘‘NPV’’) of the consumer 

costs and benefits expected to result 

from particular standards. DOE also 

evaluates the impacts of potential 

standards on identifiable subgroups of 

consumers that may be affected 

disproportionately by a standard. 

However, DOE is not proposing 

amended standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs, and, therefore, this proposed 

determination would have no 

disproportionate impact on identifiable 

subgroups of consumers. Accordingly, 

DOE did not conduct a subgroup 

analysis for this NOPD. 

2. Savings in Operating Costs Compared 

to Increase in Price 

EPCA requires DOE to consider the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the covered 

product in the type (or class) compared 

to any increase in the price of, or in the 

initial charges for, or maintenance 

expenses of, the covered product that 

are likely to result from a standard. (42 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) DOE 

conducts this comparison in its LCC and 

PBP analysis. 

The LCC is the sum of the purchase 

price of a product (including its 

installation) and the operating expense 

(including energy, maintenance, and 

repair expenditures) discounted over 

the lifetime of the product. The LCC 

analysis requires a variety of inputs, 

such as product prices, product energy 

consumption, energy prices, 

maintenance and repair costs, product 

lifetime, and discount rates appropriate 

for consumers. To account for 

uncertainty and variability in specific 

inputs, such as product lifetime and 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37940 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

9On March 16, 2022, the Fifth Circuit Court of 

Appeals (No. 22–30087) granted the federal 

government’s emergency motion for stay pending 

appeal of the February 11, 2022, preliminary 

injunction issued in Louisiana v. Biden, No. 21-cv1074–JDC–KK (W.D. La.). As a result of the Fifth 

Circuit’s order, the preliminary injunction is no 

longer in effect, pending resolution of the federal 

government’s appeal of that injunction or a further 

court order. The preliminary injunction enjoined 

the federal government from relying on the interim 

estimates of the social cost of greenhouse gases— 

which were issued by the Interagency Working 

Group on the Social Cost of Greenhouse Gases on 

February 26, 2021—to monetize the benefits of 

reducing greenhouse gas emissions. In the absence 

of further intervening court orders, DOE will revert 

to its approach prior to the injunction and present 

monetized benefits in accordance with applicable 

Executive orders. 

discount rate, DOE uses a distribution of 

values, with probabilities attached to 

each value. 

The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

due to a more-stringent standard by the 

change in annual operating cost for the 

year that standards are assumed to take 

effect. 

For its LCC and PBP analysis, DOE 

assumes that consumers will purchase 

the covered products in the first year of 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. The LCC savings for the 

considered efficiency levels are 

calculated relative to the case that 

reflects projected market trends in the 

absence of new or amended standards. 

DOE’s LCC and PBP analysis is 

discussed in further detail in section 

IV.E of this document. 

3. Energy Savings 

Although significant conservation of 

energy is a separate statutory 

requirement for adopting an energy 

conservation standard, EPCA requires 

DOE, in determining the economic 

justification of a standard, to consider 

the total projected energy savings that 

are expected to result directly from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(III)) As discussed in 

section IV.G of this document, DOE uses 

the NIA spreadsheet models to project 

national energy savings. 

4. Lessening of Utility or Performance of 

Products 

In establishing product classes and in 

evaluating design options and the 

impact of potential standard levels, DOE 

evaluates potential standards that would 

not lessen the utility or performance of 

the considered products. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(IV)) DOE is not 

proposing amended standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs, and, therefore, this 

proposed determination would not 

impact the utility of such equipment. 

5. Impact of Any Lessening of 

Competition 

EPCA directs DOE to consider the 

impact of any lessening of competition, 

as determined in writing by the 

Attorney General that is likely to result 

from a proposed standard. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(V)) Because DOE is not 

proposing standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs, DOE did not transmit a copy of 

its proposed determination to the 

Attorney General for anti-competitive 

review. 

6. Need for National Energy 

Conservation 

DOE also considers the need for 

national energy and water conservation 

in determining whether a new or 

amended standard is economically 

justified. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VI)) 

The energy savings from the proposed 

standards are likely to provide 

improvements to the security and 

reliability of the Nation’s energy system. 

Reductions in the demand for electricity 

also may result in reduced costs for 

maintaining the reliability of the 

Nation’s electricity system. DOE 

conducts a utility impact analysis to 

estimate how standards may affect the 

Nation’s needed power generation 

capacity. However, DOE is not 

proposing amended standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs, and therefore, did 

not conduct this analysis. 

DOE maintains that environmental 

and public health benefits associated 

with the more efficient use of energy are 

important to take into account when 

considering the need for national energy 

conservation. For example, energy 

conservation standards result in 

environmental benefits in the form of 

reduced emissions of air pollutants and 

greenhouse gases (‘‘GHGs’’) associated 

with energy production and use. DOE 

conducts an emissions analysis to 

estimate how potential standards may 

affect these emissions. DOE also 

estimates the economic value of 

emissions reductions resulting from 

each trial standard level (‘‘TSL’’) (i.e., 

standards case above the base case).9

However, DOE is not proposing 

amended standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs, and, therefore, did not conduct 

this analysis. 

7. Other Factors 

In determining whether an energy 

conservation standard is economically 

justified, DOE may consider any other 

factors that the Secretary deems to be 

relevant. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(VII)) To the extent DOE 

identifies any relevant information 

regarding economic justification that 

does not fit into the other categories 

described previously, DOE could 

consider such information under ‘‘other 

factors.’’ 

IV. Methodology and Discussion of 

Related Comments 

This section addresses the analyses 

DOE has performed for this proposed 

determination with regard to PTACs and 

PTHPs. Separate subsections address 

each component of DOE’s analyses. DOE 

used several analytical tools to estimate 

the impact of potential energy 

conservation standards. The first tool is 

a spreadsheet that calculates the LCC 

savings and PBP of potential energy 

conservation standards. The NIA uses a 

second spreadsheet set that provides 

shipments projections and calculates 

NES and net present value of total 

consumer costs and savings expected to 

result from potential energy 

conservation standards. These 

spreadsheet tools are available on the 

website: www.regulations.gov/docket/ 

EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035. 

A. Market and Technology Assessment 

DOE develops information in the 

market and technology assessment that 

provides an overall picture of the 

market for the products concerned, 

including the purpose of the products, 

the industry structure, manufacturers, 

market characteristics, and technologies 

used in the products. This activity 

includes both quantitative and 

qualitative assessments, based primarily 

on publicly available information. The 

subjects addressed in the market and 

technology assessment for this proposed 

determination include: (1) a 

determination of the scope and classes, 

(2) market and industry trends and (3) 

technologies or design options that 

could improve the energy efficiency of 

PTAC and PTHPs. The key findings of 

DOE’s market assessment are 

summarized in the following sections. 

See the supplemental file DOE made 

available for comment (Document ID 

No. EERE–2019–BT–STD–0035–0001) 

for a review of the current PTAC and 

PTHP market and efficiency 

distributions. 

1. Scope of Coverage 

In this analysis, DOE relied on the 

definition of PTACs and PTHPs in 10 

CFR 431.92. Any equipment meeting the 

definition of PTAC or PTHP is included 

in DOE’s scope of coverage. 

PTAC is defined as a wall sleeve and 

a separate un-encased combination of 

heating and cooling assemblies 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37941 

specified by the builder and intended 

for mounting through the wall, and that 

is industrial equipment. 10 CFR 431.92. 

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. Id. 

PTHP is defined as a PTAC 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 (‘‘October 2008 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. 

DOE defines ‘‘standard size’’ as a 

PTAC or PTHP with wall sleeve 

dimensions having an external wall 

opening of greater than or equal to 16 

inches high or greater than or equal to 

42 inches wide, and a cross-sectional 

area greater than or equal to 670 square 

inches. 10 CFR 431.92. 

DOE defines ‘‘non-standard size’’ as a 

PTAC or PTHP with existing wall sleeve 

dimensions having an external wall 

opening of less than 16 inches high or 

less than 42 inches wide, and a crosssectional area less than 670 square 

inches. Id. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested comment on whether the 

definitions for PTACs, PTHPs, standard 

size and non-standard size require any 

revisions—and if so, what revisions are 

needed and how those definitions 

should be revised. 82 FR 82952, 82956. 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether additional equipment 

definitions are necessary to close any 

potential gaps in coverage between 

equipment types and whether there 

were opportunities to combine 

equipment classes that could reduce 

regulatory burden. Id. 

In response, AHRI stated that the 

current definitions for PTACs and 

PTHPs do not require revisions at this 

time and the subcategory definitions 

currently in place for ‘‘standard size’’ 

and ‘‘non-standard size’’ are also 

appropriate and require no 

modifications. AHRI also explained that 

the current equipment classes are 

appropriate and that any modifications 

should be first made through ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 process. AHRI further 

commented that DOE is required to 

consider amending its standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs when ASHRAE 

Standard 90.1 is amended, which 

includes equipment definitions and 

classes, and as no amendment has 

occurred the existing scheme is 

appropriate (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4) DOE 

did not receive any further comments 

pertaining to these issues of coverage. 

For this NOPD DOE maintains the 

current definitions for PTACs, PTHPs, 

standard size and non-standard size. 

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 

the cooling capacity in Btu/h. Table IV– 

1 lists the current 12 equipment classes 

for PTACs and PTHPs specified in Table 

7 and Table 8 to 10 CFR 431.97. 

TABLE IV–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. 

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. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested feedback on the current PTAC 

and PTHP equipment classes and 

whether any changes to these individual 

equipment classes and their 

descriptions should be made or whether 

certain classes should be merged or 

separated. 85 FR 82952, 82957. 

Specifically, DOE requested comment 

on opportunities to combine equipment 

classes that could reduce regulatory 

burden. Id. DOE further requested 

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 

this equipment. Id. DOE also requested 

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. Id. 

In response, AHRI commented that 

they do not recommend changes at this 

time (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4) DOE did not 

receive any further comments on this 

issue. 

DOE also sought information 

regarding any other new product classes 

it should consider for inclusion in its 

analysis. 85 FR 82952, 82957. 

Specifically, DOE requested 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). 

Id. 

In response, AHRI stated that they 

support the current equipment classes 

and that they should not be expanded. 

(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5) DOE did not 

receive any further comments on this 

issue. 

For this NOPD, DOE maintains the 

current equipment classes. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37942 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

10 In their comments, GEA referred generally to 

‘‘PTACs.’’ However, based on the context of their 

comments, DOE understands GEA’s comments to 

apply to both PTACs and PTHPs. 

11 International Code Council. 2009 International 

Building Code. Available at: https://

codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/4641/. 

12 International Code Council (2022). 

‘‘International Codes—Adoption by State.’’ 

Available at: https://www.iccsafe.org/wp-content/ 

uploads/Master-I-Code-Adoption-Chart-FEB-22.pdf. 

13 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database can 

be found at: www.regulations.doe.gov/certificationdata/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (accessed March 

9th, 2022). 

a. Make-Up Air PTACs and PTHPs 

In the May 2021 TP RFI, DOE 

described ‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs and 

their additional function of 

dehumidification. 86 FR 28005, 28007– 

28009. As discussed in section II.B.1 of 

this document, for PTACs and PTHPs, 

DOE currently specifies EER as the test 

metric for cooling efficiency and COP as 

the metric for heating efficiency. Neither 

the current test procedure, at 10 CFR 

431.96(g), nor the industry test 

procedure incorporated by reference, 

AHRI Standard 310/380–2014, account 

for the energy associated with the 

conditioning of make-up air introduced 

by the unit. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested comment on appropriate 

definitions for ‘‘make-up air PTAC’’ and 

‘‘make-up air PTHP’’ and what 

characteristics could be used to 

distinguish make-up air PTACs and 

PTHPs from other PTACs and PTHPs. 

85 FR 82952, 82957. DOE requested 

information on the consumer utility and 

the energy use associated with the 

function of providing ‘‘make-up air.’’ Id. 

DOE also requested comment on 

whether the same capacity ranges used 

for non- ‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs and 

PTHPs would be appropriate to use for 

equipment classes for possible ‘‘makeup air’’ PTAC and PTHP equipment 

classes (i.e., less than 7,000 Btu/h, 

greater than or equal to 7,000 Btu/h and 

less than or equal to 15,000 Btu/h, and 

greater than 15,000 Btu/h). Id. Finally, 

DOE requested comment on if there are 

both Standard Size and Non-Standard 

Size ‘‘make-up air’’ PTACs and PTHPs. 

Id. 

AHRI commented that make-up air 

PTACs and make-up air PTHPs are not 

included as equipment categories in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and therefore 

should not be considered as separate 

equipment categories in this DOE 

rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5) AHRI 

further commented that their research 

did not indicate that a sufficient number 

of products would benefit from a 

separate class to include the energy for 

either a specialized feature for outdoor 

air conditioning or dehumidification. Id. 

AHRI stated that no manufacturer has 

submitted a waiver to modify the 

current test procedure indicating that 

the results of the test procedure remain 

representative of actual energy use or 

efficiency and all products defined as 

PTACs and PTHPs and are able to be 

tested in accordance with AHRI 

Standard 310/380. Id. AHRI also 

asserted that there is a significant testing 

barrier to accurately measuring 

dehumidification, stating that 

psychrometric chambers are not enabled 

to test dehumidification of outside air 

and any changes to incorporate 

dehumidification would therefore 

require research to determine an 

appropriate procedure. Id. 

GEA also commented that PTACs 10

with make-up air capabilities do not 

require separate product classes, stating 

that: these units do not make a sufficient 

segment of the market to justify a 

separate class; they are not included as 

equipment classes in ASHRAE Standard 

90.1; all equipment defined as PTACs 

and PTHPs are able to be tested in 

accordance with AHRI Standard 310/ 

380 and that there are significant issues 

with testing of make-up air units related 

to the design of existing test rooms, 

particularly with respect to 

dehumidification, which would require 

substantial investment to modify test 

facilities. (GEA, No. 10 at p. 2) 

The CA IOUs stated that more 

research is needed before a 

determination can be made with respect 

to whether units that provide make-up 

air warrant separate equipment classes, 

including testing the equipment and 

market analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 

4) The commenters recommended that 

DOE investigate the size and potential 

market growth for this feature. Id. 

Additionally, they also stated that 

appendix M1 (to subpart B of 10 CFR 

part 430), which the CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE adopt for 

PTACs and PTHPs, does not have 

provisions for testing units while they 

provide make-up air. Id. The 

commenters urged DOE to use caution 

in creating a separate product class for 

units that provide make-up air, asserting 

it will likely make compliance, 

enforcement, and product comparison 

difficult. Id. 

DOE notes that while the market for 

make-up air PTACs and PTHPs may be 

small currently, new building code 

requirements may lead to increased 

demand for these units. As discussed in 

the May 2021 TP RFI, building designs 

that supply make-up air via corridors 

are generally no longer permissible 

under the building codes adopted in 

most U.S. states. 86 FR 28005, 28008. 

Chapter 10, Section 1018.5 of the 2009 

International Building Code (‘‘IBC’’) 

states that, with some exceptions, 

‘‘corridors shall not serve as supply, 

return, exhaust, relief or ventilation air 

ducts.’’ 11 The International Code 

Council (‘‘ICC’’) tracks the adoption of 

the IBC by state. The ICC reports that, 

as of February 2022, only seven states 

had not fully adopted the 2009 version 

or a more recent version of the IBC.12

DOE is cognizant of the potential 

testing challenges associated with the 

testing of make-up air PTACs and 

PTHPs and is considering this in the 

ongoing test procedure rulemaking. 86 

FR 28005, 28008–28009. Were DOE to 

amend 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. At such time, DOE 

would conduct the analysis for future 

standards rulemakings, if any, based on 

the amended test procedure. However, 

DOE is not proposing to establish 

separate equipment classes for make-up 

air PTACs and PTHPs at this time. 

3. Technology Options 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

identified several technology options 

that would be expected to improve the 

efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs, as 

measured by the DOE test procedure. 85 

FR 82952, 82957–82958. Based on the 

technologies identified in the analysis 

for the July 2015 final rule and a 

preliminary survey of the current 

market using the DOE Compliance 

Certification Database (‘‘CCD’’),13 DOE 

separately provided potential 

technology options in two categories: 

technologies that may increase 

efficiency at both full-load and part-load 

conditions (designated as Table II.2 in 

the December 2020 ECS RFI and relisted as Table IV–2 in this document); 

and technologies that may only increase 

efficiency at part-load conditions 

(designated as Table II.3 in the 

December 2020 ECS RFI and re-listed as 

Table IV–3 in this document). Id. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37943 

TABLE IV–2—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS PRESENTED IN THE DECEMBER 2020 ECS RFI 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 IV–3—TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS PRESENTED IN THE DECEMBER 2020 ECS RFI 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 was not analyzed in the July 2015 because of no full-load benefit. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested information on the 

technologies listed in Table IV–2 

regarding their applicability to the 

current market, how these technologies 

may impact the efficiency of PTACs and 

PTHPs, how these technologies have 

changed since the July 2015 final rule 

and the range of efficiencies or 

performance characteristics that are 

currently available for each technology 

option. 85 FR 82952, 82958. DOE also 

sought comment on whether the new 

technologies mentioned 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. Id. 

Specifically, DOE sought information on 

the new technologies 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. 

Id. DOE also sought 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. 

Id. 

AHRI suggested that DOE contact 

manufacturers independently to provide 

feedback on the technologies listed in in 

the December 2020 ECS RFI 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. (AHRI, No. 4 at p. 6) 

Additionally, AHRI stated that it was 

not aware of any advanced development 

of technologies screened out in the July 

2015 final rule, with the exception of 

variable speed compressors. Id. AHRI 

stated that two manufacturers offer 

PTACs and PTHPs with variable speed 

compressors; however, the current test 

procedure referencing AHRI Standard 

310/380–2014 provides only a full load 

performance rating. AHRI further stated 

that in its review of the certification 

database, AHRI found only a handful of 

products that may benefit from the 

additional test burden that would be 

imposed by moving to a part-load 

metric. Id. AHRI commented that 

determining performance at multiple 

load points, rather than one, and the 

additional calculations to determine a 

seasonal efficiency adds considerable 

time to testing and a change in metric 

requires all existing products to be 

retested, which will benefit few 

products on the market. Id. AHRI 

commented that no manufacturer had 

submitted a waiver to modify the 

current test procedure indicating that 

the results of a test procedure remain 

representative of actual energy use or 

efficiency and all products defined as 

PTACs and PTHPs are able to be tested 

in accordance with AHRI Standard 310/ 

380. AHRI also commented that to their 

knowledge, no manufacturer is 

currently using the new technology 

options captured in Table IV–3. Id. 

AHRI stated that they had no 

suggestions on additional technology 

options that DOE should consider for 

inclusion in its analysis. Id. 

NEEA agreed with the list of 

technology options included in the 2015 

ECS final rule and recommended that 

DOE continue to include those 

technologies in this rulemaking. In 

addition to the listed technology 

options, NEEA suggested the following 

technology options for consideration: 

use of intake and exhaust ducts to 

reduce infiltration, alternative 

refrigerants, microchannel heat 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37944 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

exchangers and separate indoor and 

outdoor blower motors. (NEEA, No. 9 at 

pp. 4–5) NEEA noted that separate 

indoor and outdoor blower motors are 

used as a strategy to improve efficiency 

while also reducing unit noise by at 

least one manufacturer. Id. 

ASAP encouraged DOE to evaluate 

the range of technology options 

identified in the RFI, stating that many 

of these technology options were not 

analyzed in the July 2015 final rule, 

which, per ASAP, suggests that 

significantly greater energy savings may 

be possible than the max-tech levels in 

the previous rule. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 1) 

ASAP commented that the technology 

options that can increase part-load 

efficiency such as variable-speed 

compressors, variable-speed fans, and 

electronic expansion valves have the 

potential to provide large savings. Id. 

ASAP also encouraged DOE to consider 

improvements to heating performance at 

low temperatures as technology 

options—stating that design changes 

such as added defrost capability can 

allow a PTHP to continue to use the 

heat pump cycle at lower ambient 

temperatures to provide significant 

energy savings. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 2) 

ASAP suggested that improved defrost 

control strategies be added as a 

technology option. Id. 

The CA IOUs recommended that DOE 

include low global warming potential 

(‘‘GWP’’) refrigerants, such as R–32, in 

its engineering analysis. (CA IOUs, No. 

7 at p. 3) The CA IOUs asserted that 

PTAC and PTHPs manufactured after an 

updated standard takes effect will likely 

use low-GWP refrigerants. Id. 

As discussed earlier in section III.B of 

this document, DOE may consider 

adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a 

cooling-mode metric and a heatingmode metric that integrates part-load 

performance. In the December 2020 ECS 

RFI, DOE requested data on the market 

penetration and efficiency improvement 

associated with the technology options 

that may increase efficiency at part-load 

conditions, as listed in Table IV–3 of 

this document. 85 FR 82952, 82958. In 

addition, DOE requested data on any 

other technology options not listed 

above that would improve the efficiency 

of equipment under part-load 

conditions. Id. 

AHRI and GEA did not support 

moving to a part-load metric. (AHRI, No. 

8 at p.7; GEA, No. 10 at p.2) AHRI 

commented that very few products use 

advanced compressors, but all products 

would be required to be retested if a 

part-load metric was adopted. (AHRI, 

No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI asserted that 

industry burdens would make a switch 

to a new metric untimely. Id. GEA 

stated that moving the entire industry to 

a part load metric would have little 

benefit to consumers and would have 

little to no effect on energy efficiency, 

while creating substantial cost and 

testing burden. (GEA, No. 10 at p. 2) 

GEA suggested that instead DOE should 

allow the industry to follow the test 

procedure waiver process which allows 

for adding appropriate provisions for 

variable speed compressor products 

while maintaining stability in the vast 

majority of the market that does not 

include variable speed compressors. Id. 

GEA stated that once the technology is 

sufficiently mature, moving the test 

procedure and standards to a part load 

metric may make sense—however, this 

product category has not yet reached 

that stage. Id. 

ASAP, NEEA and CA IOUs expressed 

support for moving to a part-load 

metric. (ASPA, No. 6 at p. 1; NEEA, 

No.9 at p. 1–2; CA IOUs, No.7 at p. 1) 

ASAP recommended that DOE evaluate 

potential amended standard levels 

based on metrics that reflect annual 

energy consumption and capture lowtemperature heating performance. 

(ASAP, No. 6 at p. 1) NEEA 

recommended that DOE update energy 

conservation standard efficiency levels 

for PTACs and PTHPs, even if it does 

not proceed with a test procedure 

update, asserting that a range of 

efficiencies exist today with many 

models exceeding the current federal 

standards by approximately 10–30 

percent, depending on the product 

category. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 3) 

Additionally, NEEA stated that their 

market research suggested an increasing 

number of inverter-driven variable 

speed units have been introduced, and 

asserted that the Federal test procedure 

captures some of the efficiency impact 

of this technology, as evidenced by the 

higher EER and COP values shown for 

inverter-driven units. Id. at p. 4. NEEA 

suggested inclusion of technology 

options that can improve part-load and 

low temperature performance including 

electronic expansion valves, variable 

speed fans, multistage or variable speed 

compressors, demand-based defrost 

controls, electric resistance boost 

control strategies and compressor cut 

out controls. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 2) NEEA 

stated that demand-based defrost 

controls (as compared to time-based 

defrost) can reduce energy use by 

defrosting only when needed, rather 

than at set time intervals. Id. They also 

stated that electric resistance boost 

features can result in significant 

increased energy use and that DOE 

should consider control strategies that 

limit the use of electric resistance boost 

usage in technology options. Id. NEEA 

also suggested that DOE should consider 

compressor cut out controls, which 

control the temperature below which 

the compressor will not operate and the 

temperature at which it resumes 

operation, and include compressor cut 

out control strategies as a technology 

option. Id. 

CA IOUs stated that under the 2015 

ECS final rule, several technologies, 

such as variable-speed compressors and 

thermal expansion valves, were not 

included in the engineering analysis 

despite their potential improvements to 

part-load performance, commenting that 

DOE did not consider these technologies 

because it was believed that PTAC and 

PTHPs operate at full-load conditions 

more often than at part-load conditions. 

(CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) CA IOUs 

referenced product marketing literature 

from compressor manufacturers that 

claimed efficiency improvements of 25 

to 35 percent when replacing singlespeed compressors with variable-speed 

compressor. Id. CA IOUs also 

commented that at least five 

manufacturers now sell variable-speed 

compressor products, and that it is 

expected this technology will increase 

in prevalence. Id. 

For this analysis, DOE considered the 

technology options shown in Table IV– 

4 of this document, including options 

listed in the December 2020 ECS RFI 

and options suggested in stakeholder 

comments, for improving energy 

efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs. 

TABLE IV–4—POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF PTACS AND PTHPS

Technology options Source 

Heat Exchanger Improvements: 

Increased Heat Exchanger Area .............................................................................................. July 2015 Final Rule. 

Microchannel Heat Exchangers ............................................................................................... Screened out of July 2015 final rule; Suggested for Inclusion by Commenter. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37945 

14Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EERE-2012-BT-STD-0029-0040. 

TABLE IV–4—POTENTIAL TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FOR IMPROVING ENERGY EFFICIENCY OF PTACS AND PTHPS— 

Continued 

Technology options Source 

Indoor Blower and Outdoor Fan Improvements: 

Higher Efficiency Fan Motors ................................................................................................... July 2015 Final Rule. 

Improved Air Flow and Fan Design (including more Efficient Fan Geometries) ..................... July 2015 Final Rule. 

Variable speed condenser fan/motor ....................................................................................... New Technology Option. 

Variable speed indoor blower/motor ........................................................................................ New Technology Option. 

Separate indoor and outdoor motors (to improve efficiency while reducing noise) ................ New Technology Option Suggested by Commenter. 

Compressor Improvements: 

Higher Efficiency Compressors ................................................................................................ July 2015 Final Rule. 

Scroll Compressors .................................................................................................................. Screened out of July 2015 Final Rule. 

Variable Speed Compressors .................................................................................................. July 2015 Final Rule.* 

Other Improvements: 

Heat Pipes ................................................................................................................................ Screened out of July 2015 Final Rule. 

Alternative Refrigerants ............................................................................................................ Screened out of July 2015 Final Rule. 

EEV .......................................................................................................................................... New Technology Option. 

TEV ........................................................................................................................................... July 2015 Final Rule.* 

Intake and Exhaust Ducts (to reduce infiltration through and around the unit) ...................... New Technology Option Suggested by Commenter. 

Defrost Control Strategies & Demand-based Defrost Controls (for improved low ambient 

heating).

New Technology Option Suggested by Commenter. 

Electric resistance boost control strategies (to limit the use of electric resistance boost) ...... New Technology Option Suggested by Commenters. 

Compressor cut out control strategies (to allow compressor operation at lower temperatures).New Technology Option Suggested by Commenter. 

* Identified technology was not analyzed in the July 2015 final rule because of no full-load benefit. 

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, 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 capacity, allowing the unit to 

adjust capacity 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 allow 

for varying fan speed to reduce airflow 

rate at part-load operation. 

Detailed descriptions of the 

technology options from the July 2015 

final rule can be found in chapters 3 and 

4 of the July 2015 final rule technical 

support document (‘‘TSD’’).14

4. Screening Analysis 

DOE uses the following five screening 

criteria to determine which technology 

options are suitable for further 

consideration in an energy conservation 

standards rulemaking: 

(1) Technological feasibility. 

Technologies that are not incorporated 

in commercial products or in working 

prototypes will not be considered 

further. 

(2) Practicability to manufacture, 

install, and service. If it is determined 

that mass production and reliable 

installation and servicing of a 

technology in commercial products 

could not be achieved on the scale 

necessary to serve the relevant market at 

the time of the projected compliance 

date of the standard, then that 

technology will not be considered 

further. 

(3) Impacts on product utility or 

product availability. If it is determined 

that a technology would have significant 

adverse impact on the utility of the 

product to significant subgroups of 

consumers or would result in the 

unavailability of any covered product 

type with performance characteristics 

(including reliability), features, sizes, 

capacities, and volumes that are 

substantially the same as products 

generally available in the United States 

at the time, it will not be considered 

further. 

(4) Adverse impacts on health or 

safety. If it is determined that a 

technology would 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. 

See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, 

appendix A, sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b). In 

summary, if DOE determines that a 

technology, or a combination of 

technologies, fails to meet one or more 

of the listed five criteria, it will be 

excluded from further consideration in 

the engineering analysis. 

a. Screened-Out Technologies 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

screened out three technology options 

based on the applicable criteria 

discussed previously. The screened-out 

technology options are presented below 

in Table IV–5. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37946 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

15While the December 2020 ECS RFI referenced 

four screening criteria, DOE notes that there are five 

screening criteria under Appendix A. 86 FR 70924. 

See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 

sections 6(c)(3) and 7(b). 

16A2L is an ASHRAE safety group classification 

for refrigerants denoting lower toxicity and lower 

flammability. More information regarding ASHRAE 

refrigerant safety classification can be found here: 

www.ashrae.org/file%20library/ 

technical%20resources/refrigeration/factsheet_

ashrae_english_20200424.pdf. 

17Additional information regarding EPA’s SNAP 

Program is available online at: www.epa.gov/ozone/ 

snap/. 

18Refrigerant THR–03 is not included in this 

count because it is acceptable for use only in 

residential window air conditioners; Refrigerants 

R–1270 and R–443A were deemed unacceptable as 

of Jan 3, 2017; Refrigerants R–417C, R–427A and 

R–458A are only approved for retrofit applications. 

19 Information available at: www.epa.gov/snap/ 

substitutes-residential-and-light-commercial-airconditioning-and-heat-pumps. 

20Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289-0011. 

21Available at: ww2.arb.ca.gov/rulemaking/2020/ 

hfc2020. 

22As discussed previously, the CARB finalized 

this regulation order effective January 1, 2022. 

TABLE IV–5—PREVIOUSLY SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS FROM THE JULY 2015 FINAL RULE

Screened technology option Technological 

feasibility 

Screening criteria 

(X = basis for screening out) 

Practicability 

to manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse impact 

on equipment 

utility 

Adverse impacts 

on health and 

safety 

Unique-pathway 

proprietary 

technologies 

Scroll Compressors .......................................... X ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Heat Pipes ....................................................... X ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

Alternative Refrigerants ................................... X ............................ ............................ ............................ ............................

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested comment on these technology 

options previously screened out in the 

July 2015 final rule. 85 FR 82952, 

82959. Specifically, DOE requested 

information as to whether these options 

would, based on current and projected 

assessments regarding each of them, 

remain screened out under the four 

screening criteria 15 described in this 

section and 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. Id. 

Heat Pipes, Scroll Compressors 

AHRI commented that there had been 

no technical advances in heat pipes and 

thus no reason to include the 

technology option in the analysis. 

(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 7) AHRI commented 

that scroll compressors should remain 

screened out stating that compressor 

manufacturers are currently working to 

develop full product lines to 

accommodate A2L 16 refrigerants. Since 

this effort requires significant research 

and design resources, PTAC and PTHP 

manufacturers must prioritize obtaining 

compliant components for a single 

complete product line using new 

refrigerants for jurisdictions limiting 

GWP. Id. AHRI asserted that because of 

this additional product options, such as 

scroll compressors, will likely take time 

to bring to market and conduct all of the 

product research, design, and testing. Id. 

DOE did not receive any further 

comments for heat pipes or scroll 

compressors. DOE is not aware of any 

PTACs or PTHPs that are currently 

using heat pipes or PTHPs using scroll 

compressors. Regarding scroll 

compressors, DOE is not aware of any 

scroll compressors of suitable capacity 

and size with better efficiency than 

available rotary compressors. DOE has 

therefore tentatively concluded to keep 

heat pipes and scroll compressors 

screened out of the engineering analysis. 

Alternate Refrigerants 

Nearly all PTAC and PTHP equipment 

is designed with R–410A as the 

refrigerant. The U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (‘‘EPA’’) Significant 

New Alternatives Policy (‘‘SNAP’’) 

Program evaluates and regulates 

substitutes for the ozone-depleting 

chemicals (such as air conditioning 

refrigerants) that are being phased out 

under the stratospheric ozone protection 

provisions of the Clean Air Act 

(‘‘CAA’’). (42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.) 17 The 

EPA SNAP Program currently includes 

31 18 acceptable alternatives for 

refrigerant used in the new Residential 

and Light Commercial Air Conditioning 

class of equipment (which includes 

PTAC and PTHP equipment).19 On May 

6, 2021, the EPA published a final rule 

allowing the use of R–32, R–452B, 

R–454A, R–454B, R–454C and R–457A, 

subject to use conditions. 86 FR 24444. 

On December 27, 2020, the American 

Innovation and Manufacturing Act of 

2020 was enacted in section 103 in 

Division S, Innovation for the 

Environment, of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2021 (Pub. L. 116– 

260; codified at 42 U.S.C. 7675). The 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 provides 

EPA specific authority to address 

hydrofluorocarbons (‘‘HFC’’), including 

to: (1) phase down HFC production and 

consumption of listed HFCs through an 

allowance allocation and trading 

program, (2) establish requirements for 

the management of HFCs and HFC 

substitutes in equipment (e.g., air 

conditioners); and (3) facilitate sectorbased transitions away from HFCs. 42 

U.S.C. 7675(e), (h), (i) Under the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020, EPA is 

authorized to issue rules in response to 

petitions to establish sector-based HFC 

restrictions. 42 U.S.C. 7675(i)(3) On 

October 14, 2021, EPA granted ten 

petitions in full, including one petition 

by AHRI et al., titled, ‘‘Restrict the Use 

of HFCs in Residential and Light 

Commercial Air Conditioners’’ (‘‘AHRI 

petition’’), in which the petitioners 

requested EPA to require residential and 

light commercial air conditioners 

(which includes PTAC and PTHP 

equipment) to use refrigerants with 

GWP of 750 or less, with such 

requirement applying to these 

equipment manufactured after January 

1, 2025, excluding variable refrigerant 

flow (‘‘VRF’’) equipment.20 86 FR 

57141. DOE is also aware that the 

California Air Resources Board 

(‘‘CARB’’) finalized a rulemaking 

effective January 1, 2022, which 

prohibits the use of refrigerants with a 

GWP of 750 or greater starting January 

1, 2023, in several new air-conditioning 

equipment, including PTACs and 

PTHPs.21

In response to the December 2020 ECS 

RFI, DOE received several comments 

regarding the consideration of alternate 

refrigerants as a technology option. 

AHRI suggested that alternative 

refrigerants should remain a screenedout technology. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 7) 

AHRI stated that California is seeking to 

establish a January 1, 2023, effective 

date to limit the GWP of refrigerants in 

PTACs and PTHPs to 750,22


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37947 

23EPA finalized a rule on May 6, 2021, allowing 

R–452B, R–454A, R–454B, R–454C, R–457A and 

R–32 for new residential and light commercial air 

conditioning and heat pumps. 86 FR 24444. 

24Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/ 

EPA-HQ-OAR-2021-0289-0011. 

25After granting a petition, EPA must initiate a 

rulemaking and publish a final rule within 2 years 

of the petition grant date i.e. Oct 15, 2023. 

26ASHRAE assigns safety classification to the 

refrigerants based on toxicity and flammability data. 

The capital letter designates a toxicity class based 

on allowable exposure and the numeral denotes 

flammability. For toxicity, Class A denotes 

refrigerants of lower toxicity, and Class B denotes 

refrigerants of higher toxicity. For flammability, 

class 1 denotes refrigerants that do not propagate a 

flame when tested as per the standard; class 2 and 

2L denotes refrigerants of lower flammability; and 

class 3, for highly flammable refrigerants such as 

the hydrocarbons. 

commenting that only R–32 is available 

currently, but six other options are 

pending EPA approval as part of SNAP 

Rule 23.23 Id. AHRI commented that 

sourcing components for new 

refrigerants in a complete product line 

will be challenging, particularly to meet 

a deadline less than two years away, 

without a full range of refrigerant 

options approved. Additionally, for any 

new refrigerant, AHRI asserted that 

manufacturers will need to retest 

products for both efficiency and to meet 

relevant safety standards. Id. GEA 

requested that DOE consider the 

substantial regulatory burden created by 

the complex refrigeration transition 

from both state-led low-GWP refrigerant 

requirements and by shifting federal 

requirements for refrigerant use and 

restrictions in municipal building 

codes. (GEA, No. 10 at pp. 2–3) 

NEEA, ASAP and CA IOUs 

recommended that DOE consider 

alternate refrigerants in the analysis. 

NEEA stated that additional refrigerants 

have been proposed by the EPA for 

SNAP since standards were last 

considered for PTACs and PTHPs and 

that given the likelihood that the new 

SNAP rules will be finalized in advance 

of an updated standard, DOE should 

consider efficiency improvements from 

alternative refrigerants, such as 

hydrocarbons. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 5) The 

CA IOUs asserted that PTAC and PTHPs 

manufactured after an updated standard 

takes effect will likely use low-GWP 

refrigerants. (CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 3) The 

CA IOUs stated that the passage of the 

American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 effectively 

mandates a phase-out of HFCs and 

therefore, urged DOE to consider the 

potential benefits of these low-GWP 

refrigerants. Id. The CA IOUs 

additionally commented that California 

and other states are also pursuing 

regulations to require low-GWP 

refrigerants in residential air 

conditioners and heat pumps starting 

January 1, 2025. Id. 

DOE is aware of the changing 

landscape of refrigerants as they relate 

to PTACs and PTHPs, particularly the 

AHRI petition that requested the EPA to 

require residential and light commercial 

air conditioners to use refrigerants with 

GWP of 750 or less, with such 

requirement applying to this equipment 

manufactured after January 1, 2025, 

excluding VRF,24 and that was granted 

on October 14, 2021. 86 FR 57141.25 On 

December 29, 2021, EPA published a 

notification informing the public that 

they would not be using the negotiated 

rulemaking procedure to develop a 

proposed rule or rules associated with 

the eleven American Innovation and 

Manufacturing Act of 2020 petitions 

(including the AHRI petition), but will 

instead use the traditional regular 

notice-and-comment rulemaking 

process. 86 FR 74080. 

In light of the petition to require use 

of with GWP of 750 or less in PTAC and 

PTHP equipment, DOE reviewed certain 

SNAP approved substitutes that met this 

criterion. These are listed in Table IV– 

6. 

TABLE IV–6—POTENTIAL SUBSTITUTES FOR HFCS IN NEW RESIDENTIAL AND LIGHT COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONING

EQUIPMENT, WITH GWP OF 750 OR LESS

Approved substitute GWP value Approval date ASHRAE safety classification 26

R–290 (Propane) ................................................. 3 April 10, 2015 ...................................................... A3. 

R–441A ................................................................ <5 April 10, 2015 ...................................................... A3. 

R–457A ................................................................ 140 May 6, 2021 ........................................................ A2L. 

R–454C ................................................................ 150 May 6, 2021 ........................................................ A2L. 

R–454A ................................................................ 240 May 6, 2021 ........................................................ A2L. 

R–454B ................................................................ 470 May 6, 2021 ........................................................ A2L. 

HFC–32 (R–32) ................................................... 675 May 6, 2021 ........................................................ A2L. 

R–452B ................................................................ 700 May 6, 2021 ........................................................ A2L. 

DOE had previously considered the 

feasibility of including R–290 and R– 

441A as alternative refrigerants in the 

July 2015 final rule, in which DOE 

noted that the EPA’s final rule 

published on April 10, 2015 (‘‘EPA 

April 2015 final rule’’) limited the 

maximum design charge amount of 

these refrigerants in PTAC and PTHP 

applications. 80 FR 43162, 43171. For 

instance, for a PTAC or PTHP with 

cooling capacity of 9,000 Btu/h, the EPA 

April 2015 final rule imposes a 

maximum design charge of 140 grams of 

R–290 or 160 grams of R–441A. 80 FR 

19454, 19500. In comparison, DOE 

reverse engineered eleven units with 

cooling capacities around 9,000 Btu/h 

and found that these units had 

refrigerant charges ranging from 600 

grams to 950 grams and all units used 

refrigerant R–410A. 80 FR 43162, 43171. 

The refrigerant charges currently used 

in current PTAC and PTHP designs far 

exceed the maximum charges that are 

allowed for these alternative refrigerants 

under the EPA April 2015 final rule. 

Additionally, in response to the 

December 2020 ECS RFI, CA IOUs 

commented that R–290 will likely not 

be used in PTAC and PTHPs because 

the model safety code that most states 

will likely adopt, Board of Standards 

Review (‘‘BSR’’)/ASHRAE Standard 

15.2P, ‘‘Safety Standard for 

Refrigeration Systems in Residential 

Applications’’ (‘‘BSR/ASHRAE Standard 

15.2P’’), does not allow the use of A3 

refrigerants in residential air 

conditioners and heat pumps. (CA IOUs, 

No. 7 at p. 3) PTACs and PTHPs are 

commercial equipment under DOE’s 

regulations, but DOE is aware of their 

use in certain applications that are 

treated as ‘‘residential’’ under BSR/ 

ASHRAE Standard 15.2P (e.g., multifamily housing). Therefore, DOE did not 

further consider R–290 and R–441A as 

alternate refrigerants in this analysis. 

For the remaining substitute 

refrigerants, DOE considered comments 

received and conducted a literature 

review to evaluate whether these 

alternate refrigerants could enable better 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37948 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

energy efficiency than R–410A for PTAC 

and PTHP equipment. ASAP stated that 

it was their understanding that typical 

PTACs and PTHPs use R–410A as the 

refrigerant and that alternatives to R– 

410A such as R–32, R–452B, and R– 

454B can improve efficiency by at least 

5%. (ASAP, No. 6 at p. 1) The CA IOUs 

also stated that R–32 is the likely 

replacement for R–410A in air 

conditioners and heat pumps, and 

recommended that DOE consider R–32 

as a design option in this standards 

analysis, citing initial studies showing 

that R–32 improved the COP for VRF 

systems by five percent. (CA IOUs, No. 

7 at p. 3) 

DOE reviewed several studies to 

gauge the efficiency improvements of 

the substitute refrigerants as compared 

to R–410A. Most of these studies 

suggested comparable performance to 

R410A, with some studies showing 

slightly below-par performance and 

others showing improvement as high as 

6% (for R–32). DOE notes that most of 

these studies were performed with dropin applications (where an alternate 

refrigerant replaces the existing 

refrigerant in a system that is optimized 

for the existing refrigerant) and were not 

performed on PTAC or PTHP equipment 

specifically. It is possible that these 

substitute refrigerants might show 

efficiencies higher than R–410A in 

specific applications that have been 

optimized for such refrigerants. 

However, given the uncertainty 

associated with the studies reviewed, 

DOE was unable to conclude whether 

these refrigerants will improve energy 

efficiency and by how much. Therefore, 

DOE has tentatively decided to keep 

alternate refrigerants as a screened-out 

technology. 

Intake and Exhaust Ducts To Reduce 

Infiltration 

DOE has tentatively determined to 

screen out intake and exhaust ducts as 

a technology option. NEEA suggested 

that infiltration through and around a 

PTAC or PTHP can result in significant 

wasted energy and that DOE should 

consider technology options that reduce 

infiltration such as the use of air intake 

and exhaust ducts. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 

5) NEEA provided information 

pertaining to a unit that uses intake and 

exhaust air ducts. Id. 

DOE notes that the use of intake and 

exhaust air ducts would be inconsistent 

with the definition of a PTAC and 

PTHP. PTAC and PTHP are equipment 

that are intended for mounting through 

the wall as opposed to using ductwork 

to bring in or exhaust air. See 10 CFR 

431.92. Therefore, DOE has screened out 

this technology option. 

In summary, DOE screened out four 

technology options based on the 

applicable criteria discussed previously. 

The screened-out technology options are 

presented below in Table IV–7. 

TABLE IV–7—SCREENED OUT TECHNOLOGY OPTIONS

Screened technology option Technological 

feasibility 

Screening 

criteria 

(X = basis for 

screening out) 

Practicability 

to manufacture, 

install, and 

service 

Adverse impact 

on equipment 

utility 

Adverse impacts 

on health and 

safety 

Unique-pathway 

proprietary 

technologies 

Scroll Compressors .......................................... X 

Heat Pipes ....................................................... X 

Alternative Refrigerants ................................... X 

Intake and Exhaust Ducts ................................ X 

b. Other Technologies Not Considered 

in the Engineering Analysis 

Typically, energy-saving technologies 

that pass the screening analysis are 

evaluated in the engineering analysis. 

However, in some cases technologies are 

not included in the analysis for reasons 

other than the screening criteria. These 

are discussed in the following 

paragraphs. 

Technologies Previously Eliminated 

From the July 2015 Final Rule 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

identified several technology options 

that were not included in the 

engineering analysis because of three 

additional considerations: (1) efficiency 

benefits of the technologies were 

negligible; (2) data was not available to 

evaluate the energy efficiency 

characteristics of the technology; and/or 

(3) test procedure and EER and COP 

metrics did not measure the energy 

impact of the technology. 80 FR 43161, 

43172; see 79 FR 55538, 55555–55556 

(September 16, 2014). These 

technologies are listed below under 

each consideration: 

(1) Efficiency benefits of the 

technologies were negligible: 

• Re-circuiting heat exchanger coils; 

• Rifled interior tube walls; 

(2) Data was not available to evaluate 

the energy efficiency characteristics of 

the technology: 

• Microchannel heat exchangers; 

(3) Test procedure and EER and COP 

metrics did not measure the energy 

impact of the technology: 

• Variable speed compressors; 

• Complex control boards (fan motor 

controllers, digital ‘‘energy 

management’’ control interfaces, heat 

pump controllers); 

• Corrosion protection; 

• Hydrophobic material treatment of 

heat exchangers; 

• Clutched motor fans; and 

• TEVs. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested comment on its prior 

exclusion of these technologies and 

whether there have been changes that 

would warrant further consideration. 85 

FR 82952, 82959. 

In response, AHRI said they 

supported the DOE’s conclusions 

regarding the additional technologies 

identified in development of the July 

2015 final rule, but not included in the 

engineering analysis. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 

8). 

DOE maintains its position expressed 

in the July 2015 final rule that recircuiting heat exchanger coils and 

rifled interior tube walls are used in 

baseline products, so no additional 

energy savings would be expected from 

their use. 80 FR 43162, 43172 and 79 FR 

55538, 55555. Regarding microchannel 

heat exchangers, NEEA stated that the 

technology can improve heat transfer 

efficiency by up to 40 percent compared 

to traditional fin and tube heat 

exchangers. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 4) 

However, NEEA did not provide any 

information indicating efficiency 

improvement potential in terms of EER 

or COP for PTACs and PTHPs and DOE 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37949 

is not aware of any substantiated 

performance data for PTAC or PTHP 

operation with microchannels. 

Any potential energy savings of 

complex controls boards, corrosion 

protection, hydrophobic material 

treatment of heat exchangers and 

clutched motor fans cannot be measured 

with the established energy efficiency 

metrics (EER and COP) because those 

technologies are associated with 

performance, which is not captured in 

the EER or COP metrics used for rating 

PTACs and PTHPs. Therefore, DOE is 

proposing to keep these previously 

eliminated technologies excluded from 

the engineering analysis. 

Consideration of variable speed 

compressors and TEVs is presented 

under the next header. 

Technology Options Benefiting PartLoad and Low Temperature 

Performance 

As the current EER and COP metrics 

do not measure part-load performance 

and low temperature heating 

performance, DOE is proposing to 

exclude the following technologies from 

the engineering analysis: 

• Variable speed condenser fan/ 

motor; 

• Variable speed indoor blower/ 

motor; 

• Variable speed compressors; 

• TEVs 

• EEVs 

• Defrost control strategies 

• Electric resistance boost control 

strategies 

• Compressor cut-out controls 

As discussed, DOE may consider 

adopting for PTACs and PTHPs a 

cooling-mode metric that integrates 

part-load performance and a heating 

metric that includes performance at low 

ambient temperatures in the ongoing 

test procedure rulemaking. 86 FR 28005, 

28009–28011. If DOE amends the PTAC 

and PTHP test procedure to incorporate 

these changes, it will conduct any 

analysis for future standards 

rulemakings, if any, based on the 

amended test procedure. DOE is still 

evaluating potential amendments to the 

test procedure. At present, DOE is 

unable to consider energy savings from 

a part-load metric or low temperature 

heating performance. 

DOE also considered any benefit that 

these technologies may provide for the 

existing full-load metrics (EER and 

COP), particularly variable-speed 

technology. DOE conducted a review of 

the CCD and has tentatively concluded 

that while an increased number of 

PTACs and PTHPs are employing 

variable-speed compressors and fans as 

compared to the market at the time of 

the 2015 rulemaking, the efficiency 

distributions of PTACs and PTHPs have 

not changed significantly. This suggests 

that the full-load efficiency benefit of 

these variable-speed technologies is 

minimal. 

DOE is also excluding separate indoor 

and outdoor blower motors as a 

technology option from the engineering 

analysis because this technology option 

is already incorporated in most baseline 

models, and therefore, no additional 

energy savings would be expected from 

their use. NEEA stated that one 

manufacturer is using separate indoor 

and outdoor blower motors as a strategy 

to improve efficiency, while also 

reducing unit noise. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 

5) DOE’s past and recent physical 

teardowns of PTACs and PTHPs suggest 

that this technology option is already 

incorporated in most baseline models 

and therefore little to no additional 

energy savings would result in 

consideration of this technology option. 

c. Remaining Technologies 

After reviewing each technology, DOE 

did not screen out the following 

technology options and considers them 

as design options in the engineering 

analysis. These technology options are 

the same as those retained in the July 

2015 final rule: 

(1) Higher Efficiency Compressors 

(2) Higher Efficiency Fan Motors 

(3) Increased Heat Exchanger Area 

(4) Improved Air Flow and Fan Design 

DOE has tentatively determined that 

these technology options are 

technologically feasible because they are 

being used or have previously been used 

in commercially available products or 

working prototypes and improve 

efficiency as determined by the DOE test 

procedure. For additional details on the 

technologies included in the 

engineering analysis, see chapter 4 of 

the July 2015 final rule TSD. 

B. Engineering Analysis 

The purpose of the engineering 

analysis is to establish the relationship 

between the efficiency and cost of 

PTACs and PTHPs. There are two 

elements to consider in the engineering 

analysis; the selection of efficiency 

levels to analyze (i.e., the ‘‘efficiency 

analysis’’) and the determination of 

product cost at each efficiency level 

(i.e., the ‘‘cost analysis’’). In determining 

the performance of higher-efficiency 

equipment, DOE considers technologies 

and design option combinations not 

eliminated by the screening analysis. 

For each equipment class evaluated, 

DOE estimates the baseline cost, as well 

as the incremental cost for the product/ 

equipment at efficiency levels above the 

baseline. The output of the engineering 

analysis is a set of cost-efficiency 

‘‘curves’’ that are used in downstream 

analyses (i.e., the LCC and PBP analyses 

and the NIA). 

1. Efficiency Analysis 

DOE typically uses one of two 

approaches to develop energy efficiency 

levels for the engineering analysis: (1) 

relying on observed efficiency levels in 

the market (i.e., the efficiency-level 

approach), or (2) determining the 

incremental efficiency improvements 

associated with incorporating specific 

design options to a baseline model (i.e., 

the design-option approach). Using the 

efficiency-level approach, the efficiency 

levels established for the analysis are 

determined based on the market 

distribution of existing products (in 

other words, based on the range of 

efficiencies and efficiency level 

‘‘clusters’’ that already exist on the 

market). Using the design option 

approach, the efficiency levels 

established for the analysis are 

determined through detailed 

engineering calculations and/or 

computer simulations of the efficiency 

improvements from implementing 

specific design options that have been 

identified in the technology assessment. 

DOE may also rely on a combination of 

these two approaches. For example, the 

efficiency-level approach (based on 

actual products on the market) may be 

extended using the design option 

approach to ‘‘gap fill’’ levels (to bridge 

large gaps between other identified 

efficiency levels) and/or to extrapolate 

to the max-tech level (particularly in 

cases where the max-tech level exceeds 

the maximum efficiency level currently 

available on the market). 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

adopted an efficiency-level approach 

combined with a cost-assessment 

approach to determine the costefficiency relationship. 80 FR 43162, 

43173. Based on the technology options 

considered in section IV.A.3 of this 

document and a review of available 

efficiencies in the market, DOE has 

tentatively concluded that the available 

efficiencies on the market have not 

significantly changed since the 2015 

rulemaking. DOE’s review of current 

PTAC and PTHP designs also leads to 

the tentative conclusion that design 

options used to achieve higher EER and/ 

or COP have not changed since 2015. 

Therefore, in this proposed 

determination, DOE utilized the same 

analysis as in the July 2015 final rule, 

but with updated costs to account for 

inflation and other effects. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37950 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

The methodology used to perform the 

analysis and derive the cost-efficiency 

relationship is described in chapter 5 of 

the July 2015 final rule TSD. 

2. Equipment Classes Analyzed 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

developed its engineering analysis for 

the six equipment classes associated 

with standard-size PTACs and PTHPs. 

80 FR 43162, 43174–43177. DOE did not 

conduct an engineering analysis for 

non-standard size equipment classes 

because of their low and declining 

market share and because of a lack of 

adequate information to analyze these 

units. 80 FR 43162, 43174. To assess 

whether to develop an analysis for nonstandard size equipment classes, DOE 

requested comment in the December 

2020 ECS RFI as to whether the 

technology improvements discussed in 

IV.A.3 are applicable to both standard 

size and non-standard size units and if 

they have similar impacts on efficiency. 

85 FR 82952, 82960. DOE also requested 

comment on whether it is necessary to 

individually analyze all or some of the 

available equipment classes. Id. 

In response, AHRI commented that 

the non-standard size market was never 

large and has contracted over the years, 

and in a shrinking market new product 

development is unlikely as it is not 

economically justified for the 

manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 8) 

AHRI stated that there have been no 

significant technology improvements for 

these equipment classes to their 

knowledge. Id. AHRI said that DOE 

should employ best efforts to develop a 

robust and complete analysis and 

analyze all six standard-size equipment 

classes individually, but recognized this 

may not be possible. Id. AHRI stated 

that if DOE does not analyze all 

products, then the 9,000 and 12,000 

Btu/h, nominal cooling capacities 

should be prioritized, followed by the 

7,000 Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h 

categories. Id. 

In light of AHRI’s comment regarding 

the non-standard size market 

contracting, and given the lack of 

market data pertaining to the nonstandard size equipment classes, DOE 

has tentatively decided to not analyze 

amended standards for the non-standard 

size equipment classes. For the six 

standard size equipment classes, DOE 

has tentatively decided to use the 

analysis from the July 2015 final rule, in 

which DOE selected two cooling 

capacities for analysis: 9,000 Btu/h and 

15,000 Btu/h. See 80 FR 43162, 43174. 

Inclusion of the 9,000 Btu/h category as 

in the July 2015 final rule is consistent 

with AHRI’s suggestion to prioritize that 

category. DOE also retained the 15,000 

Btu/h category to stay consistent with 

the analysis in the July 2015 final rule, 

in which DOE selected 15,000 Btu/h as 

a representative capacity in response to 

manufacturer comments stating that it is 

technically challenging to achieve high 

efficiency in 15,000 Btu/h models and 

the analysis should explicitly analyze 

the 15,000 Btu/h capacity. See 80 FR 

43162, 43174. 

Table IV–8 sets out the equipment 

classes analyzed in this rulemaking. 

TABLE IV–8—EQUIPMENT CLASSES ANALYZED IN THIS RULEMAKING

Equipment class 

Equipment Category Cooling capacity 

PTAC ................................................................. Standard Size ................................................... <7,000 Btu/h. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h. 

>15,000 Btu/h. 

PTHP ................................................................. Standard Size ................................................... <7,000 Btu/h. 

≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h. 

>15,000 Btu/h. 

3. Baseline Efficiency Levels 

DOE considered the current minimum 

energy conservation standards to 

establish the baseline efficiency levels 

for each standard size equipment class, 

using the 9,000 btu/h and 15,000 

Btu/h cooling capacities as 

representative capacities for the 

standard size equipment classes. The 

baseline efficiency levels for the 

analyzed representative units are 

presented below in Table IV–9. 

TABLE IV–9—BASELINE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Equipment type Equipment class Baseline efficiency equation Cooling capacity Baseline efficiency 

level 

PTAC ......................... Standard Size ............ EER = 14.0¥(0.300 × Cap †/1000) ............... 9,000 Btu/h ................ 11.3 EER. 

15,000 Btu/h .............. 9.5 EER. 

PTHP ......................... Standard Size ............ EER = 14.0¥(0.300 × Cap †/1000) ............... 9,000 Btu/h ................ 11.3 EER. 

3.2 COP. 

COP = 3.7¥(0.052 × Cap †) .......................... 15,000 Btu/h .............. 9.5 EER. 

2.9 COP. 

† Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95°F outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

4. 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. 

As mentioned earlier, the technology 

options that were screened in for this 

analysis are the same as those 

considered for the July 2015 final rule. 

In 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37951 

reverse engineering analysis. 80 FR 

43162, 43168. 

Table IV–10 shows the max-tech 

efficiency levels presented in the 

December 2020 ECS RFI, which were 

those from the July 2015 Final rule and 

set to be 16.2 percent above the 

baseline, and the maximum-available 

efficiency levels based on the current 

market for each equipment class. 85 FR 

82952, 82960–82961. DOE has test data 

to verify that one standard size PTHP 

unit belonging to the equipment class of 

cooling capacity greater than 7,000 Btu/ 

h and less than 15,000 Btu/h, 

demonstrated a cooling efficiency at this 

‘‘max tech’’ level. 79 FR 55538, 55558. 

TABLE IV–10—MAX-TECH AND MAXIMUM-AVAILABLE EFFICIENCY LEVELS

Equipment class Max-tech 

July 2015 final rule 

Maximum-available 

current market 

Standard Size PTAC <7,000 Btu/h ................... 13.8 EER a ........................................................ 13.0 EER. 

Standard Size PTAC ≥7,000 Btu/h and 

≤15,000 Btu/h.

EER = 16.3¥(0.354 × Cap b) ........................... EER = 15.8¥(0.308 × Cap b) c. 

Standard Size PTAC >15,000 Btu/h ................. 11.0 EER .......................................................... 9.7 EER. 

Standard Size PTHP <7,000 Btu/h ................... 13.8 EER a ........................................................

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

13.1 EER. 

4.0 COP. 

Standard Size PTHP ≥7,000 Btu/h and 

≤15,000 Btu/h.

EER = 16.3¥(0.354 × Cap b) ...........................

COP = 4.3¥(0.073 × Cap b) ............................

EER = 15.8¥(0.308 × Cap b) c. 

COP = 4.6¥(0.075 × Cap b) c. 

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

3.2 COP ............................................................

N/Ad. 

aBased on Max Tech equation shown for Standard Size PTACs and PTHPs, ≥7,000 Btu/h and ≤15,000 Btu/h at a value of 7,000 Btu/h. b Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h. 

cBased on method of creating a linear fit between the two models in the CCD Database that were the highest absolute value above the baseline. dBased 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. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

sought input on whether these 

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. 85 FR 82952, 82961. DOE also 

requested feedback on what design 

options to incorporate at the max-tech 

efficiency level and whether there are 

any limitations on the use of certain 

combinations. Id. DOE also requested 

comment on whether certain design 

options may not be applicable to 

specific equipment classes. Id. 

AHRI stated that based on their 

analysis per the AHRI Directory, the 

ranges of efficiencies available for 

PTACs and PTHPs are very limited and 

that there are no significant advances or 

changes in technology. (AHRI, No. 8 at 

p. 9) AHRI provided tables showing 

efficiency ranges of PTACs and PTHPs 

that it stated identifies several instances 

where the max tech identified in the 

July 2015 final rule is above the current 

market. Id. AHRI also stated that there 

are issues with implementing bent heat 

exchangers and improved air flow and 

fan design as concurrent design options, 

stating that bent heat exchangers may 

impose an additional pressure drop that 

the indoor fan must overcome, thus not 

improving EER of the equipment. 

(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 9) AHRI stated that 

if both bent heat exchangers and 

improved air flow and fan design are 

implemented as design options, DOE 

should account for the significant 

additional design, evaluation and 

testing that would be required to 

optimize the system to achieve the 

desired efficiency. Id. at 11. AHRI stated 

that in the 2015 rulemaking DOE did 

not account for this interaction, nor the 

cost associated to resolve it in the 

analysis. Id. AHRI also commented that 

higher efficiency compressors, 

particularly at smaller capacities, are 

still in development, and cautioned 

DOE to consider state and federal 

regulations impacting the equipment 

(such as requiring to use low-GWP 

refrigerants) accordingly so that new 

efficiency standards do not precede 

market developments. (AHRI No. 8 at 

pp. 11–12) 

AHRI also commented that the 

efficiency ranges available for PTACs 

and PTHPs are limited, which is 

consistent with with DOE’s findings 

based on its own market research. 

(AHRI No. 8 at p. 9) DOE was unable to 

identify significant advances since the 

July 2015 final rule, based on a review 

of the CCD. DOE is aware that in some 

instances, the max-tech levels identified 

in the July 2015 final rule are higher 

than the current maximum available 

efficiencies in the market per CCD and 

the AHRI directory—however, DOE has 

tentatively determined that the maxtech levels from 2015 are still suitable 

for this analysis because these levels 

were achieved by models that were 

commercially available. Since the 

screened in design options for this 

engineering analysis are the same as 

those considered in the July 2015 final 

rule and the available efficiencies have 

not significantly changed since the 2015 

rulemaking, DOE sees no reason to 

revise the max-tech levels. Regarding 

the design interaction described by 

AHRI, DOE notes that the analysis 

presented in the July 2015 final rule did 

consider pressure drop impacts 

associated with bent heat exchangers. 

See 80 FR 43162, 43173. In its analysis, 

DOE considered at least three units that 

contained a bent heat exchanger. DOE 

based its analysis on the measured 

performance of these units (one of 

which performed at the max-tech 

efficiency level). The measured 

performance of these units includes the 

impact of additional pressure drop 

associated with the bent heat 

exchangers. Id. Regarding AHRI’s 

comment on higher efficiency 

compressors, DOE is cognizant of the 

changing landscape of state and federal 

regulations, especially as they relate to 

alternate refrigerants and how they 

affect the development of higher 

efficiency compressors. As discussed in 

Section IV.A.4.a of this document, DOE 

has tentatively decided to keep alternate 

refrigerants as a screened-out 

technology. 

The CA IOUs stated that they 

identified 30 PTHP models that meet or 

exceed the heating max-tech COP level 

from DOE’s 2015 final rule TSD and 

encouraged DOE to investigate the 

technologies used in these products to 

improve their efficiencies and update 

the engineering analysis accordingly. 

(CA IOUs, No. 7 at p. 2) 

DOE is aware that there are PTHP 

models on the market that exceed the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37952 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

max-tech COP levels in the July 2015 

final rule. DOE notes that a PTHP’s EER 

and COP are related and cannot be 

independently analyzed, therefore the 

COP max-tech levels in the July 2015 

final rule were developed by correlating 

the COP associated with each efficiency 

level with the efficiency level’s EER 

based on COP and EER ratings from the 

AHRI database. 80 FR 43162, 43175. 

DOE then established a representative 

curve based on this data to obtain a 

relationship for COP in terms of EER 

and used this relationship to select COP 

values corresponding to each efficiency 

level. Id. Therefore, the COP max-tech 

values correspond to the max-tech EER 

values. DOE is aware that these COP 

max-tech values may not align with the 

highest COP values currently available 

in the market, but DOE considers them 

to be more representative of a max-tech 

unit at the highest EER. 

In summary, because the design 

options retained for this rulemaking are 

the same as those considered for the 

July 2015 final rule, and a review of the 

CCD suggests that that the available 

efficiencies have not significantly 

changed since the 2015 rulemaking, 

DOE is proposing to maintain the same 

max-tech levels for this rulemaking. 

5. Incremental Efficiency Levels 

DOE analyzed several incremental 

efficiency levels between the baseline 

and max-tech levels and obtained 

incremental cost data at each of these 

levels. DOE considered five efficiency 

levels beyond the baseline efficiency 

level up to the max-tech level for each 

equipment class. These levels are 2.2%, 

6.2%, 10.2%, 14.2% and 16.2% more 

efficient than the amended PTAC and 

PTHP standards that became effective 

on July 21, 2015 and are the same 

incremental efficiency levels evaluated 

in the July 2015 final rule. These levels 

are presented in Table IV–11. 

TABLE IV–11—INCREMENTAL EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR STANDARD SIZE PTACS AND PTHPS

Equipment type Cooling 

capacity 

Efficiency levels 

(percentages relative to 2015 ECS) 

Baseline * EL1, 2.2% EL2, 6.2% EL3, 10.2% EL4, 14.2% EL5, 16.2% 

(max-tech) 

PTAC ......................... All, EER ... 14.0¥(0.300 × 

Cap †).

14.4¥(0.312 × 

Cap †).

14.9¥(0.324 × 

Cap †).

15.5¥(0.336 × 

Cap †).

16.0¥(0.348 × 

Cap †).

16.3¥(0.354 × 

Cap †) 

9,000 Btu/ 

h.

11.3 EER .............. 11.5 EER .............. 12.0 EER .............. 12.4 EER .............. 12.9 EER .............. 13.1 EER 

15,000 

Btu/h.

9.5 EER ................ 9.7 EER ................ 10.0 EER .............. 10.4 EER .............. 10.8 EER .............. 11.0 EER 

PTHP ......................... All, EER ... 14.0¥(0.300 × 

Cap †).

14.4¥(0.312 × 

Cap †).

14.9¥(0.324 × 

Cap †).

15.5¥(0.336 × 

Cap †).

16.0¥(0.348 × 

Cap †).

16.3¥(0.354 × 

Cap †) 

All, COP ... 3.7¥(0.052 × 

Cap †).

3.8¥(0.058 × 

Cap †).

4.0¥(0.064 × 

Cap †).

4.1¥(0.068 × 

Cap †).

4.2¥(0.070 × 

Cap †).

4.3¥(0.073 × 

Cap †) 

9,000 Btu/ 

h.

11.3 EER ..............

3.2 COP ...............

11.5 EER ..............

3.3 COP ...............

12.0 EER ..............

3.4 COP ...............

12.4 EER ..............

3.5 COP ...............

12.9 EER ..............

3.6 COP ...............

13.1 EER 

3.6 COP 

15,000 

Btu/h.

9.5 EER ................

2.9 COP ...............

9.7 EER ................

2.9 COP ...............

10.0 EER ..............

3.0 COP ...............

10.4 EER ..............

3.1 COP ...............

10.8 EER ..............

3.2 COP ...............

11.0 EER 

3.2 COP 

* This level represents the current Federal minimum standards for PTAC and PTHP equipment. 

† Cap means cooling capacity in thousand Btu/h at 95°F outdoor dry-bulb temperature. 

In response to the December 2020 ECS 

RFI, AHRI commented that in the July 

2015 rulemaking DOE assumed that 

PTACs and PTHPs are fundamentally 

the same and should be able to meet the 

same efficiency levels with the same 

technology options. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 

10) AHRI asserted that this is not the 

case and there are certain intrinsic 

characteristics which allow PTHPs to 

operate more efficiently than PTACs. Id. 

AHRI stated that if the construction 

between a given PTAC and PTHP is 

essentially the same (i.e., same coils, 

refrigerant circuiting, components, etc.), 

and differs only by the presence of a 

reversing valve, then for a given design 

target superheat at the compressor inlet, 

there is an opportunity for the PTHP to 

operate the evaporator at a lower outlet 

superheat, thereby allowing for more 

evaporative capacity for a tradeoff of 

little to no more total power input. Id. 

AHRI stated this allows PTHPs to 

operate at higher EER than a similar 

PTAC. Id. at 11. 

DOE’s review of CCD listings of 

standard size PTACs and PTHPs with 

cooling capacities greater than 7,000 

btu/h and less than 15,000 btu/h 

indicates that the cooling efficiency 

distributions of the two classes are 

comparable. This suggests that using the 

same incremental efficiency levels are 

appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE 

notes that AHRI did not recommend a 

distinction between the PTAC and 

PTHP incremental efficiency levels and 

considers it a clarification. As such, 

DOE proposes to maintain the same 

incremental efficiency levels for PTACs 

and PTHPs in this rulemaking. 

6. Cost Analysis 

The cost analysis portion of the 

engineering analysis is conducted using 

one or a combination of cost 

approaches. The selection of cost 

approach depends on a suite of factors, 

including the availability and reliability 

of public information, characteristics of 

the regulated product, the availability 

and timeliness of purchasing the 

equipment on the market. The cost 

approaches are summarized as follows: 

• Physical teardowns: Under this 

approach, DOE physically dismantles a 

commercially available product, 

component-by-component, to develop a 

detailed bill of materials for the product. 

• Catalog teardowns: In lieu of 

physically deconstructing a product, 

DOE identifies each component using 

parts diagrams (available from 

manufacturer websites or appliance 

repair websites, for example) to develop 

the bill of materials for the product. 

• Price surveys: If neither a physical 

nor catalog teardown is feasible (for 

example, for tightly integrated products 

such as fluorescent lamps, which are 

infeasible to disassemble and for which 

parts diagrams are unavailable) or costprohibitive and otherwise impractical 

(e.g. large commercial boilers), DOE 

conducts price surveys using publicly 

available pricing data published on 

major online retailer websites and/or by 

soliciting prices from distributors and 

other commercial channels. 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

performed a cost analysis that involved 

testing and then conducting physical 

teardowns on several test units to 

develop a manufacturing cost model 

and to evaluate key design features (e.g., 

improved heat exchangers, compressors, 

fans/fan motors). 80 FR 43162, 43176. 

The design options being considered in 

this rulemaking are the same as in the 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37953 

2015 rulemaking. Furthermore, DOE’s 

review of CCD and comments received 

from AHRI, suggest that the efficiency 

distributions for available PTACs and 

PTHPs have not changed compared to 

the 2015 rulemaking. Therefore, DOE 

considers that the cost analysis 

conducted for the July 2015 final rule is 

still relevant for this rulemaking. Details 

of the cost-efficiency analysis conducted 

for the July 2015 final rule can be found 

in chapter 5 of the July 2015 final rule 

TSD. Because of the time that has 

passed since the July 2015 final rule, 

DOE adjusted the cost analysis for 

inflation and other market effects. To 

adjust the cost analysis, DOE used 

industry specific producer price index 

(‘‘PPI’’) data published by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics (‘‘BLS’’). The PPI 

measures the average change over time 

in the selling prices from the 

perspective of the seller. DOE evaluated 

the change in PPI from the year 2013 

(used in the previous rulemaking) to 

year 2021 (current rulemaking), and 

used the percent increase to scale the 

manufacturer production costs 

(‘‘MPCs’’) from the previous rulemaking. 

7. Cost-Efficiency Results 

The results of the engineering analysis 

are reported as a set of cost-efficiency 

data (or ‘‘curves’’) in the form of MPC 

(in dollars) versus EER, which form the 

basis for other analyses in the NOPD. 

DOE created cost-efficiency curves for 

the two representative cooling 

capacities within the two standard-size 

equipment classes of PTACs and PTHPs, 

as discussed in section IV.B.2 

previously. DOE developed the 

incremental cost-efficiency results 

shown in Table IV–12 for each 

representative cooling capacity. These 

cost results are incremented from a 

baseline efficiency level equivalent to 

the current federal minimum standards. 

TABLE IV–12—INCREMENTAL MANUFACTURING PRODUCTION COSTS (MPC) FOR STANDARD SIZE PTACS AND PTHPS

Equipment 

type Cooling capacity 

Efficiency levels 

Baseline * EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 

PTAC .......... 9,000 Btu/h ..................... $0.00 $5.22 $15.36 $26.32 $38.11 $44.31 

15,000 Btu/h ................... 0.00 5.00 18.71 36.37 58.00 70.30 

PTHP .......... 9,000 Btu/h ..................... 0.00 5.22 15.36 26.32 38.11 44.31 

15,000 Btu/h ................... 0.00 5.00 18.71 36.37 58.00 70.30 

* This level represents the current federal minimum standards for PTAC and PTHP equipment. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested information on how it could 

conduct the cost-efficiency analyses for 

PTHPs greater than 15,000 Btu/h, for 

which there are no models on the 

market and for which DOE does not 

have data. 85 FR 82952, 82961. 

In response, AHRI noted that they had 

identified six model listings for PTACs 

with cooling capacities greater than 

15,000 Btu/h and that it would be 

reasonable to expect a PTHP of similar 

size to be slightly more efficient, based 

on reasoning discussed earlier. (AHRI, 

No. 8 at p. 12) For heating, AHRI stated 

that it is reasonable to consider the 

efficiency of PTHP with cooling 

capacity greater than 15,000 Btu/h to be 

equivalent to PTHP with cooling 

capacity equal to 15,000 Btu/h. Id. 

For this analysis, DOE considered the 

cooling efficiency of PTHP greater than 

15,000 Btu/h to be equivalent to PTACs 

greater than 15,000 Btu/h. As discussed 

earlier in Section IV.B.5, the overall 

cooling efficiency distributions of 

standard size PTACs and PTHPs with 

cooling capacities greater than 7,000 

Btu/h and less than 15,000 Btu/h are 

very similar, suggesting that using an 

equivalent cooling efficiency for PTHP 

greater than 15,000 btu/h to that of 

PTACs greater than 15,000 Btu/h is 

appropriate. 

To account for manufacturers’ nonproduction costs and profit margin, DOE 

applied 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. In the December 

2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment 

on whether a manufacturer markup of 

1.27, as used in July 2015 final rule, is 

appropriate for PTACs and PTHPs. 85 

FR 82952, 82961. DOE did not receive 

any comments pertaining to this, and 

therefore DOE retained the 

manufacturer markup of 1.27 for this 

analysis. 

C. Markups Analysis 

The markups analysis develops 

appropriate markups (e.g., retailer 

markups, distributor markups, 

contractor markups) in the distribution 

chain and sales taxes to convert the 

MSP estimates derived in the 

engineering analysis to consumer prices, 

which are then used in the LCC and PBP 

analysis and in the manufacturer impact 

analysis. At each step in the distribution 

channel, companies mark up the price 

of the product to cover business costs 

and profit margin. 

In the July 2015 final rule, 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. The four distribution 

channels are listed: 

The first distribution channel is only 

used in the new construction market, 

and it represents sales directly from a 

manufacturer to the end use customer 

through a national account. 

Manufacturer → National Account → 

End user 

The second distribution channel 

represents replacement markets, where 

a manufacturer sells to a wholesaler, 

who sells to a mechanical contractor, 

who in turn sells to the end user. 

Manufacturer → Wholesaler → 

Mechanical Contractor → End user 

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 its to a 

general contractor, who sells it to the 

end user. 

Manufacturer → Wholesaler → 

Mechanical Contractor → General 

Contractor→ End user 

Finally, in the fourth distribution 

channel, which is also used in both the 

new construction and replacement 

markets, a manufacturer sells to a 

wholesaler, who in turn sells directly to 

the end user. 

Manufacturer → Wholesaler → End User 

80 FR 43162, 43177. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37954 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

27U.S. Census Bureau. 2017 Annual Wholesale 

Trade Report, NAICS 4236: Household Appliances 

and Electrical and Electronic Goods Merchant 

Wholesalers. 2017. Washington, DC 

www.census.gov/wholesale/index.html. 

28 ‘‘2005 Financial Analysis for the HVACR 

Contracting Industry,’’ Air Conditioning Contractors 

of America. 2005. 

29 ‘‘Plumbing, Heating, and Air-Conditioning 

Contractors. Sector 23: 238220. Construction: 

Industry Series, Preliminary Detailed Statistics for 

Establishments, 2017,’’ U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. 

Available at: www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/ 

econ/economic-census/naics-sector-23.html. 

30 ‘‘2017 Economic Census, Construction Industry 

Series and Wholesale Trade Subject Series,’’ U.S. 

Census Bureau. Available online at 

www.census.gov/data/tables/2017/econ/economiccensus/naics-sector-23.html. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested information on the existence 

of any distribution channels other than 

these four distribution channels 

identified in the July 2015 Final Rule 

and also requested 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. 

85 FR 82952, 82962. 

AHRI commented that DOE’s 

assumption that no replacements are 

made through direct sales from the 

manufacturer to the customer was 

incorrect in the July 2015 final rule. 

(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 12) AHRI stated that 

certain national accounts purchase 

replacements through direct sales. Id. 

DOE did not receive any comments 

about the fraction of PTAC and PTHP 

sales through each distribution channel. 

DOE did not find any data to indicate 

the magnitude of PTAC/PTHP 

replacement sales through national 

accounts and AHRI did not provide any 

estimates of the national account 

replacement channel. However, DOE 

understands that while certain PTAC 

and PTHP owners may purchase 

replacement units through a national 

accounts channel, DOE does not expect 

the replacement volume to be very large. 

Thus, DOE believes that this channel is 

likely to be a minimal part of the market 

and has not added it to the analysis. 

In summary, DOE considered the four 

distribution channels shown in Table 

IV–13 and estimated percentages of the 

total sales in the new construction and 

replacement markets for each of the four 

distribution channels as listed in Table 

IV–14. 

TABLE IV–3—DISTRIBUTION CHANNELS FOR PTAC AND PTHP EQUIPMENT

Channel 1 Channel 2 Channel 3 Channel 4 

Manufacturer (through national accounts) ........ Manufacturer .......................... Manufacturer .......................... Manufacturer. 

Wholesaler .............................. Wholesaler .............................. Wholesaler. 

Mechanical Contractor ........... Mechanical Contractor. 

General Contractor. 

Consumer ......................................................... Consumer ............................... Consumer ............................... Consumer. 

TABLE IV–14—SHARE OF MARKET BY DISTRIBUTION CHANNEL FOR PTAC AND PTHP EQUIPMENT

Distribution channel New construction 

(percent) 

Replacement 

(percent) 

Wholesaler-Consumer ..................................................................................................................................... 30 15 

Wholesaler-Mech Contractor-Consumer ......................................................................................................... 0 25 

Wholesaler-Mech Contractor-General Contractor-Consumer ......................................................................... 38 60 

National Account .............................................................................................................................................. 32 0 

Total .......................................................................................................................................................... 100 100 

DOE updated the sources used in the 

July 2015 final rule to derive markups 

for each step of the distribution 

channels with the following data 

sources: (1) the 2017 Annual Wholesale 

Trade Survey,27 to develop wholesaler 

markups; (2) the Air Conditioning 

Contractors of America’s (‘‘ACCA’’) 

‘‘2005 Financial Analysis for the 

HVACR Contracting Industry’’ 28 and 

2017 U.S. Census Bureau economic 

data 29 to develop mechanical contractor 

markups; and (3) 2017 U.S. Census 

Bureau economic data for the 

commercial and institutional building 

construction industry to develop general 

contractor markups.30 The overall 

markup is the product of all the 

markups (baseline or incremental 

markups) for the different steps within 

a distribution channel. Replacement 

channels include sales taxes, which 

were calculated based on State sales tax 

data reported by the Sales Tax 

Clearinghouse. 

Chapter 6 of the NOPD TSD provides 

details on DOE’s development of the 

markups. 

D. Energy Use Analysis 

The purpose of the energy use 

analysis is to determine the annual unit 

energy consumption (‘‘UEC’’) of PTACs 

and PTHPs at different efficiencies in 

representative U.S. commercial 

buildings, and to assess the energy 

savings potential of increased PTAC and 

PTHP efficiency. The energy use 

analysis estimates the range of energy 

use of PTACs and PTHPs in the field 

(i.e., as they are actually used by 

consumers). The energy use analysis 

provides the basis for other analyses 

DOE performed, particularly 

assessments of the energy savings and 

the savings in consumer operating costs 

that could result from adoption of 

amended or new standards. 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

adjusted the UECs that were used in the 

October 2008 final rule to account for 

the different efficiency levels and 

equipment classes. 80 FR 43162, 43178; 

see 73 FR 58772. DOE began with the 

cooling UECs for PTACs and the cooling 

and heating UECs for PTHPs from the 

October 2008 final rule. Where identical 

efficiency levels and cooling capacities 

were available, DOE used the cooling 

and heating UEC directly from the 

October 2008 final rule. For additional 

efficiency levels, DOE scaled the cooling 

UECs based on interpolations between 

EERs and scaled the heating UECs based 

on interpolations of COPs, both at a 

constant cooling capacity. For 

additional cooling capacities, DOE 

scaled the UECs based on interpolations 

between cooling capacities and a 

constant EER. Once DOE determined the 

UECs by EL and product class, DOE 

adjusted the base-year UEC to account 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37955 

31www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/newconstruction-commercial-reference-buildings. 

32 In Commercial Buildings Energy Consumption 

Survey (‘‘CBECS’’) 2018, 80% of lodging buildings 

that use an individual room air conditioner were 

constructed prior to the year 2000. 

33www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/ 

energyplus-0. 

34www.energy.gov/eere/downloads/referencebuildings-building-type-small-hotel. 

35Available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ 

certification-data/CCMS–4-Air_Conditioners_and_

Heat_Pumps_-_Package_Terminal.html#q=Product_

Group_s%3A%22Air%20Conditioners%20

and%20Heat%20Pumps%20-%20

Package%20Terminal%22 (last accessed, 3/25/ 

2022). 

36Available at: www.census.gov/data/datasets/ 

time-series/demo/popest/2010s-countiestotal.html#par_textimage_70769902. 

37Available at: www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/ 

2015/10/f27/ba_climate_region_guide_7.3.pdf. 

for changes in climate between 2008 

and 2013 based on a typical 

meteorological year (‘‘TMY’’) hourly 

weather data set (referred to as TMY2) 

and an updated data set (referred to as 

TMY 3). 80 FR 43162, 43178. 

In the December 2020 ECS RFI, DOE 

requested comment on the approach 

used in the July 2015 final rule to 

develop UECs along with a request for 

comment on the approach to measure 

energy use of make-up air PTACs and 

PTHPs. 85 FR 82952, 82962. 

AHRI commented that it has concerns 

regarding the approach used to develop 

UECs in the energy use analysis for the 

July 2015 final rule. AHRI stated that 

DOE should account for the following 

changes in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 at a 

minimum: (1) section 6.3.2g mandates 

that the system be controlled by a 

manual changeover or dual set point 

thermostat, (2) section 6.3.2h applicable 

to PTHPs with auxiliary internal electric 

resistance heaters, mandates that 

controls must be provided to prevent 

supplemental heater operation when the 

heating load can be met by the heat 

pump alone, and (3) section 6.4.3.1 

requires thermostatic controls to include 

off-hour controls, automatic shutdown 

and setback controls. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 

13). 

AHRI also commented that the 2008 

analysis assumed that PTACs and 

PTHPs would be used to cool the lobby 

and lounge space of a small hotel and 

that this space is typically not 

conditioned by PTACs/PTHPs. Id. AHRI 

also commented that the UECs were 

higher in the July 2015 final rule than 

in the September 2014 Notice of Data 

Availability and does not understand 

how the UECs at identical efficiency 

levels could increase in that time 

period. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 14). 

Regarding make-up air units, AHRI 

stated that DOE should focus on making 

the changes to the energy use analysis 

mentioned above before it expends 

resources on a small market segment. 

(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 14) NEEA suggested 

that DOE include the ability to provide 

ventilation and make-up air to a space 

and measure the energy use associated 

with cooling, heating, and 

dehumidifying ventilation air. (NEEA, 

No. 9 at p. 5) 

NEEA also suggested that DOE’s 

energy use analysis should capture a 

range of operating conditions for PTACs 

and PTHPs. (NEEA, No. 9 at p. 6) NEEA 

suggested that DOE model the energy 

use in lodging applications as well as 

residential care and multifamily 

buildings. Id. 

In response to the comments from 

AHRI and NEEA, DOE updated its 

energy use analysis for this NOPD. To 

develop UECs, DOE began with the 

cooling and heating loads from the new 

construction 2004 vintage, small hotel 

commercial reference building 

prototype.31 While more recent 

prototypes are available that reflect 

more current building codes, DOE notes 

that its energy use analysis is meant to 

represent the energy use in the current 

stock of buildings that use PTACs and 

PTHPs and the 2004 prototype is more 

reflective of the stock than a newer 

prototype.32 This prototype is a four 

floor, rectangular building with 35 guest 

rooms, each of which uses a PTAC for 

cooling and heating. The cooling and 

heating loads were developed in 

EnergyPlus 33 using TMY3 weather data 

along with the default assumptions for 

building envelope, ventilation, 

occupancy schedule, cooling and 

heating thermostat set points, and 

square footage. A detailed description of 

the small hotel commercial reference 

building can be found on the DOE 

commercial reference building 

website.34 The UECs were developed 

only using the guestroom load profiles 

and the PTHP UECs use the heat-pump 

to meet the heating loads. DOE notes 

that it provided an explanation for the 

higher UECs in the July 2015 final rule, 

as DOE added a multiplier to account 

for the change in weather data (the 2008 

analysis was run using TMY2 and in 

2015 TMY3 data was available), which 

led to higher UECs. 80 FR 43162, 

43178–9. 

DOE understands NEEA’s suggestion 

to model variability by building type, 

however, DOE notes that small hotels 

make up the large majority of PTAC and 

PTHP shipments (approximately 80 

percent) and the internal loads of 

residential care guestrooms and 

apartments in multifamily buildings 

that would use a PTAC or PTHP should 

not be significantly different than those 

of small hotel guestrooms, therefore 

DOE only modeled the energy use in 

small hotels. DOE also notes that the 

building cooling and heating loads 

include ventilation, therefore the UEC 

includes the energy required to cool, 

heat, and dehumidify outside air. 

Of the 35 hotel rooms in the small 

hotel commercial reference building 

prototype, 20 have a design day size 

below 10,000 Btu/h and the others have 

design day sizes above 20,000 Btu/h. 

The largest standard size PTACs and 

PTHPs in CCD 35 are less than 17,000 

Btu/h, therefore, DOE did not consider 

the small hotel guestroom loads with 

design days over 20,000 Btu/h. To create 

full load cooling and heating hours, for 

each climate zone DOE took the sum of 

the cooling and heating loads from the 

20 guestrooms with a design day size 

below 10,000 Btu/h and divided them 

by the sum of the design day capacities 

for the same hotel guestrooms. DOE 

then took the full-load cooling and 

heating hours and multiplied them by 

the full-load cooling and heating power 

for each efficiency level. The full-load 

cooling power was derived by dividing 

the representative cooling capacity of 

either 9,000 Btu/h or 15,000 Btu/h by 

the EERs of the representative efficiency 

levels. The heating power for PTHPs 

was derived by converting the 9,000 

Btu/h and 15,000 Btu/h capacities into 

Watts, and dividing them by the 

representative COPs. 

DOE created UECs for each of the 16 

International Energy Conservation Code 

(‘‘IECC’’) Climate Zones in the U.S. by 

simulating the small hotel prototype in 

one representative city for each climate 

zone. DOE used county level population 

data from the U.S. Census Bureau 36

along with a Pacific Northwest 

Laboratory report,37 which assigned a 

climate zone to each county in the U.S. 

to develop population weighting factors 

for each climate zone. Next, DOE used 

the county level population data and 

climate zones to determine the weighted 

average UEC for each Census Division, 

with Census Division 9 split into two, 

California and the remaining states of 

Census Division 9 (Washington, Oregon, 

Hawaii, and Alaska). The resulting 

UECs represent the average small hotel 

guestroom cooling and heating energy 

use for each Census Division (with 

Census Division 9 split into two regions 

as explained previously). 

DOE made further adjustments to 

each UEC for each climate zone to better 

account for the field energy use of 

PTACs and PTHPs. The Energy 

Information Administration’s (‘‘EIA’’) 

National Energy Modeling System 

(‘‘NEMS’’), which is used to develop the 

Annual Energy Outlook (‘‘AEO’’), 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37956 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

38Available at: www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/ 

buildings/buildingshell/. 

develops a time series of scaling factors 

that capture the improvements of 

building envelopes in new and existing 

buildings over time.38 These building 

shell scalars are multiplied by the UEC 

to demonstrate the reduction in cooling 

and heating energy use by improved 

building envelopes by census division 

and building type between the year of 

construction of the small hotel 

commercial reference building (2004) 

and the compliance year (2026). DOE 

applied the scalars for the lodging 

building type to the UECs developed 

using the cooling and heating loads 

from the small hotel commercial 

reference building. DOE calculated the 

improvement between 2004, the year of 

the small hotel reference building, and 

2026, the compliance year, using the 

new construction time series to create a 

new construction UEC and the existing 

building time series to create an existing 

building UEC in 2026. DOE weighted 

the results using shipments projections 

to new construction (12%) and existing 

buildings (88%) to create a weighted 

average UEC in 2026. 

Chapter 7 of the NOPD TSD provides 

details on DOE’s energy use analysis for 

PTACs and PTHPs. 

E. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period 

Analysis 

DOE conducted LCC and PBP 

analyses to evaluate the economic 

impacts on individual consumers of 

potential energy conservation standards 

for PTACs and PTHPs. The effect of new 

or amended energy conservation 

standards on individual consumers 

usually involves a reduction in 

operating cost and an increase in 

purchase cost. DOE used the following 

two metrics to measure consumer 

impacts: 

• The LCC is the total consumer 

expense of an appliance or product over 

the life of that product, consisting of 

total installed cost (manufacturer selling 

price, distribution chain markups, sales 

tax, and installation costs) plus 

operating costs (expenses for energy use, 

maintenance, and repair). To compute 

the operating costs, DOE discounts 

future operating costs to the time of 

purchase and sums them over the 

lifetime of the product. 

• The PBP is the estimated amount of 

time (in years) it takes consumers to 

recover the increased purchase cost 

(including installation) of a moreefficient product through lower 

operating costs. DOE calculates the PBP 

by dividing the change in purchase cost 

at higher efficiency levels by the change 

in annual operating cost for the year that 

amended or new standards are assumed 

to take effect. 

For any given efficiency level, DOE 

measures the change in LCC relative to 

the LCC in the no-new-standards case, 

which reflects the estimated efficiency 

distribution of PTACs and PTHPs in the 

absence of new or amended energy 

conservation standards. In contrast, the 

PBP for a given efficiency level is 

measured relative to the baseline 

product. 

For each considered efficiency level 

in each product class, DOE calculated 

the LCC and PBP for PTACs and PTHPs 

used in small hotel guestrooms. As 

stated previously, DOE developed a 

sample of small hotel guestroom PTAC 

and PTHP UECs by census division 

based on the DOE small hotel reference 

building. For each census division, DOE 

determined the average energy 

consumption for a PTAC or PTHP in a 

small hotel guestroom and the 

appropriate electricity price. By 

developing a sample of UECs by census 

division, the analysis captured the 

variability in energy consumption and 

energy prices associated with the use of 

PTACs and PTHPs. 

Inputs to the calculation of total 

installed cost include the cost of the 

product—which includes MPCs, 

manufacturer markups, retailer and 

distributor 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, product 

lifetimes, and discount rates. DOE 

created distributions of values for 

equipment lifetime, discount rates, and 

sales taxes, with probabilities attached 

to each value, to account for their 

uncertainty and variability. 

The computer model DOE used to 

calculate the LCC and PBP relies on a 

Monte Carlo simulation to incorporate 

uncertainty and variability into the 

analysis. The Monte Carlo simulations 

randomly sample input values from the 

probability distributions and PTAC and 

PTHP user samples. The model 

calculated the LCC and PBP for 

products at each efficiency level for 

10,000 scenarios per simulation run. 

The analytical results include a 

distribution of 10,000 data points 

showing the range of LCC savings for a 

given efficiency level relative to the nonew-standards case efficiency 

distribution. In performing an iteration 

of the Monte Carlo simulation for a 

given PTAC or PTHP owner, product 

efficiency is chosen based on its 

probability. If the chosen product 

efficiency is greater than or equal to the 

efficiency of the standard level under 

consideration, the LCC and PBP 

calculation reveals that the PTAC or 

PTHP owner is not impacted by the 

standard level. By accounting for PTAC 

or PTHP owners who already purchase 

more-efficient products, DOE avoids 

overstating the potential benefits from 

increasing product efficiency. 

DOE calculated the LCC and PBP for 

all consumers of PTACs and PTHPs as 

if each were to purchase a new product 

in the expected year of required 

compliance with new or amended 

standards. Any amended standards 

would apply to PTACs and PTHPs 

manufactured 3 years after the date on 

which any new or amended standard is 

published. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(iv)(I)) For purposes of its 

analysis, DOE used 2026 as the first year 

of compliance with any amended 

standards for PTACs and PTHPs. 

Table IV–15 summarizes the approach 

and data DOE used to derive inputs to 

the LCC and PBP calculations. The 

subsections that follow provide further 

discussion. Details of the spreadsheet 

model, and of all the inputs to the LCC 

and PBP analyses, are contained in 

chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD and its 

appendices. 

TABLE IV–15—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS * 

Inputs Source/method 

Product Cost ........................ Derived by multiplying MPCs by manufacturer, contractor, and distributor markups and sales tax, as appropriate. 

A constant price trend was used to project product costs. 

Installation Costs .................. Baseline installation cost determined with data from RS Means for the 2015 final rule, updated to 2021 dollars. 

Assumed no change with efficiency level. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37957 

39Available at: www.bls.gov/ppi/. 40See Chapter 8 of the 2015 Final Rule Technical 

Support Documents (Available at: 

www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2012-BTSTD-0029-0040). 

41https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF. 

42Available at: https://netforum.eei.org/eweb/

DynamicPage.aspx?WebCode=COEPub

Search&pager=12. 

43Coughlin, K. and B. Beraki. 2019. Nonresidential Electricity Prices: A Review of Data 

Sources and Estimation Methods. Lawrence 

Berkeley National Lab. Berkeley, CA. Report No. 

LBNL–2001203. ees.lbl.gov/publications/nonresidential-electricity-prices. 

44EIA. Annual Energy Outlook 2022 with 

Projections to 2050. Washington, DC. Available at 

www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/ (last accessed May 5, 

2022). 

TABLE IV–15—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE LCC AND PBP ANALYSIS *—Continued 

Inputs Source/method 

Annual Energy Use .............. The total full-load cooling and heating hours multiplied by the full load cooling and heating power at each efficiency level. 

Variability: Based on the 16 IECC climate zones and representative cities from the DOE commercial reference 

building then mapped to census divisions (with census division 9 split into California and the rest of the census 

division). 

Energy Prices ....................... Electricity: Based on Edison Electric Institute data of average and marginal prices. 

Variability: Regional energy prices by census division, with census division 9 separated into California and the 

rest of the census division. 

Energy Price Trends ............ Based on AEO 2022 price projections. 

Repair and Maintenance 

Costs.

Maintenance costs do not change by efficiency level. 

The materials portion of repair costs changes by efficiency level; the labor costs are constant and based on RS 

Means. Values from 2015 final rule were converted to 2021 dollars. 

Product Lifetime ................... Average: 8 years. 

Discount Rates ..................... Commercial Discount rates for lodging, healthcare, and small office. The approach involves estimating the cost of 

capital of companies that purchase PTAC and PTHP equipment. 

Compliance Date .................. 2026. 

* References for the data sources mentioned in this table are provided in the sections following the table or in chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD. 

1. PTAC and PTHP Equipment Cost 

To calculate consumer PTAC and 

PTHP costs, DOE multiplied the MPCs 

developed in the engineering analysis 

by the markups described previously 

(along with sales taxes). DOE used 

different markups for baseline products 

and higher-efficiency products because 

DOE applies an incremental markup to 

the increase in MSP associated with 

higher-efficiency products. 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE used 

a constant price trend to project the 

equipment prices in the compliance 

year. 80 FR 43162, 43179. DOE 

maintained this approach in this NOPD 

and used a constant trend for equipment 

prices between 2021 (the year for which 

MPCs were developed) and 2026. The 

constant trend is based on a historical 

time series of the deflated PPI for all 

other miscellaneous refrigeration and air 

conditioning equipment between 1990 

and 2021.39 The deflated PPI does not 

indicate a long term upward or 

downward trend, therefore DOE 

maintained a constant price trend for 

PTACs and PTHPs. 

2. Installation Cost 

Installation cost includes labor, 

overhead, and any miscellaneous 

materials and parts needed to install the 

product. DOE used the installation costs 

developed from the 2015 final rule 40

and converted them to 2021 dollars 

using the GDP implicit price deflator 41

to estimate the labor costs associated 

with baseline installation cost for 

PTACs and PTHPs. As representative 

efficiency levels for PTACs and PTHPs 

in this analysis are single-stage, 

packaged units that fit into a wall 

sleeve, DOE found no evidence that 

installation costs would be impacted 

with increased efficiency levels. 

3. Annual Energy Consumption 

For each census division, DOE 

determined the energy consumption for 

a PTAC or PTHP in a small hotel 

guestroom at different efficiency levels 

using the approach described previously 

in section IV.D of this document. 

4. Energy Prices 

Because marginal electricity price 

more accurately captures the 

incremental savings associated with a 

change in energy use from higher 

efficiency, it provides a better 

representation of incremental change in 

consumer costs than average electricity 

prices. Therefore, DOE applied average 

electricity prices for the energy use of 

the product purchased in the no-newstandards case, and marginal electricity 

prices for the incremental change in 

energy use associated with the other 

efficiency levels considered. 

DOE derived electricity prices in 2021 

using data from Edison Electric Institute 

(‘‘EEI’’) Typical Bills and Average Rates 

reports.42 Based upon comprehensive, 

industry-wide surveys, this semi-annual 

report presents typical monthly electric 

bills and average kilowatt-hour costs to 

the customer as charged by investorowned utilities. For the commercial 

sector, DOE calculated electricity prices 

using the methodology described in 

Coughlin and Beraki (2019).43

DOE’s methodology allows electricity 

prices to vary by sector, region, and 

season. In the analysis, variability in 

electricity prices is chosen to be 

consistent with the way the consumer 

economic and energy use characteristics 

are defined in the LCC analysis. For 

PTACs and PTHPs, DOE developed 

UECs by census division for each 

equipment class and efficiency level for 

the summer (May to September) and 

winter (October to April) seasons. The 

average summer and winter electricity 

price for large commercial buildings 

was used to measure the baseline energy 

cost. The summer and winter marginal 

prices for large commercial buildings, 

using a marginal load factor of 0.5 were 

used to measure the operating cost 

savings from higher efficiency PTACs 

and PTHPs. See chapter 8 of the final 

rule TSD for details. 

To estimate energy prices in future 

years, DOE multiplied the 2021 energy 

prices by the projection of annual 

average price changes for each of the 

nine census divisions from the 

Reference case in AEO 2022, which has 

an end year of 2050.44 To estimate price 

trends after 2050, DOE kept the energy 

price constant at the 2050 value. 

5. Maintenance and Repair Costs 

Repair costs are associated with 

repairing or replacing PTAC and PTHP 

components that have failed in an 

appliance; maintenance costs are 

associated with maintaining the 

operation of the PTAC or PTHP. 

Typically, small incremental increases 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37958 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

45RS Means Company, Inc. ‘‘RSMeans Facilities 

Maintenance & Repair Cost Data,’’ 2013. 

46https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GDPDEF. 

47www.bls.gov/ppi/. 

48Modigliani, F. and M.H. Miller. The Cost of 

Capital, Corporations Finance and the Theory of 

Investment. American Economic Review. 1958. 

48(3): pp. 261–297. 

49www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ 

#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (last accessed: March 9, 

2022). 

50See Chapter 10 of DOE’s technical support 

document underlying DOE’s July 29, 2004 ANOPR. 

(Available at: www.regulations.gov/document/

EERE-2006-STD-0103-0078). 

in product efficiency produce no 

changes in maintenance costs compared 

to baseline efficiency products. Repair 

costs consist of the cost of labor to 

perform the repair as well as the cost of 

materials to replace the component that 

has failed. DOE assumes that the labor 

costs stay constant and the material 

costs will increase proportionally with 

the incremental increase of the MPC. In 

the July 2015 final rule, DOE used the 

material and labor costs associated with 

repair of equipment components 

covered and not covered by a standard 

manufacturer warranty. 80 FR 43162, 

43180. Based on a report of component 

failure probability and warranty terms, 

and on component material and labor 

costs from RS Means data,45 DOE 

determined the expected value of the 

total cost of a repair and annualized it 

to determine the annual repair cost. 

DOE scaled by cooling capacity and 

MSP to determine repair costs for the 

equipment classes and considered 

efficiency levels. Id. For this NOPD, 

DOE updated the labor portion of the 

annualized repair cost using the GDP 

implicit price deflator 46 and updated 

the material portion of baseline 

products by the PPI for Airconditioning, refrigeration, and forced 

air heating equipment manufacturing.47

The material portion of the repair cost 

for higher efficiency components was 

scaled with the MSPs. 

DOE requested comment on its 

approach to modeling repair costs in the 

December 2020 RFI. 85 FR 82952, 

82963. AHRI commented that DOE 

should ensure that out-of-warranty costs 

are used to measure repairs that occur 

after the warranty has expired and that 

costs are much higher after the warranty 

period. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 15). 

In response, DOE notes that the 

methodology used in the July 2015 final 

rule considered the cost of repairs after 

the warranty period. 80 FR 43162, 

43180. The current annualized repair 

costs reflect the cost of a repair after the 

warranty, therefore DOE did not make 

any further updates to the repair costs. 

6. Product Lifetime 

For PTACs and PTHPs, DOE used the 

same lifetime estimates from July 2015 

final rule. See 80 FR 43162, 43180. DOE 

requested comment on this approach to 

equipment lifetime in the December 

2020 ECS RFI. 85 FR 82952, 82963 

AHRI commented that DOE has no 

justification to increase equipment 

lifetimes for any PTAC or PTHP 

application. AHRI suggested that DOE 

should focus on time to replacement, 

rather than time to failure and that a 

distribution with a mean lifetime of 5 

years should be used in the analysis. 

(AHRI, No. 8 at pp. 16–17) The CA IOUs 

encouraged DOE to revisit its lifetime 

assumptions from the July 2015 final 

rule and requested that DOE determine 

if PTACs or PTHPs that are removed 

from lodging applications before they 

fail are sold in secondary markets. (CA 

IOUs, No. 7 at pp. 3–4) ASAP expressed 

concern that the assumption that PTAC 

or PTHP’s lifetime in lodging 

applications is aligned with hotel 

renovation cycles may underestimate 

the average lifetime of a PTAC or PTHP. 

(ASAP, No. 6 at p. 2) 

In response, DOE maintained the 

same lifetime assumptions as in the July 

2015 final rule. DOE has not been 

provided, nor has it identified, any data 

to suggest that the average PTAC time to 

replacement is shorter than that of the 

typical hotel renovation cycle. In 

response to comments from AHRI, CA 

IOUs and ASAP, DOE notes that while 

the average lifetime is assumed to be 

eight years, the distribution allows for a 

range of lifetimes up to 16 years. Given 

that DOE used a lifetime distribution, 

the analysis captures segments of the 

market which replace prior to the 7-year 

renovation cycle and after the 7-year 

renovation cycle. Finally, DOE’s lifetime 

assumption with a mean of 8 years falls 

between the various stakeholder 

comments and considering no 

additional data were identified to 

support a shorter or longer life, DOE is 

maintaining the same lifetime 

assumptions as in the July 2015 final 

rule. 

Regarding the comment from the CA 

IOUs on the secondary market for 

PTACs and PTHPs, DOE was unable to 

find any data sources that provide the 

total size of the secondary market. 

Furthermore, DOE understands that 

secondary market sales are often 

composed of units that fail early on in 

their lifetimes and go through a 

refurbishment and certification process, 

as opposed to older units that are 

directly resold to users after a 

renovation. Therefore, DOE did not 

include secondary market sales in this 

NOPD. 

7. Discount Rates 

DOE’s method views the purchase of 

a higher efficiency appliance as an 

investment that yields a stream of 

energy cost savings. DOE derived the 

discount rates for the LCC analysis by 

estimating the cost of capital for 

companies or public entities that 

purchase PTACs and PTHPs. For private 

firms, the weighted average cost of 

capital (‘‘WACC’’) is commonly used to 

estimate the present value of cash flows 

to be derived from a typical company 

project or investment. Most companies 

use both debt and equity capital to fund 

investments, so their cost of capital is 

the weighted average of the cost to the 

firm of equity and debt financing, as 

estimated from financial data for 

publicly traded firms in the sectors that 

purchase PTACs and PTHPs.48 As 

discount rates can differ across 

industries, DOE estimates separate 

discount rate distributions for a number 

of aggregate sectors with which 

elements of the LCC building sample 

can be associated. 

In this analysis, DOE estimated the 

cost of capital of companies that 

purchase PTAC and PTHP equipment. 

DOE used the same types of companies 

that were used in the July 2015 final 

rule, large hotel/motel chains, 

independent hotel/motel, assisted 

living/health care, and small office. 80 

FR 43162, 43181. More details regarding 

the DOE’s estimates of discount rates 

can be found in Chapter 8 of the NOPD 

TSD. 

8. Energy Efficiency Distribution in the 

No-New-Standards Case 

To accurately estimate the share of 

consumers that would be affected by a 

potential energy conservation standard 

at a particular efficiency level, DOE’s 

LCC analysis considered the projected 

distribution (market shares) of 

equipment efficiencies under the nonew-standards case (i.e., the case 

without amended or new energy 

conservation standards). 

To estimate the energy efficiency 

distribution of PTACs and PTHPs for 

2026, DOE used model counts from 

CCD 49 and applied a growth rate of 1 

EER every 35 years, which was used in 

the July 2015 final rule and is based on 

a growth trend in the absence of 

standards developed in the 2004 

commercial unitary air conditioner 

advanced notice of proposed 

rulemaking (‘‘2004 ANOPR’’).50


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37959 

51 DOE uses data on manufacturer shipments as 

a proxy for national sales, as aggregate data on sales 

are lacking. In general, one would expect a close 

correspondence between shipments and sales. 

52The NIA accounts for impacts in the 50 states 

and Washington, DC. 

80 FR 43162, 43183. The estimated 

market shares for the no-new-standards 

case for PTACs and PTHPs are shown in 

Table IV–16 of this document. DOE 

notes that there are currently units in 

CCD that are at the baseline efficiency 

level, but given the small difference 

between the baseline and EL 1, the 

growth rate of 1 EER every 35 years 

leads to no products at the baseline in 

2026. See chapter 8 of the NOPD TSD 

for further information on the derivation 

of the efficiency distributions. 

TABLE IV–16—MARKET SHARES FOR THE NO-NEW-STANDARDS CASE

Equipment 

type Cooling capacity 

Market share by EL 

Baseline * EL1 EL2 EL3 EL4 EL5 

PTAC .......... 9,000 Btu/h ..................... 0% 44% 29% 11% 6% 10% 

15,000 Btu/h ................... 0 0 52 34 14 0 

PTHP .......... 9,000 Btu/h ..................... 0 44 21 16 10 9 

15,000 Btu/h ................... 0 0 41 40 20 0 

9. Payback Period Analysis 

The payback period is the amount of 

time it takes the consumer to recover the 

additional installed cost of moreefficient PTACs and PTHPs, compared 

to baseline PTACs and PTHPs, through 

energy cost savings. Payback periods are 

expressed in years. Payback periods that 

exceed the life of the PTACs and PTHPs 

mean that the increased total installed 

cost is not recovered in reduced 

operating expenses. 

The inputs to the PBP calculation for 

each efficiency level are the change in 

total installed cost of the PTACs and 

PTHPs and the change in the first-year 

annual operating expenditures relative 

to the baseline. The PBP calculation 

uses the same inputs as the LCC 

analysis, except that discount rates are 

not needed. 

F. Shipments Analysis 

DOE uses projections of annual 

shipments to calculate the national 

impacts of potential amended or new 

energy conservation standards on 

energy use, NPV, and future 

manufacturer cash flows.51 The 

shipments model takes an accounting 

approach in tracking market shares of 

each equipment class and the vintage of 

units in the stock. Stock accounting uses 

product shipments as inputs to estimate 

the age distribution of in-service 

equipment stocks for all years. The age 

distribution of in-service equipment 

stocks is a key input to calculations of 

both the NES and NPV, because 

operating costs for any year depend on 

the age distribution of the stock. 

In the July 2015 final rule, DOE 

developed shipment projections based 

on historical data and an analysis of key 

market drivers for this equipment. 80 FR 

43162, 43182. Historical shipments 

were used to build up an equipment 

stock and also to calibrate the shipments 

model. DOE separately calculated 

shipments intended for new 

construction and replacement 

applications. The sum of new 

construction and replacement 

shipments was the total shipments. Id. 

New construction shipments were 

calculated using projected floor space of 

healthcare, lodging, and small office 

buildings from AEO 2014 and historical 

PTAC and PTHP saturation in new 

buildings, which was estimated by 

dividing historical new shipments by 

new construction floor space. 80 FR 

43162, 43182. Replacement shipments 

were equal to the number of units that 

fail in a given year. The failures were 

based on a retirement function in the 

form of a Weibull distribution with 

inputs based on lifetime values from the 

LCC analysis to estimate the number of 

units of a given age that fail in each 

year. Id. 

In the December 2020 RFI, DOE 

requested the most recent annual sales 

data but did not receive any comments 

or data on recent sales in response to the 

RFI. 85 FR 82952, 82963. 

In this NOPD, DOE updated the 

previous shipments model using the 

new construction floor space projections 

from AEO 2022 for healthcare, lodging, 

and small offices. DOE maintained the 

same saturation for new buildings to 

estimate the new shipments and the 

same distribution of shipments by 

equipment class that were used in the 

previous analysis. 

For further information on the 

shipments analysis, see chapter 9 of the 

NOPD TSD. 

G. National Impact Analysis 

The NIA assesses the NES and the 

NPV from a national perspective of total 

consumer costs and savings that would 

be expected to result from new or 

amended standards at specific efficiency 

levels.52 (‘‘Consumer’’ in this context 

refers to consumers of the PTACs and 

PTHPs being regulated.) DOE calculates 

the NES and NPV for the potential 

standard levels considered based on 

projections of annual product 

shipments, along with the annual 

energy consumption and total installed 

cost data from the energy use and LCC 

analyses. For the present analysis, DOE 

projected the energy savings, operating 

cost savings, product costs, and NPV of 

consumer benefits over the lifetime of 

PTACs and PTHPs sold from 2026 

through 2055. 

DOE evaluates the effects of new or 

amended standards by comparing a case 

without such standards with standardscase projections. The no-new-standards 

case characterizes energy use and 

consumer costs for each PTAC and 

PTHP class in the absence of new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. For this projection, DOE 

considers historical trends in efficiency 

and various forces that are likely to 

affect the mix of efficiencies over time. 

DOE compares the no-new-standards 

case with projections characterizing the 

market for each PTAC and PTHP class 

if DOE adopted new or amended 

standards at specific energy efficiency 

levels (i.e., the ELs or standards cases) 

for that class. For the standards cases, 

DOE considers how a given standard 

would likely affect the market shares of 

PTACs and PTHPs with efficiencies 

greater than the standard. 

DOE uses a spreadsheet model to 

calculate the energy savings and the 

national consumer costs and savings 

from each EL. Interested parties can 

review DOE’s analyses by changing 

various input quantities within the 

spreadsheet. The NIA spreadsheet 

model uses typical values (as opposed 

to probability distributions) as inputs. 

Table IV–17 summarizes the inputs 

and methods DOE used for the NIA 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37960 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

53For more information on NEMS, refer to The 

National Energy Modeling System: An Overview 

2009, DOE/EIA–0581(2009), October 2009. 

Available at www.eia.gov/analysis/pdfpages/ 

0581(2009)index.php (last accessed 4/15/2022). 

analysis for the NOPD. Discussion of 

these inputs and methods follows the 

table. See chapter 10 of the NOPD TSD 

for details. 

TABLE IV–17—SUMMARY OF INPUTS AND METHODS FOR THE NATIONAL IMPACT ANALYSIS

Inputs Method 

Shipments ........................................................... Annual shipments from shipments model. 

Modeled Compliance Date of Standard ............. 2026. 

Efficiency Trends ................................................ No-new-standards case—1 EER every 35 years. 

Standards cases—1 EER every 35 years. 

Annual Energy Consumption per Unit ................ Annual weighted-average values are a function of energy use at each EL. 

Total Installed Cost per Unit ............................... Annual weighted-average values are a function of cost at each EL. 

Future product prices are constant. 

Annual Energy Cost per Unit .............................. Annual weighted-average values as a function of the annual energy consumption per unit and 

energy prices. 

Repair and Maintenance Cost per Unit .............. The materials portion of annual repair costs scale with MPCs, maintenance costs do not 

change by EL. 

Energy Prices ..................................................... AEO 2022 projections (to 2050) and constant 2050 value through 2075. 

Energy Site-to-Primary and FFC Conversion ..... A time-series conversion factor based on AEO 2022. 

Discount Rate ..................................................... 3 percent and 7 percent. 

Present Year ....................................................... 2021. 

1. Equipment Efficiency Trends 

A key component of the NIA is the 

trend in energy efficiency projected for 

the no-new-standards case and each of 

the standards cases. Section IV.E.8 of 

this document describes how DOE 

developed an energy efficiency 

distribution for the no-new-standards 

case (which yields a shipment-weighted 

average efficiency) for each of the 

considered product classes for the year 

of anticipated compliance with an 

amended or new standard. 

For the standards cases, DOE used a 

‘‘roll-up’’ scenario to establish the 

shipment-weighted efficiency for the 

year that standards are assumed to 

become effective (2026). In this 

scenario, the market shares of products 

in the no-new-standards case that do not 

meet the standard under consideration 

would ‘‘roll up’’ to meet the new 

standard level, and the market share of 

products above the standard would 

remain unchanged. 

To develop no-new-standards case 

and standards case efficiency trends 

after 2026, DOE used the same approach 

as in the July 2015 final rule, which 

grows the efficiency trend at a rate of 1 

EER every 35 years for all product 

classes. 80 FR 43162, 43183. 

2. National Energy Savings 

The NES analysis involves a 

comparison of national energy 

consumption of the considered products 

between each potential standards case 

(EL) and the case with no new or 

amended energy conservation 

standards. DOE calculated the national 

energy consumption by multiplying the 

number of units (stock) of each product 

(by vintage or age) by the unit energy 

consumption (also by vintage). DOE 

calculated annual NES based on the 

difference in national energy 

consumption for the no-new-standards 

case and for each higher efficiency 

standard case. DOE estimated energy 

consumption and savings based on site 

energy and converted the electricity 

consumption and savings to primary 

energy (i.e., the energy consumed by 

power plants to generate site electricity) 

using annual conversion factors derived 

from AEO 2022. Cumulative energy 

savings are the sum of the NES for each 

year over the timeframe of the analysis. 

Use of higher-efficiency products is 

occasionally associated with a direct 

rebound effect, which refers to an 

increase in utilization of the product 

due to the increase in efficiency. For 

PTAC/PTHP, DOE did not consider any 

rebound as the entities using the 

equipment are typically not the ones 

paying the energy costs. 

In 2011, in response to the 

recommendations of a committee on 

‘‘Point-of-Use and Full-Fuel-Cycle 

Measurement Approaches to Energy 

Efficiency Standards’’ appointed by the 

National Academy of Sciences, DOE 

announced its intention to use FFC 

measures of energy use and greenhouse 

gas and other emissions in the NIA and 

emissions analyses included in future 

energy conservation standards 

rulemakings. 76 FR 51281 (Aug. 18, 

2011). After evaluating the approaches 

discussed in the August 18, 2011 notice, 

DOE published a statement of amended 

policy in which DOE explained its 

determination that EIA’s National 

Energy Modeling System (‘‘NEMS’’) is 

the most appropriate tool for its FFC 

analysis and its intention to use NEMS 

for that purpose. 77 FR 49701 (Aug. 17, 

2012). NEMS is a public domain, multisector, partial equilibrium model of the 

U.S. energy sector 53 that EIA uses to 

prepare its AEO. The FFC factors 

incorporate losses in production, and 

delivery in the case of natural gas, 

(including fugitive emissions) and 

additional energy used to produce and 

deliver the various fuels used by power 

plants. The approach used for deriving 

FFC measures of energy use and 

emissions is described in appendix 10B 

of the NOPD TSD. 

3. Net Present Value Analysis 

The inputs for determining the NPV 

of the total costs and benefits 

experienced by consumers are: (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. DOE 

calculates net savings each year as the 

difference between the no-newstandards case and each standards case 

in terms of total savings in operating 

costs versus total increases in installed 

costs. DOE calculates operating cost 

savings over the lifetime of each product 

shipped during the projection period. 

As discussed in section IV.E.1 of this 

document, DOE assumed a constant 

price trend for PTACs and PTHPs. DOE 

applied the same constant price trend to 

project prices for each PTAC and PTHP 

class at each considered efficiency level. 

The operating cost savings are energy 

cost savings, which are calculated using 

the estimated energy savings in each 

year and the projected price of the 

appropriate form of energy, and repair 

costs, which remain constant through 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37961 

54United States Office of Management and 

Budget. Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. 

September 17, 2003. Section E. Available at 

www.federalregister.gov/documents/2003/10/09/03- 

25606/circular-a-4-regulatory-analysis (last 

accessed April 15, 2022). 

the analysis period. To estimate energy 

prices in future years, DOE multiplied 

the average regional energy prices by the 

projection of annual national-average 

commercial electricity price changes in 

the Reference case from AEO 2022, 

which has an end year of 2050. To 

estimate price trends after 2050, DOE 

kept the 2050 value constant through 

2075. 

In calculating the NPV, DOE 

multiplies the net savings in future 

years by a discount factor to determine 

their present value. For this NOPD, DOE 

estimated the NPV of consumer benefits 

using both a 3-percent and a 7-percent 

real discount rate. DOE uses these 

discount rates in accordance with 

guidance provided by the Office of 

Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) to 

Federal agencies on the development of 

regulatory analysis.54 The discount rates 

for the determination of NPV are in 

contrast to the discount rates used in the 

LCC analysis, which are designed to 

reflect a consumer’s perspective. The 7- 

percent real value is an estimate of the 

average before-tax rate of return to 

private capital in the U.S. economy. The 

3-percent real value represents the 

‘‘social rate of time preference,’’ which 

is the rate at which society discounts 

future consumption flows to their 

present value. 

V. Analytical Results and Conclusions 

The following section addresses the 

results from DOE’s analyses with 

respect to the considered energy 

conservation standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs. It addresses the ELs examined 

by DOE and the projected impacts of 

each of these levels. Additional details 

regarding DOE’s analyses are contained 

in the NOPD TSD supporting this 

document. 

A. Economic Impacts on PTAC and 

PTHP Consumers 

DOE analyzed the cost effectiveness 

(i.e., the savings in operating costs 

throughout the estimated average life of 

PTACs and PTHPs) compared to any 

increase in the price of, or in the initial 

charges for, or maintenance expenses of, 

the PTACs and PTHPs, which are likely 

to result from the imposition of a 

standard at an EL by considering the 

LCC and PBP at each EL. These analyses 

are discussed in the following sections. 

In general, higher-efficiency products 

affect consumers in two ways: (1) 

purchase price increases and (2) annual 

operating costs decrease. Inputs used for 

calculating the LCC and PBP include 

total installed costs (i.e., product price 

plus installation costs), and operating 

costs (i.e., annual energy use, energy 

prices, energy price trends, repair costs, 

and maintenance costs). The LCC 

calculation also uses product lifetime 

and a discount rate. Chapter 8 of the 

NOPR TSD provides detailed 

information on the LCC and PBP 

analyses. 

Table V–1 through Table V–4 show 

the LCC and PBP results for the ELs 

considered in this analysis. The simple 

payback is measured relative to the 

efficiency distribution in the no-newstandards case in the compliance year 

(see section IV.E.8 of this document). 

Because some consumers purchase 

products with higher efficiency in the 

no-new-standards case, the average 

savings are less than the difference 

between the average LCC of the baseline 

product and the average LCC at each EL. 

The savings refer only to consumers 

who are affected by a standard at a given 

EL. Those who already purchase a 

product with efficiency at or above a 

given EL are not affected. Consumers for 

whom the LCC increases at a given EL 

experience a net cost. 

TABLE V–1—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR STANDARD SIZE PTACS WITH A COOLING

CAPACITY OF 9,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level LCC savings 

(2021$) 

Simple 

payback 

period 

(years) 

EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... $0.00 N/A 

EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 1.92 5.6 

EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥0.47 6.0 

EL 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥5.60 6.5 

EL 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥8.70 6.8 

TABLE V–2—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR STANDARD SIZE PTACS WITH A COOLING

CAPACITY OF 15,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level LCC savings 

(2021$) 

Simple 

payback 

period 

(years) 

EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... $0.00 N/A 

EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 N/A 

EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 6.39 4.1 

EL 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥1.77 4.9 

EL 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥8.68 5.3 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37962 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

55U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ 

omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed April 15, 

2022). 

56Section 325(m) of EPCA requires DOE to review 

its standards at least once every 6 years, and 

requires, for certain products, a 3-year period after 

any new standard is promulgated before 

compliance is required, except that in no case may 

any new standards be required within 6 years of the 

compliance date of the previous standards. If DOE 

makes a determination that amended standards are 

not needed, it must conduct a subsequent review 

within three years following such a determination. 

As DOE is evaluating the need to amend the 

standards, the sensitivity analysis is based on the 

review timeframe associated with amended 

standards. While adding a 6-year review to the 3- 

year compliance period adds up to 9 years, DOE 

notes that it may undertake reviews at any time 

within the 6-year period and that the 3-year 

compliance date may yield to the 6-year backstop. 

A 9-year analysis period may not be appropriate 

given the variability that occurs in the timing of 

standards reviews and the fact that for some 

products, the compliance period is 5 years rather 

than 3 years. 

TABLE V–3—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR STANDARD SIZE PTHPS WITH A COOLING

CAPACITY OF 9,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level LCC savings 

(2021$) 

Simple 

payback 

period 

(years) 

EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... $0.00 N/A 

EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 2.42 5.3 

EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.72 5.7 

EL 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥3.75 6.2 

EL 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥6.48 6.4 

TABLE V–4—AVERAGE LCC AND PBP RESULTS BY EFFICIENCY LEVEL FOR STANDARD SIZE PTHPS WITH A COOLING

CAPACITY OF 15,000 Btu/h 

Efficiency level LCC savings 

(2021$) 

Simple 

payback 

period 

(years) 

EL 1 ......................................................................................................................................................................... $0.00 N/A 

EL 2 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 0.00 N/A 

EL 3 ......................................................................................................................................................................... 7.27 4.0 

EL 4 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥0.66 4.7 

EL 5 ......................................................................................................................................................................... ¥7.07 5.1 

B. National Impact Analysis 

This section presents DOE’s estimates 

of the NES and the NPV of consumer 

benefits that would result from each of 

the ELs considered as potential 

amended standards. 

1. Significance of Energy Savings 

To estimate the energy savings 

attributable to potential amended 

standards for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE 

compared their energy consumption 

under the no-new-standards case to 

their anticipated energy consumption 

under each EL. The savings are 

measured over the entire lifetime of 

products purchased in the 30-year 

period that begins in the year of 

anticipated compliance with amended 

standards (2026–2055). Table V–5 

presents DOE’s projections of the NES 

for each EL considered for PTACs and 

PTHPs. The savings were calculated 

using the approach described in section 

IV.G of this document. 

TABLE V–5—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS; 30 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2026–2055] 

Efficiency level (quads) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Primary energy ..................................................................... 0.000 0.002 0.014 0.045 0.068 

FFC energy .......................................................................... 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.047 0.071 

OMB Circular A–4 55 requires 

agencies to present analytical results, 

including separate schedules of the 

monetized benefits and costs that show 

the type and timing of benefits and 

costs. Circular A–4 also directs agencies 

to consider the variability of key 

elements underlying the estimates of 

benefits and costs. For this proposed 

determination, DOE undertook a 

sensitivity analysis using 9 years, rather 

than 30 years, of product shipments. 

The choice of a 9-year period is a proxy 

for the timeline in EPCA for the review 

of certain energy conservation standards 

and potential revision of and 

compliance with such revised 

standards.56 The review timeframe 

established in EPCA is generally not 

synchronized with the product lifetime, 

product manufacturing cycles, or other 

factors specific to PTACs and PTHPs. 

Thus, such results are presented for 

informational purposes only and are not 

indicative of any change in DOE’s 

analytical methodology. The NES 

sensitivity analysis results based on a 9- 

year analytical period are presented in 

Table V–6. The impacts are counted 

over the lifetime of PTACs and PTHPs 

purchased in 2026 to 2034. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37963 

57U.S. Office of Management and Budget. 

Circular A–4: Regulatory Analysis. September 17, 

2003. Available at obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/ omb/circulars_a004_a-4/ (last accessed April 15, 

2022). 

TABLE V–6—CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY SAVINGS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS; 9 YEARS OF SHIPMENTS

[2026–2034] 

Efficiency level (quads) 

1 2 3 4 5 

Primary energy ..................................................................... 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.023 0.029 

FFC energy .......................................................................... 0.000 0.002 0.011 0.023 0.030 

a. Net Present Value of Consumer Costs 

and Benefits 

DOE estimated the cumulative NPV of 

the total costs and savings for 

consumers that would result from an 

amended standard at each of the 

representative ELs considered for 

PTACs and PTHPs. In accordance with 

OMB’s guidelines on regulatory 

analysis,57 DOE calculated NPV using 

both a 7-percent and a 3-percent real 

discount rate. Table V–7 shows the 

consumer NPV results with impacts 

counted over the lifetime of products 

purchased in 2026–2055. 

TABLE V–7—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS; 30 YEARS OF

SHIPMENTS

[2026–2055] 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level (billion 2021$) 

1 2 3 4 5 

3 percent .............................................................................. 0.000 ¥0.004 ¥0.043 ¥0.167 ¥0.268 

7 percent .............................................................................. 0.000 ¥0.004 ¥0.035 ¥0.116 ¥0.174 

The NPV results based on the 

aforementioned 9-year analytical period 

are presented in Table V–8. The impacts 

are counted over the lifetime of PTACs 

and PTHPs purchased in 2026–2034. As 

mentioned previously, such results are 

presented for informational purposes 

only and are not indicative of any 

change in DOE’s analytical methodology 

or decision criteria. 

TABLE V–8—CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR PTACS AND PTHPS; 9 YEARS OF

SHIPMENTS

[2026–2034] 

Discount rate 

Trial standard level (billion 2021$) 

1 2 3 4 5 

3 percent .............................................................................. 0.000 ¥0.004 ¥0.033 ¥0.088 ¥0.124 

7 percent .............................................................................. 0.000 ¥0.004 ¥0.029 ¥0.073 ¥0.102 

C. Proposed Determination 

EPCA specifies that for any 

commercial and industrial equipment 

addressed under 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(i), including PTACs and 

PTHPS, DOE may prescribe an energy 

conservation standard more stringent 

than the level for such equipment in 

ASHRAE Standard 90.1 only if ‘‘clear 

and convincing evidence’’ shows that a 

more-stringent standard would result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy and is technologically feasible 

and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(C)(i); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) The ‘‘clear and 

convincing’’ evidentiary threshold 

applies both when DOE is triggered by 

ASHRAE action and when DOE 

conducts a six-year-lookback 

rulemaking, with the latter being the 

basis for the current proceeding. 

Because an analysis of potential costeffectiveness and energy savings first 

require an evaluation of the relevant 

technology, DOE first discusses the 

technological feasibility of amended 

standards. DOE then evaluates the 

energy savings potential and whether 

potential amended standards are 

economically justified. 

1. Technological Feasibility 

EPCA mandates that DOE consider 

whether amended energy conservation 

standards for PTACs and PTHPs would 

be technologically feasible. (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

DOE considers technologies 

incorporated in commercially available 

products or in working prototypes to be 

technologically feasible. Per the 

technology options discussed in section 

IV.A.3 of this document, DOE has 

tentatively determined, based on clear 

and convincing evidence, that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs would be 

technologically feasible. 

2. Significant Conservation of Energy 

EPCA also mandates that DOE 

consider whether amended energy 

conservation standards for PTACs and 

PTHPS would result in result in 

significant additional conservation of 

energy. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) 

In the present case, DOE estimates 

that amended standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs would result in energy savings of 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37964 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

0.002 quads at EL 2, 0.013 quads at EL 

3, 0.014 quads at EL 4, and 0.062 quads 

at EL 5 (the max-tech level) over a 30- 

year analysis period (2026–2055). 

However, as discussed in the following 

section DOE lacks the clear and 

convincing evidence necessary to 

determine that amended standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs would be 

economically justified. 

3. Economic Justification 

In determining whether a standard is 

economically justified, the Secretary 

must determine whether the benefits of 

the standard exceed its burdens, 

considering to the greatest extent 

practicable the seven statutory factors 

discussed previously (see section II.A of 

this document). (42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II); 42 U.S.C. 

6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)–(VII)) 

One of those seven factors is the 

savings in operating costs throughout 

the estimated average life of the product 

in the type (or class) compared to any 

increase in the price, initial charges, or 

maintenance expenses of the products 

that are likely to result from the 

standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(II)) 

This factor is typically assessed using 

the LCC and PBP analysis, as well as the 

NPV. 

DOE conducted an LCC analysis to 

estimate the net costs/benefits to users 

from increased efficiency in the 

considered PTACs and PTHPs (See 

results in Table V–1 to Table V–4). DOE 

then aggregated the results from the LCC 

analysis to estimate the NPV of the total 

costs and benefits experienced by the 

Nation (See results in Table V–7 and 

Table V–8). As noted, the inputs for 

determining the NPV are: (1) total 

annual installed cost, (2) total annual 

operating costs (energy costs and repair 

and maintenance costs), and (3) a 

discount factor to calculate the present 

value of costs and savings. A summary 

of the analytical results can be found in 

Table V–9. 

TABLE V–9—SUMMARY OF ANALYTICAL RESULTS OF PTAC AND PTHP EQUIPMENT

Category EL 1 EL 2 EL 3 EL 4 EL 5 

Cumulative National FFC Energy Savings (quads) 

.......................................................................................... 0.000 0.002 0.015 0.047 0.071 

NPV of Consumer Costs and Benefits * * * (2021$ billion) 

3% discount rate .................................................................. 0.000 ¥0.004 ¥0.043 ¥0.167 ¥0.268 

7% discount rate .................................................................. 0.000 ¥0.004 ¥0.035 ¥0.116 ¥0.174 

Consumer Mean LCC Savings 2021$ 

Standard Size PTACs—9,000 Btu/h .................................... 0.00 1.92 ¥0.47 ¥5.60 ¥8.70 

Standard Size PTACs—15,000 Btu/h .................................. 0.00 0.00 6.39 ¥1.77 ¥8.68 

Standard Size PTHPs—9,000 Btu/h .................................... 0.00 2.42 0.72 ¥3.75 ¥6.48 

Standard Size PTHPs—15,000 Btu/h .................................. 0.00 0.00 7.27 ¥0.66 ¥7.07 

Consumer Mean Payback Period 

Standard Size PTACs—9,000 Btu/h .................................... N/A 5.6 6.0 6.5 6.8 

Standard Size PTACs—15,000 Btu/h .................................. N/A N/A 4.1 4.9 5.3 

Standard Size PTHPs—9,000 Btu/h .................................... N/A 5.3 5.7 6.2 6.4 

Standard Size PTHPs—15,000 Btu/h .................................. N/A N/A 4.0 4.7 5.1 

DOE estimates that amended 

standards for PTACs and PTHPs would 

result in NPV of $0.000 at EL 1, of 

¥$0.004 billion at a 3 percent discount 

rate and ¥$0.004 billion at a 7 percent 

discount rate at EL 2, of ¥$0.043 billion 

at a 3 percent discount rate and 

¥$0.035 billion at a 7 percent discount 

rate at EL 3, of ¥$0.167 billion at a 3 

percent discount rate and ¥$0.116 

billion at a 7 percent discount rate at EL 

4, and of ¥$0.268 billion at a 3 percent 

discount rate and ¥$0.174 billion at a 

7 percent discount rate at EL 5. Based 

on the NPV being zero at EL 1 and 

negative at each higher EL, DOE’s 

analysis indicates that consumers are 

unlikely to experience a net economic 

benefit from any efficiency level above 

the current baseline. Consequently, DOE 

has tentatively determined that it lacks 

clear and convincing evidence that 

amended energy conservation standards 

would be economically justified. 

4. Summary 

Having considered the factors that 

would serve as the justification for an 

amended standard, including national 

energy savings, DOE has tentatively 

found based on its analysis that the 

benefits of amended standards would 

not outweigh the estimated net 

economic burden to consumers. 

Therefore, DOE is proposing to 

determine that the energy conservation 

standards for PTACs and PTHP do not 

need to be amended, having initially 

determined that it lacks ‘‘clear and 

convincing’’ evidence that amended 

standards would be economically 

justified. DOE will consider and 

respond to all comments received on 

this proposed determination in issuing 

any final determination. 

VI. Procedural Issues and Regulatory 

Review 

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 

Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, 

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ as 

supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 

13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review, 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 

2011), requires agencies, to the extent 

permitted by law, to: (1) propose or 

adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned 

determination that its benefits justify its 

costs (recognizing that some benefits 

and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) 

tailor regulations to impose the least 

burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives, taking 

into account, among other things, and to 

the extent practicable, the costs of 

cumulative regulations; (3) select, in 

choosing among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37965 

maximize net benefits (including 

potential economic, environmental, 

public health and safety, and other 

advantages; distributive impacts; and 

equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and (5) identify and assess 

available alternatives to direct 

regulation, including providing 

economic incentives to encourage the 

desired behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. DOE emphasizes as 

well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to 

use the best available techniques to 

quantify anticipated present and future 

benefits and costs as accurately as 

possible. In its guidance, the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs 

(‘‘OIRA’’) in the Office of Management 

and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has emphasized 

that such techniques may include 

identifying changing future compliance 

costs that might result from 

technological innovation or anticipated 

behavioral changes. For the reasons 

stated in the preamble, this proposed 

regulatory action is consistent with 

these principles. 

Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also 

requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant 

regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. 

OIRA has determined that this proposed 

regulatory action does not constitute a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, 

this action was not submitted to OIRA 

for review under E.O. 12866. 

B. Review Under the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation 

of an initial regulatory flexibility 

analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by 

law must be proposed for public 

comment, unless the agency certifies 

that the rule, if promulgated, will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

As required by E.O. 13272, ‘‘Proper 

Consideration of Small Entities in 

Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 

(Aug. 16, 2002), DOE published 

procedures and policies on February 19, 

2003, to ensure that the potential 

impacts of its rules on small entities are 

properly considered during the 

rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE 

has made its procedures and policies 

available on the Office of the General 

Counsel’s website (www.energy.gov/gc/ 

office-general-counsel). 

DOE reviewed this proposed 

determination under the provisions of 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the 

policies and procedures published on 

February 19, 2003. DOE has tentatively 

determined that current standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs do not need to be 

amended. Because DOE is proposing not 

to amend standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs, if adopted, this determination 

would not amend any energy 

conservation standards. On the basis of 

the foregoing, DOE certifies that the 

proposed determination, if adopted, 

would have no significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities. Accordingly, DOE has not 

prepared an IRFA for this proposed 

determination. DOE will transmit this 

certification and supporting statement 

of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for 

Advocacy of the Small Business 

Administration for review under 5 

U.S.C. 605(b). 

C. Review Under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act 

This proposed determination, which 

proposes to determine that amended 

energy conservation standards for 

PTACs and PTHPs are unneeded under 

the applicable statutory criteria, would 

impose no new informational or 

recordkeeping requirements. 

Accordingly, OMB clearance is not 

required under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) 

D. Review Under the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

DOE is analyzing this proposed action 

in accordance with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA 

implementing regulations (10 CFR part 

1021). DOE’s regulations include a 

categorical exclusion for actions which 

are interpretations or rulings with 

respect to existing regulations. 10 CFR 

part 1021, subpart D, appendix A4. DOE 

anticipates that this action qualifies for 

categorical exclusion A4 because it is an 

interpretation or ruling in regard to an 

existing regulation and otherwise meets 

the requirements for application of a 

categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 

1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA 

review before issuing the final action. 

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 

E.O. 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 

43255 (Aug. 10, 1999), imposes certain 

requirements on Federal agencies 

formulating and implementing policies 

or regulations that preempt State law or 

that have federalism implications. The 

E.O. requires agencies to examine the 

constitutional and statutory authority 

supporting any action that would limit 

the policymaking discretion of the 

States and to carefully assess the 

necessity for such actions. The E.O. also 

requires agencies to have an accountable 

process to ensure meaningful and timely 

input by State and local officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. On March 

14, 2000, DOE published a statement of 

policy describing the intergovernmental 

consultation process it will follow in the 

development of such regulations. 65 FR 

13735. DOE has examined this proposed 

determination and has tentatively 

determined that it would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. EPCA governs and 

prescribes Federal preemption of State 

regulations as to energy conservation for 

the equipment that are the subject of 

this proposed rule. States can petition 

DOE for exemption from such 

preemption to the extent, and based on 

criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 

6316 (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) Therefore, no 

further action is required by E.O. 13132. 

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 

With respect to the review of existing 

regulations and the promulgation of 

new regulations, section 3(a) of E.O. 

12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ imposes 

on Federal agencies the general duty to 

adhere to the following requirements: 

(1) eliminate drafting errors and 

ambiguity, (2) write regulations to 

minimize litigation, (3) provide a clear 

legal standard for affected conduct 

rather than a general standard, and (4) 

promote simplification and burden 

reduction. 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996). 

Regarding the review required by 

section 3(a), section 3(b) of E.O. 12988 

specifically requires that executive 

agencies make every reasonable effort to 

ensure that the regulation: (1) clearly 

specifies the preemptive effect, if any, 

(2) clearly specifies any effect on 

existing Federal law or regulation, (3) 

provides a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct while promoting 

simplification and burden reduction, (4) 

specifies the retroactive effect, if any, (5) 

adequately defines key terms, and (6) 

addresses other important issues 

affecting clarity and general 

draftsmanship under any guidelines 

issued by the Attorney General. Section 

3(c) of E.O. 12988 requires executive 

agencies to review regulations in light of 

applicable standards in section 3(a) and 

section 3(b) to determine whether they 

are met or it is unreasonable to meet one 

or more of them. DOE has completed the 

required review and determined that, to 

the extent permitted by law, this 

proposed determination meets the 

relevant standards of E.O. 12988. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37966 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

58 ‘‘Energy Conservation Standards Rulemaking 

Peer Review Report.’’ 2007. Available at 

www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/downloads/energyconservation-standards-rulemaking-peer-reviewreport-0 (last accessed April 15, 2022). 

G. Review Under the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires 

each Federal agency to assess the effects 

of Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments and the 

private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 

201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a 

proposed regulatory action likely to 

result in a rule that may cause the 

expenditure by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

in any one year (adjusted annually for 

inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires 

a Federal agency to publish a written 

statement that estimates the resulting 

costs, benefits, and other effects on the 

national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) 

The UMRA also requires a Federal 

agency to develop an effective process 

to permit timely input by elected 

officers of State, local, and Tribal 

governments on a proposed ‘‘significant 

intergovernmental mandate,’’ and 

requires an agency plan for giving notice 

and opportunity for timely input to 

potentially affected small governments 

before establishing any requirements 

that might significantly or uniquely 

affect them. On March 18, 1997, DOE 

published a statement of policy on its 

process for intergovernmental 

consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 

12820. DOE’s policy statement is also 

available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ 

files/gcprod/documents/umra_97.pdf. 

DOE examined this proposed 

determination according to UMRA and 

its statement of policy and determined 

that the proposed determination does 

not contain a Federal intergovernmental 

mandate, nor is it expected to require 

expenditures of $100 million or more in 

any one year by State, local, and Tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector. As a result, the analytical 

requirements of UMRA do not apply. 

H. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires 

Federal agencies to issue a Family 

Policymaking Assessment for any rule 

that may affect family well-being. This 

proposed determination would not have 

any impact on the autonomy or integrity 

of the family as an institution. 

Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it 

is not necessary to prepare a Family 

Policymaking Assessment. 

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 

Pursuant to E.O. 12630, 

‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference 

with Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (Mar. 15, 1988), 

DOE has determined that this proposed 

determination would not result in any 

takings that might require compensation 

under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. 

Constitution. 

J. Review Under the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 

Section 515 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides 

for Federal agencies to review most 

disseminations of information to the 

public under information quality 

guidelines established by each agency 

pursuant to general guidelines issued by 

OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published 

at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and 

DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 

FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to 

OMB Memorandum M–19–15, 

Improving Implementation of the 

Information Quality Act (April 24, 

2019), DOE published updated 

guidelines which are available at 

www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/ 

12/f70/DOE%20Final%20

Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20

Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed 

this NOPD under the OMB and DOE 

guidelines and has concluded that it is 

consistent with applicable policies in 

those guidelines. 

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 

E.O. 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning 

Regulations That Significantly Affect 

Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 

FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires 

Federal agencies to prepare and submit 

to the OIRA at OMB, a Statement of 

Energy Effects for any proposed 

significant energy action. A ‘‘significant 

energy action’’ is defined as any action 

by an agency that promulgates or is 

expected to lead to promulgation of a 

final rule, and that (1) is a significant 

regulatory action under E.O. 12866, or 

any successor E.O.; and (2) is likely to 

have a significant adverse effect on the 

supply, distribution, or use of energy, or 

(3) is designated by the Administrator of 

OIRA as a significant energy action. For 

any proposed significant energy action, 

the agency must give a detailed 

statement of any adverse effects on 

energy supply, distribution, or use 

should the proposal be implemented, 

and of reasonable alternatives to the 

action and their expected benefits on 

energy supply, distribution, and use. 

This proposed determination, which 

does not propose to amend energy 

conservation standards for PTACs and 

PTHPs, is not a significant regulatory 

action under E.O. 12866. Moreover, it 

would not have a significant adverse 

effect on the supply, distribution, or use 

of energy, nor has it been designated as 

such by the Administrator at OIRA. 

Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a 

Statement of Energy Effects. 

L. Review Under the Information 

Quality Bulletin for Peer Review 

On December 16, 2004, OMB, in 

consultation with the Office of Science 

and Technology Policy (‘‘OSTP’’), 

issued its Final Information Quality 

Bulletin for Peer Review (‘‘the 

Bulletin’’). 70 FR 2664 (Jan. 14, 2005). 

The Bulletin establishes that certain 

scientific information shall be peer 

reviewed by qualified specialists before 

it is disseminated by the Federal 

Government, including influential 

scientific information related to agency 

regulatory actions. The purpose of the 

bulletin is to enhance the quality and 

credibility of the Government’s 

scientific information. Under the 

Bulletin, the energy conservation 

standards rulemaking analyses are 

‘‘influential scientific information,’’ 

which the Bulletin defines as ‘‘scientific 

information the agency reasonably can 

determine will have, or does have, a 

clear and substantial impact on 

important public policies or private 

sector decisions.’’ Id. at 70 FR 2667. 

In response to OMB’s Bulletin, DOE 

conducted formal peer reviews of the 

energy conservation standards 

development process and the analyses 

that are typically used and has prepared 

Peer Review report pertaining to the 

energy conservation standards 

rulemaking analyses.58 Generation of 

this report involved a rigorous, formal, 

and documented evaluation using 

objective criteria and qualified and 

independent reviewers to make a 

judgment as to the technical/scientific/ 

business merit, the actual or anticipated 

results, and the productivity and 

management effectiveness of programs 

and/or projects. Because available data, 

models, and technological 

understanding have changed since 2007, 

DOE has engaged with the National 

Academy of Sciences to review DOE’s 

analytical methodologies to ascertain 

whether modifications are needed to 

improve the Department’s analyses. 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 37967 

59The report is available at 

www.nationalacademies.org/our-work/review-ofmethods-for-setting-building-and-equipmentperformance-standards. 

DOE is in the process of evaluating the 

resulting report.59

VII. Public Participation 

A. Participation in the Webinar 

The time and date of the webinar are 

listed in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this document. Webinar 

registration information, participant 

instructions, and information about the 

capabilities available to webinar 

participants will be published on DOE’s 

website: www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

buildings/appliance_standards/ 

standards.aspx?productid=46

&action=viewcurrent. Participants are 

responsible for ensuring their systems 

are compatible with the webinar 

software. 

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared 

General Statements for Distribution 

Any person who has an interest in the 

topics addressed in this NOPD, or who 

is representative of a group or class of 

persons that has an interest in these 

issues, may request an opportunity to 

make an oral presentation at the 

webinar. Such persons may submit 

requests to speak to 

ApplianceStandardsQuestions@

ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak 

should include with their request a 

computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft 

Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format 

that briefly describes the nature of their 

interest in this proposed determination 

and the topics they wish to discuss. 

Such persons should also provide a 

daytime telephone number where they 

can be reached. 

C. Conduct of the Webinar 

DOE will designate a DOE official to 

preside at the webinar/public meeting 

and may also use a professional 

facilitator to aid discussion. The 

meeting will not be a judicial or 

evidentiary-type public hearing, but 

DOE will conduct it in accordance with 

section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A 

court reporter will be present to record 

the proceedings and prepare a 

transcript. DOE reserves the right to 

schedule the order of presentations and 

to establish the procedures governing 

the conduct of the webinar/public 

meeting. There shall not be discussion 

of proprietary information, costs or 

prices, market share, or other 

commercial matters regulated by U.S. 

anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public 

meeting and until the end of the 

comment period, interested parties may 

submit further comments on the 

proceedings and any aspect of the 

proposed determination. 

The webinar will be conducted in an 

informal, conference style. DOE will 

present a general overview of the topics 

addressed in this rulemaking, allow 

time for prepared general statements by 

participants, and encourage all 

interested parties to share their views on 

issues affecting this proposed 

determination. Each participant will be 

allowed to make a general statement 

(within time limits determined by DOE), 

before the discussion of specific topics. 

DOE will permit, as time permits, other 

participants to comment briefly on any 

general statements. 

At the end of all prepared statements 

on a topic, DOE will permit participants 

to clarify their statements briefly. 

Participants should be prepared to 

answer questions by DOE and by other 

participants concerning these issues. 

DOE representatives may also ask 

questions of participants concerning 

other matters relevant to this proposed 

determination. The official conducting 

the webinar/public meeting will accept 

additional comments or questions from 

those attending, as time permits. The 

presiding official will announce any 

further procedural rules or modification 

of the above procedures that may be 

needed for the proper conduct of the 

webinar/public meeting. 

A transcript of the webinar/public 

meeting will be included in the docket, 

which can be viewed as described in the 

Docket section at the beginning of this 

NOPD. In addition, any person may buy 

a copy of the transcript from the 

transcribing reporter. 

D. Submission of Comments 

DOE will accept comments, data, and 

information regarding this proposed 

determination no later than the date 

provided in the DATES section at the 

beginning of this proposed rule. 

Interested parties may submit 

comments, data, and other information 

using any of the methods described in 

the ADDRESSES section at the beginning 

of this document. 

Submitting comments via 

www.regulations.gov. The 

www.regulations.gov web page will 

require you to provide your name and 

contact information. Your contact 

information will be viewable to DOE 

Building Technologies 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 itself 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. 

Otherwise, 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 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 

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 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 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 

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 in 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 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
37968 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 121 / Friday, June 24, 2022 / Proposed Rules 

printed copies. No 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, that are written in English, and 

that are free of any defects or viruses. 

Documents should not contain special 

characters or any form of encryption 

and, if possible, they should carry the 

electronic signature of the author. 

Campaign form letters. Please submit 

campaign form letters by the originating 

organization in batches of between 50 to 

500 form letters per PDF or as one form 

letter with a list of supporters’ names 

compiled into one or more PDFs. This 

reduces comment processing and 

posting time. 

Confidential Business Information. 

Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person 

submitting information that he or she 

believes to be confidential and exempt 

by law from public disclosure should 

submit via email to 

PTACHP2019STD0035@ee.doe.gov 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. 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). 

VIII. Approval of the Office of the 

Secretary 

The Secretary of Energy has approved 

publication of this notification of 

proposed determination and request for 

comment. 

Signing Authority 

This document of the Department of 

Energy was signed on June 15, 2022, by 

Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for 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 June 15, 

2022. 

Treena V. Garrett, 

Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. 

Department of Energy. 

[FR Doc. 2022–13224 Filed 6–23–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450–01–P 


jspears on DSK121TN23PROD with PROPOSALS2