[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 154 (Friday, August 9, 2019)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39220-39234]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-17084]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021]
RIN 1904-AD90


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks

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

ACTION: Request for information.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') is initiating an 
effort to determine whether to amend the current uniform national 
standard for unfired hot water storage tanks (``UFHWSTs''). Under the 
Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended, DOE must review 
this standard at least once every six years and publish either a notice 
of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') to propose an amended standard (or 
standards) for UFHWSTs or a notice of determination that the existing 
standard does not need to be amended. This request for information 
(``RFI'') seeks to solicit information from the public to help DOE 
determine whether an amended standard for UFHWSTs would result a 
significant energy savings and whether such a standard would be 
technologically feasible and economically justified. DOE welcomes 
written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of 
this document (including topics not raised in this RFI).

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before September 23, 2019.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-
STD-0021, by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected]. Include the 
docket number EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021 in the subject line of the message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121.

[[Page 39221]]

Telephone: (202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a 
compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed 
copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at http://www.regulations.gov. All documents in 
the docket are listed in the http://www.regulations.gov index. However, 
some documents listed in the index, such as those containing 
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly 
available.
    The docket web page can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-STD-0021. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III of this document for information on how 
to submit comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 
    Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 586-7335. Email: [email protected].
    Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General 
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. 
Telephone: (202) 586-5827. Email: [email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment or review other 
public comments and the docket, contact the Appliance and Equipment 
Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email: 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents

I. Introduction
    A. Authority and Background
    B. Rulemaking Process
II. Request for Information and Comments
    A. Equipment Covered by This Process
    B. Market and Technology Assessment
    1. Equipment Classes
    2. Technology Assessment
    C. Screening Analysis
    D. Engineering Analysis
    1. General Approach
    2. Representative Equipment
    3. Baseline Efficiency Level
    4. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible 
Efficiency Levels
    5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturer Selling Price
    6. Additional Engineering Issues
    E. Mark-Ups Analysis
    1. Distribution Channels
    2. Mark-Ups
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    1. Sample Development
    2. Energy Use Calculations
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
    1. Total Installed Cost
    2. Operating Costs
    H. Shipments Analysis
    I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Market-Based Approaches to Energy Conservation Standards
III. Submission of Comments

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, as amended 
(``EPCA''),\1\ Public Law 94-163 (42 U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), 
among other things, authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of 
a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. Title 
III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV, Sec.  
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 UFHWSTs, the 
subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(K)) EPCA prescribed initial 
standards for this equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)(F)-(G))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Under EPCA, DOE's energy conservation program consists essentially 
of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy 
conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement 
procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include 
definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 
6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 
6315), and the authority to require information and reports from 
manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316).
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (See 
42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant 
waivers of Federal preemption in limited instances for particular State 
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other 
provisions set forth under 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D).
    EPCA contains mandatory standards for commercial heating, air-
conditioning, and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) 
Specifically, the statute sets standards for small, large, and very 
large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment, 
packaged terminal air conditioners (PTACs) and packaged terminal heat 
pumps (PTHPs), warm-air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water 
heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage 
tanks (collectively referred to as ``covered ASHRAE equipment''). Id. 
In doing so, EPCA established standards that generally correspond to 
the efficiency levels in the American Society of Heating, 
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) Standard 90.1, 
``Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential 
Buildings,'' as in effect on October 24, 1992 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 
90.1-1989), for each type of covered equipment listed in 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a).
    In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy 
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to 
consider amending the existing Federal standard for each type of 
equipment listed, each time ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with 
respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) If ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 is amended with respect to the standard levels or design 
requirements applicable under that standard to any covered ASHRAE 
equipment, 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. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i)) For each type of equipment, EPCA directs 
that if ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended, DOE must adopt amended energy 
conservation standards at the new efficiency level in ASHRAE Standard

[[Page 39222]]

90.1, unless clear and convincing evidence supports a determination 
that adoption of a more-stringent efficiency level as a national 
standard would produce significant additional energy savings and be 
technologically feasible and economically justified.\3\ (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a national standard the 
efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 90.1, DOE 
must establish such standard not later than 18 months after publication 
of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) If 
DOE determines that a more-stringent standard is appropriate under the 
statutory criteria, DOE must establish such more-stringent standard not 
later than 30 months after publication of the revised ASHRAE Standard 
90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Although EPCA does not explicitly define the term ``amended'' in 
the context of what type of revision to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would 
trigger DOE's obligation, DOE's longstanding interpretation has been 
that the statutory trigger is an amendment to the standard applicable 
to that equipment under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that increases the energy 
efficiency level for that equipment. See 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 
2007). In other words, if the revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the 
energy efficiency level unchanged (or lowers the energy efficiency 
level), as compared to the energy efficiency level specified by the 
uniform national standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, regardless of the 
other amendments made to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirement (e.g., 
the inclusion of an additional metric), DOE has stated that it does not 
have the authority to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher 
standard for that equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). See 74 
FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009) and 77 FR 28928, 28937 (May 16, 2012). 
However, DOE notes that Congress adopted amendments to these provisions 
related to ASHRAE Standard 90.1 equipment under the American Energy 
Manufacturing Technical Corrections Act (Pub. L. 112-210 (Dec. 18, 
2012); ``AEMTCA''). In relevant part, DOE is prompted to act whenever 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 is amended with respect to ``the standard levels 
or design requirements applicable under that standard'' to any of the 
enumerated types of commercial air conditioning, heating, or water 
heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(i))
    EPCA does not detail the exact type of amendment that serves as a 
triggering event. However, DOE has considered whether its obligation is 
triggered in the context of whether the specific ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
requirement on which the most current Federal requirement is based is 
amended (i.e., the regulatory metric). For example, if an amendment to 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 changed the metric for the standard on which the 
Federal requirement was based, DOE would perform a crosswalk analysis 
to determine whether the amended metric under ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
resulted in an energy efficiency level that was more stringent than the 
current DOE standard. Conversely, if an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 were to add an additional metric by which a class of equipment is 
to be evaluated, but did not amend the requirement that is in terms of 
the metric on which the Federal requirement was based, DOE would not 
consider its obligation triggered.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See the May 16, 2012, final rule for small, large, and very 
large water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners, and VRF water-source heat pumps with cooling capacity 
less than 17,000 Btu/h, in which DOE states that ``if the revised 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 leaves the standard level unchanged or lowers 
the standard, as compared to the level specified by the national 
standard adopted pursuant to EPCA, DOE does not have the authority 
to conduct a rulemaking to consider a higher standard for that 
equipment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A). 77 FR 28928, 28929 
(emphasis added). See also, 74 FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, DOE has explained that its authority to adopt an 
ASHRAE amendment is limited based on the definition of ``energy 
conservation standard.'' 74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22, 2009). In 
general, an ``energy conservation standard'' is limited, per the 
statutory definition, to either a performance standard or a design 
requirement. (42 U.S.C. 6311(18)) Informed by the ``energy conservation 
standard'' definition, DOE has stated that adoption of an amendment to 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``that establishes both a performance standard and 
a design requirement is beyond the scope of DOE's legal authority, as 
would be a standard that included more than one design requirement.'' 
74 FR 36312, 36322 (July 22, 2009).
    As noted, the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 provision in EPCA acknowledges 
technological changes that yield energy efficiency benefits, as well as 
continuing development of industry standards and test methods. 
Amendments to a uniform national standard provide Federal requirements 
that continue to reflect energy efficiency improvements identified by 
industry. Amendments to a uniform national standard that reflect the 
relevant amended versions of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 would also help 
reduce compliance and test burdens on manufacturers by harmonizing the 
Federal requirements, when appropriate, with industry best practices. 
This harmonization would be further facilitated by establishing not 
only consistent energy efficiency levels and design requirements 
between ASHRAE Standard 90.1 and the Federal requirements, but 
comparable metrics as well.
    As stated previously, DOE has limited its review under the ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1 provisions in EPCA to the equipment class that was 
subject to the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 amendment. DOE has stated that if 
ASHRAE has not amended a standard for an equipment class subject to 42 
U.S.C. 6313, there is no change that would require action by DOE to 
consider amending the uniform national standard to maintain consistency 
with ASHRAE Standard 90.1. See, 72 FR 10038, 10042 (March 7, 2007); 77 
FR 36312, 36320-36321 (July 22, 2009); 80 FR 42614, 42617 (July 17, 
2015).
    In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels 
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute, 
EPCA also provides for a 6-year-lookback to consider the potential for 
amending the uniform national standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) 
Specifically, pursuant to the amendments to EPCA under AEMTCA, DOE is 
required to conduct an evaluation of each class of covered equipment in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 ``every 6 years'' to determine whether the 
applicable energy conservation standards need to be amended. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) DOE must publish either a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NOPR) to propose amended standards or a notice of 
determination that existing standards do not need to be amended. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)) In

[[Page 39223]]

proposing new standards under the 6-year review, DOE must undertake the 
same considerations as if it were adopting a standard that is more 
stringent than an amendment to ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II)) This is a separate statutory review obligation, 
as differentiated from the obligation triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 amendment. While the statute continues to defer to ASHRAE's lead 
on covered equipment subject to Standard 90.1, it does allow for a 
comprehensive review of all such equipment and the potential for 
adopting more-stringent standards, where supported by the requisite 
clear and convincing evidence. That is, DOE interprets ASHRAE's not 
amending Standard 90.1 with respect to a product or equipment type as 
ASHRAE's determination that the standard applicable to that product or 
equipment type is already at an appropriate level of stringency, and 
DOE will not amend that standard unless there is clear and convincing 
evidence that a more-stringent level is justified.
    As discussed in the paragraphs immediately below, the standard for 
unfired hot water storage tanks in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was last 
updated in October 1999. However, as noted previously, EPCA requires 
DOE to evaluate the applicable energy conservation standard for unfired 
hot water storage tanks every 6 years to determine whether it needs to 
be amended. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) Thus, DOE is publishing this 
RFI to collect data and information to inform its decision consistent 
with its obligations under EPCA.
    As noted previously, the initial Federal standards for UFHWSTs, 
established by EPCA, corresponded to the efficiency levels contained in 
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1-1989. On January 12, 2001, DOE amended the 
standards for UFHWSTs to be equivalent to the efficiency level in 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as revised in October 1999. 66 FR 3336 (``January 
2001 final rule''). The January 2001 final rule established an 
insulation design requirement of a minimum R-value \5\ of R-12.5. 66 FR 
3336, 3356. This remains the current Federal standard (and the standard 
level specified in the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1). 
The current standard is located in title 10 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations (``CFR'') part 431, section 110 (10 CFR 431.110). DOE does 
not prescribe a test procedure for UFHWSTs; however, DOE's regulations 
define ``R-value,'' in part, as being determined using either ASTM 
International (``ASTM'') C177-13, ``Standard Test Method for Steady-
State Heat Flux Measurements and Thermal Transmission Properties by 
Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus,'' or ASTM C518-15, ``Standard 
Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means 
of the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus.'' 10 CFR 431.102
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ DOE defines ``R-value'' as the thermal resistance of 
insulating material as determined using ASTM C177-13 or C518-15 and 
expressed in ([deg]F[middot]ft\2\[middot]h/Btu). 10 CFR 431.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Rulemaking Process

    DOE must follow specific statutory criteria for prescribing amended 
standards for certain covered equipment. EPCA requires that any amended 
uniform national standard result in significant additional conservation 
of energy and be technologically feasible and economically justified. 
(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)(II) and (B)) 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 maximum extent practicable, the following seven factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the affected equipment subject to the standard;
    (2) The savings in operating costs throughout the estimated average 
life of the covered equipment in the type (or class) compared to any 
increase in the prices, initial charges, or maintenance expenses for 
the covered equipment likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
equipment likely to result from the standard;
    (5) The impact of any lessening of competition, as determined in 
writing by the Attorney General, that is likely to result from the 
standard;
    (6) The need for national energy conservation; and
    (7) Other factors the Secretary of Energy (Secretary) considers 
relevant.

(42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(ii)(I)-(VII))
    DOE fulfills these and other applicable requirements by conducting 
a series of analyses throughout the rulemaking process. Table I.1 shows 
the individual analyses that are performed to satisfy each of the 
requirements within EPCA.

       Table I.1--EPCA Requirements and Corresponding DOE Analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
            EPCA requirement                Corresponding DOE analysis
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Significant Energy Savings.............   Energy and Water Use
                                          Determination.
                                          Shipments Analysis.
                                          National Impact
                                          Analysis.
Technological Feasibility..............   Market and Technology
                                          Assessment.
                                          Screening Analysis.
                                          Engineering Analysis.
Economic Justification:
1. Economic impact on manufacturers and   Manufacturer Impact
 consumers.                               Analysis.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost and
                                          Payback Period Analysis.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost
                                          Subgroup Analysis.
                                          Shipments Analysis.
2. Lifetime operating cost savings        Mark-ups for Product
 compared to increased cost for the       Price Determination.
 equipment.                               Energy and Water Use
                                          Determination.
                                          Life-Cycle Cost and
                                          Payback Period Analysis.
3. Total projected energy savings......   Shipments Analysis.
                                          National Impact
                                          Analysis.
4. Impact on utility or performance....   Screening Analysis.
                                          Engineering Analysis.
5. Impact of any lessening of             Manufacturer Impact
 competition.                             Analysis.

[[Page 39224]]

 
6. Need for national energy and water     Shipments Analysis.
 conservation.                            National Impact
                                          Analysis.
7. Other factors the Secretary            Employment Impact
 considers relevant.                      Analysis.
                                          Utility Impact
                                          Analysis.
                                          Emissions Analysis.
                                          Monetization of
                                          Emission Reductions Benefits.
                                          Regulatory Impact
                                          Analysis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As detailed throughout this RFI, DOE is publishing this document 
seeking input and data from interested parties to aid in the 
development of the technical analyses on which DOE will ultimately rely 
to determine whether (and if so, how) to amend the standards for 
UFHWSTs.

II. Request for Information and Comments

    In the following sections, DOE has identified a variety of issues 
on which it seeks input to aid in the development of the technical and 
economic analyses regarding whether an amended uniform national 
standard for UFHWSTs may be warranted. Additionally, DOE welcomes 
comments on other issues relevant to this request for information that 
may not specifically be identified in this document. In particular, DOE 
notes that under Executive Order 13771, ``Reducing Regulation and 
Controlling Regulatory Costs,'' Executive Branch agencies such as DOE 
are directed to manage the costs associated with the imposition of 
expenditures required to comply with Federal regulations. See 82 FR 
9339 (Feb. 3, 2017). Pursuant to that Executive Order, DOE encourages 
the public to provide input on measures DOE could take to lower the 
cost of its energy conservation standards rulemakings, recordkeeping 
and reporting requirements, and compliance and certification 
requirements applicable to UFHWSTs while remaining consistent with the 
requirements of EPCA.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers equipment that meets the definition for ``unfired 
hot water storage tank,'' as codified at 10 CFR 431.102.\6\ The 
definition for ``unfired hot water storage tank'' was most recently 
amended in a 2004 test procedure final rule for commercial water 
heating (CWH) equipment. 69 FR 61974 (Oct. 21, 2004). Specifically, 
DOE's regulations define ``unfired hot water storage tank'' as a tank 
used to store water that is heated externally, and that is industrial 
equipment. 10 CFR 431.102. UFHWSTs do not use energy (i.e., UFHWSTs do 
not directly consume electricity or fossil fuel). (42 U.S.C. 6311(4)) 
Instead, the hot water stored by a UFHWST is supplied by a water heater 
or boiler that is paired with the UFHWST. Heat loss that occurs in a 
UFHWST does impact the energy consumption of the paired water heater or 
boiler.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The statute defines ``unfired hot water storage tank'' as a 
tank used to store water that is heated externally. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(12)(C))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Neither EPCA nor DOE's regulations include any storage volume 
criteria for UFHWSTs. Accordingly, UFHWSTs, regardless of storage 
volume, are subject to the current standard.
    Issue A.1 DOE seeks comment on whether, in the context of its 
consideration of more-stringent standards, there have been sufficient 
technological or market changes for UFHWSTs since the most recent 
standards update that may justify a new rulemaking to consider more-
stringent standards. Specifically, DOE seeks data and information that 
could enable the agency to determine whether DOE should propose a ``no 
new standard'' determination because a more-stringent standard: (1) 
Would not result in significant additional savings of energy; (2) is 
not technologically feasible; (3) is not economically justified; or (4) 
any combination of the foregoing.
    Issue A.2 DOE requests comment on whether the definition for 
UFHWSTs requires any revisions--and if so, how the definition should be 
revised. DOE also requests feedback on whether any sub-category 
definitions should be added, and if so, DOE seeks specific input on 
what terms would be needed and how to define these terms.
    Issue A.3 DOE requests comment on whether additional product 
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage 
between product types. DOE also seeks input on whether such products 
currently exist in the market or whether they are being planned for 
introduction.

B. Market and Technology Assessment

    The market and technology assessment that DOE routinely conducts 
when analyzing the impacts of a potential new or amended standard 
provides information about the UFHWST industry that will be used in 
DOE's analysis throughout the rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative 
and quantitative information to assess the past and present industry 
structure and market characteristics. DOE identifies manufacturers, 
estimates market shares and trends, addresses regulatory and non-
regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy efficiency or reduce 
energy consumption, and explores the potential for efficiency 
improvements in the design and manufacturing of UFHWSTs. To this end, 
DOE reviews product literature, industry publications, and company 
websites. Additionally, DOE considers conducting interviews with 
manufacturers to improve its assessment of the market and available 
technologies for UFHWSTs.
1. Equipment Classes
    When evaluating and establishing energy conservation standards, DOE 
may divide covered equipment into equipment classes by the type of 
energy used, or by capacity or other performance-related features that 
justify a different standard. In making a determination whether 
capacity or other performance-related feature justifies a different 
standard, DOE must consider such factors as the utility of the feature 
to the consumer and other factors DOE deems appropriate.
    For UFHWSTs, the current standard at 10 CFR 431.110 is applicable 
to a single equipment class covering all UFHWSTs.
    Issue B.1 DOE requests feedback on whether any division of UFHWSTs 
into separate equipment classes is warranted, and whether it would 
impact equipment utility by eliminating any performance-related 
features or reduce any compliance burdens.
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past

[[Page 39225]]

technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
standards under consideration. In consultation with interested parties, 
DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to consider in its 
analysis. DOE's current standard for UFHWSTs is a prescriptive 
requirement for minimum tank insulation R-value. Therefore, only 
technology options that improve tank insulation R-value would be 
applicable for analyzing more-stringent tank insulation R-value 
requirements. However, DOE also seeks input on other technologies that 
can reduce heat loss of UFHWSTs, including those that do not improve R-
value.
    As described in section II.C of this RFI, some technologies may be 
removed from consideration during a subsequent screening analysis. The 
resulting list of technologies that are considered by DOE would be used 
to establish the maximum technologically feasible design. DOE conducted 
preliminary market research by examining manufacturer equipment 
literature and public technical literature (e.g., reports, journal 
articles, or presentations) which identified the specific technology 
options listed subsequently. DOE will consider these technologies along 
with any others identified during the analysis following the RFI, and 
the rulemaking process should it determine that a rulemaking is 
necessary.

 Improved insulation R-value
    [cir] Increased insulation thickness
    [cir] Foam insulation
    [cir] Advanced insulation types
    [ssquf] Aerogel
    [ssquf] Vacuum panels
    [ssquf] Inert gas-filled panels
 Pipe and fitting insulation
 Greater coverage of tank surface area with foam insulation 
(e.g., tank bottom)

    Issue B.2 DOE seeks information related to these or other 
technologies that reduce heat loss. Specifically, DOE is interested in 
comments regarding the applicability of such technologies to the 
current market, the associated costs, concerns with incorporating them 
into UFHWSTs (e.g., impacts on utility, potential safety concerns, 
manufacturing/production/implementation issues), and how these 
technologies would reduce the heat loss of UFHWSTs.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency (or in the present case, 
reduce heat loss) to determine which technologies will be eliminated 
from further consideration and which will be passed to the engineering 
analysis for further consideration.
    DOE determines whether to eliminate certain technology options from 
further consideration based on the following criteria:
    (1) Technological feasibility. Technologies that are not 
incorporated in commercial products or in working prototypes will not 
be considered further.
    (2) Practicability to manufacture, install, and service. If it is 
determined that mass production of a technology in commercial products 
and reliable installation and servicing of the technology could not be 
achieved on the scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the 
time of the compliance date of the standard, then that technology will 
not be considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment for significant subgroups of consumers, or 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type with 
performance characteristics (including reliability), features, sizes, 
capacities, and volumes that are substantially the same as equipment 
generally available in the United States at the time, it will not be 
considered further.
    (4) Adverse impacts on health or safety. If it is determined that a 
technology will have significant adverse impacts on health or safety, 
it will not be considered further.

10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 4(a)(4) and 5(b).
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the four criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Additionally, DOE notes that the four screening criteria do not 
directly address the proprietary status of technology options. DOE only 
considers potential efficiency levels achieved through the use of 
proprietary designs in the engineering analysis if they are not part of 
a unique pathway to achieve that efficiency level (i.e., if there are 
other non-proprietary technologies capable of achieving the same 
efficiency level).
    Issue C.1 DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the four 
screening criteria described in this section would have on each of the 
technology options identified in section II.B.2 of this RFI. Similarly, 
DOE seeks information regarding how these same criteria would affect 
any other technology options not already identified in this document 
with respect to their potential use in UFHWSTs.

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of reduced heat loss (``efficiency 
levels'').\7\ This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-
benefit calculations for commercial consumers, manufacturers, and the 
Nation. In determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates 
the increase in manufacturing production cost (``MPC'') associated with 
reducing the heat loss of equipment above the baseline, up to the 
maximum technologically feasible (``max-tech'') efficiency level for 
each equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ While the UFHWSTs standard addresses heat loss through 
establishing a minimum level of insulation, for the purpose of this 
analysis, the levels of improvement are referred to generally as 
``efficiency levels.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and establish efficiency 
levels (``ELs'') for analysis: (1) The design-option approach, which 
provides the incremental costs of adding to a baseline model design 
options that will improve its efficiency; (2) the efficiency-level 
approach, which provides the relative costs of achieving increases in 
energy efficiency levels, without regard to the particular design 
options used to achieve such increases; and (3) the cost-assessment (or 
reverse engineering) approach, which provides ``bottom-up'' 
manufacturing cost assessments for achieving various levels of 
increased efficiency, based on detailed cost data for parts and 
materials, labor, shipping/packaging, and investment for models that 
operate at particular efficiency levels.
1. General Approach
    In order to develop the cost-efficiency relationship for UFHWSTs, 
DOE anticipates that it will structure its engineering analysis using 
both a reverse-engineering (or cost-assessment) and a catalog teardown 
approach. The catalog-teardown approach relies on a

[[Page 39226]]

teardown analysis of representative units at the baseline efficiency 
level and higher efficiency levels up to the maximum technologically 
feasible designs. A teardown analysis (or physical teardown) determines 
the production cost of a product by disassembling the product ``piece-
by-piece'' and estimating the material and labor cost of each 
component. A catalog teardown approach uses published manufacturer 
catalogs and supplementary component data to estimate the major 
physical differences between equipment that has been physically 
disassembled and similar equipment. These two methods would be used 
together to help DOE estimate the manufacturer production cost of 
equipment at various efficiency levels.
    Issue D.1 DOE requests feedback on the planned approach for the 
engineering analysis.
2. Representative Equipment
    As previously stated, DOE intends to perform a teardown analysis on 
a set of models with ``representative'' characteristics to estimate the 
cost-efficiency relationship for UFHWSTs. DOE plans to conduct 
teardowns at specific storage volumes (referred to as representative 
storage volumes) that are the most common on the market, and 
extrapolate those results for the entire market. Based on a survey of 
models currently on the market, DOE has preliminarily determined the 
most common characteristics of UFHWSTs in order to identify a 
representative unit(s). In particular, DOE examined the number of 
UFHWST models available at distinct rated storage volumes and 
identified the most common storage volumes on the market as 80 and 119 
gallons. DOE is also aware that UFHWSTs can be either vertical or 
horizontal tanks and recognizes that the tank orientation may affect 
heat losses from the tank and placement of ports. Based on its market 
assessment, DOE has found that vertical tanks are more common than 
horizontal tanks and that horizontal tanks do not have sufficiently 
different characteristics from vertical tanks to necessitate separate 
analysis of representative horizontal units. Finally, DOE is aware that 
the number and location of ports can affect standby heat losses; 
therefore, DOE may consider a representative configuration of ports.
    Issue D.2 DOE requests feedback on the appropriate representative 
storage volume to use for analysis of UFHWSTs, whether more than one 
representative storage volume is warranted, and on whether 80 and/or 
119 gallons would be appropriate.
    Issue D.3 DOE requests comment on whether a vertical tank 
orientation should be considered representative for the UFHWST market. 
Such comments may include, but need not be limited to, data as to the 
fraction of UFHWST shipments that are horizontal tanks, and on whether 
this fraction depends on storage volume. DOE seeks feedback on whether 
horizontal tanks have any differences or limitations regarding 
insulation thickness relative to vertical tanks. DOE also requests 
comment on whether there is a difference in the utility provided by a 
vertical tank, as compared to a horizontal tank, that should be 
considered when identifying representative equipment.
    Issue D.4 DOE requests comment on whether there is a configuration 
of ports (i.e., number and location), or a limited set of port 
configurations, that is most common for UFHWSTs and that would, 
therefore, be appropriate to analyze as part of the representative 
unit(s) in the engineering analysis. DOE further seeks feedback on 
whether this representative configuration would depend on storage 
volume.
3. Baseline Efficiency Level
    DOE selects a baseline model as a reference point against which any 
changes resulting from potential new or amended standards can be 
measured. The baseline model represents the characteristics of common 
or typical equipment. Typically, a baseline model is one that meets the 
current minimum standard and provides basic consumer utility.
    DOE uses baseline models for comparison in several phases of the 
analyses, including the engineering analysis, life-cycle cost (``LCC'') 
analysis, payback period (``PBP'') analysis, and national impact 
analysis (``NIA''). In the engineering analysis, to determine the 
changes in price to the commercial consumer that result from amended 
standards, DOE compares the price of a baseline model to the price of a 
model at each higher efficiency level.
    Consistent with this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to 
consider the current minimum standard (which went into effect October 
29, 2003) to establish the baseline efficiency level. The current 
standard is a prescriptive minimum insulation requirement (R-value of 
12.5). 10 CFR 431.110.
    Issue D.5 DOE requests feedback on whether using the current 
established standard for UFHWSTs is an appropriate baseline efficiency 
level for DOE to apply in evaluating whether to amend the current 
standard for this equipment. DOE requests data and suggestions to 
evaluate the baseline efficiency level in order to better evaluate 
amending the standard for this equipment.
    Issue D.6 DOE requests comment on the insulation types and 
thicknesses typically used in UFHWSTs with R-12.5 tank insulation 
(i.e., at the current baseline level). DOE also seeks feedback on 
whether any models with R-12.5 insulation use only fiberglass 
insulation, and if so, what the maximum feasible R-value is for 
insulation of UFHWSTs with fiberglass.
4. Maximum Available and Maximum Technologically Feasible Efficiency 
Levels
    As part of DOE's analysis, the maximum available efficiency level 
is the highest-efficiency model currently available on the market. To 
identify efficiency levels (including the maximum available efficiency 
level) and technology options used above the R-12.5 baseline for 
UFHWSTs, DOE conducted a survey of the UFHWST market, including 
manufacturer catalogs and other publicly-available literature. Many 
models are advertised as having a tank insulation R-value that ``meets 
or exceeds'' R-12.5, without specifying the exact R-value. DOE only 
identified two model lines for which the manufacturer advertises 
specific insulation R-values above the R-12.5 baseline, which were 
advertised as having R-12.9 and R-16 insulation. The product literature 
for models with these higher insulation R-values identifies the 
insulation as polyurethane foam insulation but does not provide the 
insulation thickness.
    DOE defines a max-tech efficiency level to represent the 
theoretical maximum possible efficiency if all available technology 
options are incorporated in a model. In many cases, the max-tech 
efficiency level is not commercially available because it is not 
economically feasible. However, DOE seeks to determine the max-tech 
level for purposes of its analyses.
    Issue D.7 DOE seeks comment on what the range of tank insulation R-
values is for the UFHWST market. Such comments may include, but need 
not be limited to, whether there are models on the market with tank 
insulation R-values other than R-12.5, R-12.9, and R-16. Further, DOE 
seeks feedback on the insulation types and thicknesses that typically 
correspond with any R-values higher than R-12.5.
    Issue D.8 DOE requests comment on performance of UFHWSTs currently 
on the market, including, but not limited to, what the highest tank 
insulation R-value on the market is (i.e., the maximum available 
level), and on what

[[Page 39227]]

insulation type(s) and thickness(es) typically correspond with this 
level. DOE also seeks input on whether the maximum available efficiency 
level is appropriate and technologically feasible for potential 
consideration as a possible standard for UFHWSTs--and if not, why not. 
Additionally, DOE seeks feedback on whether there are practical 
limitations (e.g., shipping or installation concerns) on the thickness 
of tank insulation that can be applied to UFHWSTs.
    Issue D.9 DOE seeks feedback on what design options would be 
incorporated at a max-tech efficiency level, and the heat losses 
associated with those levels. More specifically, DOE seeks comment on 
the theoretical maximum possible tank insulation R-value, and on what 
insulation type(s) and thickness(es) would correspond with this level. 
As part of this request, DOE also seeks information as to whether there 
are limitations on the use of certain combinations of design options.
5. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturer Selling Price
    As described at the beginning of this section, the main outputs of 
the engineering analysis are cost-efficiency relationships that 
describe the estimated increases in manufacturer production cost 
associated with higher-efficiency equipment.
    Issue D.10 DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in section II.B.2 to increase 
the tank-insulation R-values in UFHWSTs beyond the baseline. This 
includes information on the order in which manufacturers would 
incorporate the different technologies to incrementally improve the R-
value (or otherwise reduce the heat loss) of equipment. DOE requests 
feedback on whether increasing tank insulation R-value would lead to 
other design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also 
interested in information regarding any potential impact of increased 
tank insulation R-value on a manufacturer's ability to incorporate 
additional functions or attributes in response to consumer demand.
    Issue D.11 DOE seeks comment on the increase in MPC associated with 
incorporating each particular technology option. DOE also requests 
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific 
technology options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new 
or modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each technology option, and manufacturing/
production impacts.
    To account for manufacturers' non-production costs and profit 
margin, DOE applies a non-production cost multiplier (the manufacturer 
mark-up) to the MPC. The resulting manufacturer selling price (``MSP'') 
is the price at which the manufacturer distributes a unit into 
commerce. For a notice of proposed rulemaking for energy conservation 
standards (``ECS'') for certain classes of commercial water heating 
equipment published on May 31, 2016, DOE estimated a manufacturer mark-
up of 1.41 for commercial electric storage water heaters. 81 FR 34440, 
34497 (``May 2016 CWH ECS NOPR''). DOE's market assessment indicates 
that many manufacturers produce both UFHWSTs and electric storage water 
heaters and that these equipment categories share many design features. 
Additionally, some tanks designed for electric storage water heaters 
are used in UFHWST models (see discussion in section II.D.6 of this 
RFI). Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the manufacturer 
mark-up for commercial electric storage water heaters is appropriate to 
apply for analysis of UFHWSTs.
    Issue D.12 DOE requests feedback on whether a manufacturer mark-up 
of 1.41 is appropriate for UFHWSTs.
6. Additional Engineering Issues
    Due to the need for ports and other openings for service/
maintenance or repair, the entire surface of an UFHWST cannot be 
insulated with foam insulation, and, therefore, portions of the UFHWSTs 
currently on the market are insulated with fiberglass or uninsulated. 
Additionally, DOE research suggests that manufacturers may use a single 
tank design for multiple models and plug ports or other openings that 
are not designed to be used for a given model but that may be used for 
a similar model. In such cases where a single tank design is used for 
multiple models, plugged openings sometimes are not covered with tank 
foam insulation if the foam insulation is applied before any openings 
are plugged. Further, manufacturers may use a tank designed for 
electric storage water heaters as the tank for an UFHWST model by 
plugging the openings for electric resistance heating elements. 
Electric storage water heaters typically include gaps in tank foam 
insulation where each heating element and thermostat are located, and 
these gaps are often insulated with foam or fiberglass insulation 
inserts. DOE has also observed during testing and examination of water 
heaters and UFHWSTs that there sometimes are voids in the foam 
insulation that is applied to some UFHWSTs that form either during or 
after the foaming process.
    Issue D.13 DOE requests comment on the current practices and 
limitations of foam insulation, including, but not limited to, the 
approximate fraction of the tank surface area that can typically be 
insulated with foam. Further, DOE seeks feedback on whether there is 
significant variation on the market of the fraction of the tank 
insulated with foam.
    Issue D.14 DOE requests comment on the presence of plugged ports, 
such as how commonly UFHWSTs include plugged ports, and if included, 
how the plugged ports are insulated (e.g., covered with foam 
insulation, fiberglass wrap, a fiberglass insert, or not insulated). 
Further, DOE requests comment on the extent to which electric storage 
water heater tanks are used for UFHWST models, and when used, how/
whether the areas of the tank containing ports for resistance heating 
elements and thermostats are insulated.
    Issue D.15 DOE requests comment on the extent to which voids form 
in foam insulation on UFHWSTs. Further, DOE seeks comment on the extent 
to which voids affect the standby losses of UFHWSTs.
    In response to the May 9, 2016 CWH TP NOPR (81 FR 28588), several 
stakeholders stated that many UFHWSTs are customized for specific 
applications or installations. (Bradford White, Docket No. EERE-2014-
BT-TP-0008-0021 at p. 5; AHRI, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0026 \8\ 
at p. 12; A.O. Smith, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0027 at p. 4; 
Rheem, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0034 at p. 8). However, it is 
unclear what share of the market consists of custom models, and to what 
extent UFHWSTs are customized.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008 is available at https://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue D.16 DOE seeks comment on the customization of UFHWSTs, 
including but not limited to, information as to the fraction of UFHWST 
shipments that are custom models, and whether this fraction varies by 
storage volume; and which aspects are customized in UFHWSTs and whether 
aspects other than number and locations of ports are customized. DOE 
also seeks feedback on the extent to which the number and location of 
ports affect standby heat losses of UFHWSTs. Further, DOE seeks 
feedback on whether UFHWSTs included in publicly-available product 
literature can be

[[Page 39228]]

customized or if customizable models are not publicly advertised.

E. Mark-Ups Analysis

    The mark-ups analysis develops appropriate mark-ups (e.g., for 
wholesalers, mechanical contractors, general contractors) in the 
distribution chain and sales taxes to convert the manufacturer sales 
prices (MSP) derived in the engineering analysis to consumer prices, 
which are then used in the LCC and PBP analyses and other analyses. At 
each step in the distribution channel, companies mark up the price of 
the equipment to cover business costs and profit margin.
1. Distribution Channels
    In generating end-user price inputs for the LCC analysis and the 
NIA, DOE must identify distribution channels (i.e., how the equipment 
passes through the chain of commerce from the manufacturer to the 
customer), and estimate relative sales volumes through each channel. 
Two different markets exist for UFHWST systems: (1) Replacements and 
new owners,\9\ and (2) new construction. DOE intends to use similar 
distribution channels as found in the May 2016 CWH ECS NOPR TSD.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ New owners are defined as existing buildings that acquire a 
UFHWST for the first time during the analysis period.
    \10\ Department of Energy, Technical Support Document (TSD): 
Energy Efficiency Program for Consumer Products and Commercial and 
Industrial Equipment: Commercial Water Heating Equipment (May 2016) 
(Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0042-0016) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Replacement and New Owner
    For replacement and new owner applications, manufacturers sell 
mainly to plumbing distributors. The main distribution path that DOE 
intends to consider is a plumbing distributor (i.e., a wholesaler) who 
sells an UFHWST to a contractor, who then sells it to a consumer and 
installs it. The manufacturer may also utilize a manufacturer's 
representative to sell the equipment to a plumbing contractor, who then 
sells it to the commercial consumer. The manufacturer may sell the 
equipment to a retailer, who in turn may sell it to a plumbing 
contractor, who in turn sells it to a commercial consumer.
    In addition, DOE plans to consider distribution channels where the 
manufacturer sells the UFHWST a wholesaler or retailer that then sells 
the equipment to the commercial or industrial consumer. DOE also plans 
to consider the distribution channel where the manufacturer sells a 
UFHWST directly to a commercial or industrial consumer through a 
national account. These three channels reflect those cases where the 
installation can be accomplished by site personnel.
    In summary, DOE plans to characterize the replacement and new owner 
market distribution channels for UFHWST systems as follows:

Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr] 
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Manufacturer's Representative [rarr] Plumbing 
Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr] 
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] Commercial Consumer
New Construction
    The new construction distribution channel for UFHWST equipment 
includes an additional link in the chain--the general contractor. In 
most new construction applications, the UFHWST is part of the overall 
plumbing package installed by a plumbing contractor or, in the case of 
large building companies, by its own master plumber and crew. A 
plumbing contractor usually purchases the water heater from a plumbing 
distributor, and in this case, it is appropriate to include a 
contractor mark-up. In addition, similar to the replacement and new 
owner distribution channel, DOE plans to consider distribution channels 
where the manufacturer sells the UFHWST to a wholesaler or retailer 
that then sells the equipment to the commercial or industrial consumer, 
and the distribution channel where the manufacturer sells a UFHWST 
directly to a commercial or industrial consumer through a national 
account.
    In the case of new construction, DOE plans to characterize the 
distribution channels as follows:

Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr] 
General Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Manufacturer's Representative [rarr] Plumbing 
Contractor [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Plumbing Contractor [rarr] General 
Contractor [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] 
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] 
Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] Retailer [rarr] Commercial Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] Commercial Consumer

    Issue E.1 DOE seeks input from stakeholders on whether the 
distribution channels described above are appropriate for UFHWSTs and 
are sufficient to characterize this market.
    Issue E.2 DOE seeks input on the equipment being distributed 
through the identified channels, including but not limited to, the 
percentage of equipment being distributed through the different 
distribution channels, and whether the share of equipment through each 
channel varies based on equipment capacity (storage volume).
2. Mark-Ups
    To develop mark-ups for the parties involved in the distribution of 
the equipment, DOE plans to primarily utilize: (1) Form 10-K \11\ from 
the main consumer water heater wholesalers \12\ and retailers (for 
wholesalers and retailers); (2) the Heating, Air Conditioning & 
Refrigeration Distributors International (``HARDI'') 2013 Profit Report 
\13\ (for wholesalers); (3) the latest U.S. Census Annual Retail Trade 
Survey data \14\ (for retailers), and (4) U.S. Census Bureau 2012 
Economic Census data \15\ on the residential and commercial building 
construction industry (for retailers, general contractors, and 
mechanical contractors). DOE also plans to use the 2005 Air 
Conditioning Contractors of America's (``ACCA'') Financial Analysis

[[Page 39229]]

on the Heating, Ventilation, Air-Conditioning, and Refrigeration 
(``HVACR'') contracting industry \16\ to disaggregate the mechanical 
contractor mark-ups into replacement and new construction markets. DOE 
does not currently have enough information to estimate separate mark-
ups for manufacturer's representatives, so DOE plans to assume that the 
manufacturer's representative mark-up is the same as the wholesaler 
mark-up.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC 10-K Reports 
(Available at: https://www.sec.gov/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
    \12\ Clear Seas Research, 2017 Top List--Premier Distributors--
Plumbing, Heating, Cooling (Available at: https://clearseasresearch.com/product/2017-top-list-premier-distributors-plumbing-heating-cooling/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
    \13\ Heating, Air Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors 
International (HARDI), 2013 HARDI Profit Report, (Available at: 
http://hardinet.org/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
    \14\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey Data 
(Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/arts.html) 
(Last accessed July 8, 2019). At the time this RFI was finalized, 
the 2017 Annual Retail Trade Survey was the most recent full data 
release.
    \15\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2012 Economic Census Data (Available 
at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/economic-census.html) 
(Last accessed April 4, 2019). Note that the 2017 Economic Census 
data are planned to be fully released by late 2020. Until that time, 
2012 Economic Census remains the most recent full data release.
    \16\ Air Conditioning Contractors of America (ACCA), Financial 
Analysis for the HVACR Contracting Industry (2005) (Available at: 
https://www.acca.org/store) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue E.3 DOE seeks recent data and recommendations regarding data 
sources to establish the mark-ups for the parties involved with the 
distribution of the UFHWST equipment.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of the rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how equipment is used by commercial consumers, and 
thereby determine the energy savings potential of energy efficiency 
improvements. As discussed, UFHWSTs store hot water and do not directly 
consume fuel or electricity for the purpose of heating water, so any 
potential amendments to the standard target reducing standby loss 
associated with heat loss from the stored water. The energy use 
analysis would determine the annual energy consumption of water heaters 
and boilers due to standby loss of the paired UFHWSTs and to assess the 
energy savings potential of an amended UFHWST standard, as well as of 
other technologies that may be applied.
1. Sample Development
    DOE intends to base the energy use analysis on key characteristics 
from the most current version of the Energy Information 
Administration's (``EIA'') Commercial Building Energy Consumption 
Survey (``CBECS'') \17\ for the subset of commercial building types 
that use UFHWSTs. DOE also plans to include the industrial sector \18\ 
using EIA's most current Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey 
(``MECS'') \19\ for the subset of sectors that use UFHWSTs. DOE also 
plans to look at the use of UFHWSTs in residential applications, for 
which it plans to include characteristics from EIA's most current 
Residential Energy Consumption Survey (``RECS'') \20\ for a subset of 
building types (primarily multi-family buildings) that use UFHWSTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Presently, the 2012 edition of CBECs is the most recent 
version. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2012 Commercial 
Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
    \18\ Industrial sector includes non-manufacturing (agriculture, 
construction, and mining) and manufacturing sectors.
    \19\ Presently, the 2014 edition of MECS is the most recent 
version. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2014 Manufacturing 
Energy Consumption Survey (MECS) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/manufacturing/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
    \20\ Presently the 2015 edition of RECs is the most recent 
version. Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2015 Residential 
Energy Consumption Survey (RECS) (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CBECS and RECS data include information on the physical 
characteristics of buildings, water heaters and boilers used, fuels 
used, energy consumption and expenditures, and other relevant 
characteristics. Neither CBECS nor RECS provide data on whether the 
building has an UFHWST. Also, MECS does not provide individual sample 
characteristics. Therefore, DOE intends to develop a methodology for 
adjusting its building sample to reflect buildings or industrial 
sectors that are more likely to include UFHWSTs based on the type of 
water heating and space heating equipment used in the building (for 
example if the building has a boiler or a commercial water heater). 
Based on the most current CBECS, MECS, and RECS data, DOE will develop 
a representative population of buildings for UFHWST equipment. In 
addition, DOE intends to review other data sets (e.g., data from the 
2016 Residential Building Stock Assessment for the Northwest,\21\ 2014 
Commercial Building Stock Assessment for the Northwest,\22\ 2014 
Industrial Facilities Site Assessment for the Northwest,\23\ 2015 
Residential Statewide Baseline Study of New York State,\24\ 2006 
California Commercial End-Use Survey,\25\ and 2009 Residential 
Appliance Saturation Study \26\) to compare these to the CBECS, MECS, 
and RECS data for the corresponding region.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Residential 
Building Stock Assessment (2016) (Available at: https://neea.org/data/residential-building-stock-assessment) (Last accessed April 4, 
2019).
    \22\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Commercial 
Building Stock Assessment (2014) (Available at: https://neea.org/data/commercial-building-stock-assessments) (Last accessed April 4, 
2019).
    \23\ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance (NEEA), Industrial 
Facilities Site Assessment (2014) (Available at: https://neea.org/data/industrial-facilties-site-assessment) (Last accessed April 4, 
2019).
    \24\ New York State Energy Research and Development Authority 
(NYSERDA), Residential Statewide Baseline Study of New York State 
(July 2015) (Available at: https://www.nyserda.ny.gov/About/Publications/Building-Stock-and-Potential-Studies/Residential-Statewide-Baseline-Study-of-New-York-State) (Last accessed April 4, 
2019).
    \25\ California Energy Commission (CEC), 2006 California 
Commercial End-Use Survey (CEUS) (2006) (Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/ceus/2006_enduse.html) (Last accessed April 4, 
2019).
    \26\ California Energy Commission (CEC), 2009 Residential 
Appliance Saturation Study (RASS) (2009) (Available at: http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/rass/) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue F.1 DOE seeks input on the water heating equipment and 
associated fuels that are used to heat the water stored in UFHWSTs, 
including, but not limited to, information on the fractions of various 
space heating and water heating equipment that are associated with 
UFHWSTs, as follows: Gas-fired hot water boilers, electric hot water 
boilers, oil-fired hot water boilers, gas-fired steam boilers, electric 
steam boilers, oil-fired steam boilers, gas-fired storage water 
heaters, electric storage water heaters, oil-fired storage water 
heaters, gas-fired tankless water heaters, electric tankless water 
heaters, heat pump water heaters, solar water heater systems, and heat 
from other sources (such as industrial processes).
    Issue F.2 DOE requests information on the installation applications 
of UFHWSTs, including, but not limited to the fraction of UFHWSTs that 
are installed in residential (primarily multi-family buildings), 
commercial, and industrial applications.
2. Energy Use Calculations
    The relevant energy consumption is the site energy use associated 
with offsetting the standby losses incurred by the UFHWST(s) installed 
in the building. To determine the field standby loss of the UFHWSTs for 
the purposes of the energy use analysis, DOE intends to use a 
methodology based on the ``R-value'' defined by DOE's regulations of 
UFHWSTs.\27\ DOE's methodology will convert the R-value to field 
standby losses based on tank sizes, tank set point temperature, and 
surrounding air temperature. The energy use will then be calculated in 
terms of the fuel type and efficiency of the water heating equipment 
used to offset the standby losses. DOE intends to also consider any 
degradation in the R-value over the lifetime of UFHWSTs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ DOE defines ``R-value'' as the thermal resistance of 
insulating material as determined using ASTM C177-13 or C518-15 and 
expressed in ([deg]F[middot]ft\2\[middot]h/Btu). 10 CFR 431.102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue F.3 DOE requests relevant information, such as field or test 
energy use data, that could assist in the development of an energy use 
equation to determine field standby loss.
    Issue F.4 DOE requests comment on the methodology for determining 
the standby loss for UFHWSTs based on the

[[Page 39230]]

R-value and the impact of ambient conditions, tank set-point 
temperature, and draw patterns.
    Issue F.5 DOE seeks data and input on typical tank water 
temperatures for UFHWSTs used in various residential (primarily multi-
family buildings), commercial, and industrial applications to establish 
the fraction of UFHWSTs storing water at different temperatures.
    Issue F.6 DOE seeks input on what are typical storage volumes of 
UFHWSTs used in various residential (primarily multi-family buildings), 
commercial, and industrial applications, including, but not limited to 
the fraction of UFHWSTs at different storage volumes (i.e., equal to or 
less than 120 gallons, greater than 120 gallons and equal to or less 
than 500 gallons, greater than 500 gallons).
    Issue F.7 DOE requests comment on the installation location of 
UFHWSTs in the context of the ambient air temperature conditions, 
including, but not limited to, the fraction of UFHWSTs that are 
installed outdoors, in an indoor conditioned space, or an indoor 
unconditioned space.
    Issue F.8 DOE requests comment and any data concerning the 
potential degradation in the R-value over the lifetime of UFHWSTs.
    Issue F.9 To better understand the distribution of energy 
consumption load profiles, DOE seeks comment on the fraction of UFHWSTs 
that are installed in utility grid-enabled storage applications.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis

    DOE plans to conduct LCC and PBP analyses to evaluate the economic 
impacts on residential (primarily multi-family buildings), commercial, 
and industrial consumers of potential standards for UFHWSTs. The effect 
of new or amended standards on residential (primarily multi-family 
buildings), commercial, and industrial consumers usually involves a 
reduction in operating cost and an increase in purchase cost.
    DOE intends to analyze the potential for variability by performing 
the LCC and PBP calculations on a representative sample of residential 
(primarily multi-family buildings), commercial, and industrial 
consumers. DOE plans to utilize the sample of buildings developed for 
the energy use analysis and the corresponding simulation results. DOE 
plans to model uncertainty in many of the inputs to the LCC and PBP 
analysis using Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions. As 
a result, the LCC and PBP results will be displayed as distributions of 
impacts compared to the no-new-standards case (i.e., the case without 
amended standards).
    Inputs to the LCC and PBP analysis are categorized as: (1) Inputs 
for establishing the purchase expense, otherwise known as the total 
installed cost, and (2) inputs for calculating the operating costs. 
Each type of input is discussed in the paragraphs that follow.
1. Total Installed Cost
    The primary inputs for establishing the total installed cost are 
the baseline customer price, incremental customer price increases 
resulting from a potential standard, and installation costs. Baseline 
prices and standard-level price increases will be determined by 
applying mark-ups to manufacturer selling price estimates and sales 
tax.
    The installation cost is added to the customer price to arrive at a 
total installed cost. DOE intends to develop installation costs using 
the most recent RS Means data available.\28\ DOE also intends to use 
regional labor costs to more accurately estimate installation costs by 
applying the appropriate regional labor cost from RS Means to each 
sampled household or building.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \28\ RS Means, 2019 Mechanical Cost Data (Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/cost-books.aspx) (Last accessed April 
4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In conducting its analyses, DOE intends to utilize a basic 
installation plan that would apply to all UFHWSTs. For UFHWSTs in new 
installations, DOE plans to include costs such as adding water piping, 
putting the UFHWST in place, and additional set-up. For replacement 
cases, in addition to the costs considered for new installations, DOE 
also plans to include the installation cost associated with 
disconnecting and removing the old UFHWST, as well as removal/disposal 
and permit fees, if applicable. In addition, DOE intends to assess 
whether installation costs vary with insulation levels and storage 
volume.
    Issue G.1 DOE seeks input on any available installation cost data 
for UFHWSTs. DOE also seeks input on the approach it intends to use to 
develop UFHWST installation costs.
    Issue G.2 DOE seeks input on any additional costs associated with 
installing UFHWSTs. For example, DOE seeks feedback on any installation 
costs associated with potential space-constraint issues when the 
original UFHWST location is too small to accommodate the replacement 
UFHWST (particularly when installing a UFHWST with a lower heat loss 
that may have larger physical dimensions).
2. Operating Costs
    The primary inputs for calculating the operating costs of UFHWSTs 
are energy consumption, equipment efficiency, energy prices, 
maintenance and repair costs, equipment lifetime, and discount rates. 
Both equipment lifetime and discount rates are used to calculate the 
present value of future operating costs.
    The relevant energy consumption is the site energy use associated 
with offsetting the standby losses incurred by the UFHWST(s) installed 
in the building. DOE intends to utilize the standby loss calculation 
methodology described in section II.F of this document to determine 
energy use to offset the UFHWST's standby losses.
    Maintenance costs are expenses associated with ensuring continued 
operation of the covered equipment over time. DOE intends to develop 
maintenance costs using the most recent RS Means data available \29\ 
and manufacturer literature. DOE intends to assess whether maintenance 
costs vary with equipment heat loss and storage volume. In addition, 
DOE plans to consider the cases in which the equipment is covered by 
service and/or maintenance agreements. More specifically, DOE intends 
to account for the maintenance cost associated with UFHWSTs being 
drained and flushed annually to minimize deposition of sediment, 
maintain operating efficiency, and prolong equipment life.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ RS Means, 2019 Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data 
(Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/cost-books.aspx) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.3 DOE seeks comment as to whether UFHWST maintenance costs 
vary as a function of insulation level and storage volume, for the 
technology options listed in section II.B.2. DOE also requests any data 
or information on maintenance costs and seeks comment on the extent to 
which maintenance costs are covered by service and/or maintenance 
agreements.
    Repair costs are expenses associated with repairing or replacing 
components of the covered equipment that have failed. DOE intends to 
develop maintenance costs using the most recent RS Means data available 
\30\ and manufacturer literature. DOE intends to assess whether repair 
costs vary with insulation level and storage volume.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ RS Means, 2019 Facilities Maintenance & Repair Cost Data 
(Available at: https://www.rsmeans.com/products/books/cost-books.aspx) (Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.4 DOE seeks comment as to whether UFHWST repair costs and 
frequency of repair vary as a function of insulation level and storage 
volume, for the technology options listed in section

[[Page 39231]]

II.B.2. DOE also requests any data or information on repair costs and 
seeks comment on the extent to which repair costs are covered by 
service and/or maintenance agreements. DOE is also interested in 
whether consumers simply replace the equipment when they fail as 
opposed to repairing them.
    Equipment lifetime is the age at which a unit is retired from 
service. DOE intends to conduct a literature review of UFHWST lifetime 
data together with any stakeholder lifetime data to develop a Weibull 
probability distribution to characterize UFHWST lifetime.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ A Weibull probability distribution is a continuous 
distribution function typically used in reliability engineering and 
equipment failure analysis. If the data are available, DOE also 
plans to take into account differences in UFHWST lifetime based on 
usage and application.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.5 DOE requests equipment lifetime data and information on 
whether equipment lifetime varies based on UFHWST storage volume, 
application, or insulation level.
    DOE measures LCC and PBP impacts of potential standard levels 
relative to a no-new-standards case that reflects the likely market in 
the absence of amended standards. DOE plans to develop efficiency 
market shares (i.e., the distribution of equipment shipments by 
insulation level) for the UFHWSTs, for the anticipated year in which 
compliance with any potential amended standards would be required. DOE 
is not aware of any data to estimate the market shares of different 
UFHWST insulation levels in the no-new-standards case. DOE is 
particularly interested in receiving such data. If no market share data 
become available, DOE intends to use data on the number of water heater 
models at different insulation levels, as reported in DOE's compliance 
certification database \32\ and from manufacturer literature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ U.S. Department of Energy, Compliance Certification 
Database: Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks--Commercial (Available at 
https://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html) 
(Last accessed April 4, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue G.6 DOE requests information on the UFHWSTs market, including 
but not limited to, the current UFHWSTs market share data by different 
by insulation levels; similar historic data; and information on 
expected future trends in the efficiency of UFHWSTs.

H. Shipments Analysis

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of equipment to calculate the 
national impacts of potential amended standards on energy consumption, 
net present value (``NPV''), and future manufacturer cash flows. DOE 
shipments projections are based on available historical data broken out 
by equipment class, capacity, and efficiency. Current sales estimates 
allow for a more accurate model that captures recent trends in the 
market. However, DOE is not aware of any shipment data for UFHWSTs.
    Issue H.1 DOE seeks historical shipments data for UFHWSTs, which 
may include shipments by storage volume capacity bins.
    The shipments model will consider the UFHWSTs in the commercial, 
industrial, and residential (primarily multi-family buildings) market 
segments.
    Issue H.2 DOE seeks comment, which may include historical data, on 
the fraction of UFHWST shipments by commercial, industrial, and 
residential (primarily multi-family buildings) market segments.
    The shipments model will consider three market segments: (1) New 
buildings acquiring UFHWSTs; (2) existing buildings replacing old 
UFHWSTs; and (3) existing buildings acquiring new UFHWSTs for the first 
time.
    Issue H.3 DOE seeks comment, which may include historical data, on 
the fraction of UFHWSTs shipments by new buildings, replacements, and 
new owner market segments.
    A table of the types of data requested for historical shipments in 
Issues H.1, H.2, and H.3 can be found in Table II.1, Table II.2, and 
Table II.3.

                                            Table II.1--Historical Shipments by Storage Volume Capacity Bins
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Historical shipments  (millions)
                   Storage volume  (gallons)                   -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Up to 249 gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
250 to 999 gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Above 1000 gallons
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                               Table II.2--Historical Shipments by Commercial, Industrial, and Residential Market Segments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Historical shipments  (millions)
                        Market segment                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Industrial
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Residential *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Primarily muti-family buildings.


[[Page 39232]]


                              Table II.3--Historical Shipments by New Buildings, Replacement, and New Owner Market Segments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                            Historical shipments  (millions)
                        Market segment                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  2009     2010     2011     2012     2013     2014     2015     2016     2017     2018
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Buildings
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Replacements
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
New Owners
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Primarily multi-family buildings.

I. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (``MIA'') is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended standards on manufacturers of 
UFHWSTs, and to evaluate the potential impact of such standards on 
direct employment and manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both 
quantitative and qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA 
primarily relies on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (``GRIM''), 
an industry cash-flow model adapted for this analysis, with the key 
output being the industry net present value (``INPV''), which is used 
to assess the financial impact of a potential standard. The qualitative 
part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation 
standards on manufacturing capacity and industry competition, as well 
as factors such as equipment characteristics, impacts on particular 
subgroups of firms, and important market and product trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the 
applicable Small Business Administration's (``SBA'') small business 
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as small 
businesses, which are listed by the applicable North American Industry 
Classification System (``NAICS'') code.\33\ Manufacturing of UFHWSTs is 
classified under NAICS 333318, ``Other Commercial and Service Industry 
Machinery Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,000 
employees or less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small 
business. This employee threshold includes all employees in a 
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Available online at https://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One aspect of assessing manufacturer burden involves examining the 
cumulative impact of multiple DOE standards and the equipment-specific 
regulatory actions of other Federal agencies that affect the 
manufacturers of covered equipment. While any one regulation may not 
impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the combined effects of 
several existing or impending regulations may have serious consequences 
for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, or an entire industry. 
Assessing the impact of a single regulation may overlook this 
cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy efficiency 
standards, other regulations can significantly affect manufacturers' 
financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the same 
manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon product 
lines or markets with lower expected future returns than competing 
products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of cumulative 
regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to appliance 
efficiency.
    Issue I.1 To the extent feasible, DOE seeks company names and 
contact information for domestic or foreign-based companies that 
manufacture UFHWSTs for the U.S. market.
    Issue I.2 DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
standards. DOE requests company names and contact information of small 
businesses, as defined by the SBA's size threshold, which manufacture 
UFHWSTs in the United States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any 
other manufacturer subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted 
by amended standards for UFHWSTs. DOE also requests feedback on any 
potential approaches that could be considered to address impacts on 
manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue I.3 DOE requests information regarding the impact of 
cumulative regulatory burden on manufacturers of UFHWSTs associated 
with: (1) Other DOE standards applying to different products that these 
manufacturers may also make and (2) product-specific regulatory actions 
of other Federal agencies. DOE also requests comment on its methodology 
for computing cumulative regulatory burden and whether there are any 
flexibilities it can consider that would reduce this burden while 
remaining consistent with the requirements of EPCA.
    In comments submitted to DOE in response to the May 2016 CWH TP 
NOPR, several stakeholders stated that there are small manufacturers 
that make UFHWSTs, but that do not manufacture other types of CWH 
equipment. (Bradford White, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0021 at p. 
7; A.O. Smith, Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0027 at p. 16; Raypak, 
Docket No. EERE-2014-BT-TP-0008-0028 at p. 2; Rheem, Docket No. EERE-
2014-BT-TP-0008-0034 at p. 8)
    Issue I.4 DOE requests comment on the fraction of UFHWST shipments 
that are manufactured by small manufacturers who do not manufacture 
other types of CWH equipment.

J. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics

1. Market Failures
    In the field of economics, a market failure is a situation in which 
the market outcome does not maximize societal welfare. Such an outcome 
would result in unrealized potential welfare. DOE welcomes comment on 
any aspect of market failures, especially those in the context of 
amended energy conservation standards for UFHWSTs.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Equipment
    DOE recently published an RFI on the emerging smart technology 
appliance and equipment market. 83 FR 46886 (Sept. 17, 2018). In that 
RFI, DOE sought information to better understand market trends and 
issues in the emerging market for appliances and commercial equipment 
that incorporate smart technology. DOE's intent in issuing the RFI was 
to ensure that DOE did not

[[Page 39233]]

inadvertently impede such innovation in fulfilling its statutory 
obligations in setting efficiency standards for covered products and 
equipment. Although UFHWSTs themselves do not consume energy or 
presumably have a network mode capability, they interact with water 
heaters that may have such capabilities. Consequently, to the extent 
water heaters have a network mode that may be impacted by a paired 
UFHWST, DOE seeks comments, data, and information on the issues 
presented in this RFI as they may be applicable to UFHWSTs.
3. Other
    In addition to the issues identified earlier in this document, DOE 
welcomes comment on any other aspect of uniform national standards for 
UFHWSTs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this 
document.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments, 
data, and information on matters addressed in this document and on 
other matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy 
conservation standards for UFHWSTs. 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. 
After the close of the comment period, DOE will review the public 
comments received and may begin collecting data and conducting analyses 
discussed in this RFI.
    Submitting comments via http://www.regulations.gov. The http://www.regulations.gov web page requires you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information 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 http://www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through http://www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments 
received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the 
information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the 
Confidential Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through http://www.regulations.gov 
before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of 
being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being 
processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to 
several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that http://www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your 
comment.
    Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail also will be posted to http://www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact 
information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment 
or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact 
information 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 printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or 
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature 
of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email, postal mail, or hand delivery/courier two well-marked copies: 
One copy of the document marked ``confidential'' including all the 
information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document 
marked ``non-confidential'' with the information believed to be 
confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email or on a CD, if 
feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential 
status of the information and treat it according to its determination.
    Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat 
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the 
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as 
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is 
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the 
information has previously been made available to others without 
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the 
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from 
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its 
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why 
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing standards. DOE actively encourages the 
participation and interaction of the public during the comment period 
in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions with and between 
members of the public provide a balanced discussion of the issues and 
assist DOE in the rulemaking process. Anyone who wishes to be added to 
the DOE mailing list to receive future notices and information about

[[Page 39234]]

this process should contact Appliance and Equipment Standards Program 
staff at (202) 287-1445 or via email at 
[email protected].

    Signed in Washington, DC, on August 1, 2019.
Alexander N. Fitzsimmons,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy 
Efficiency and Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2019-17084 Filed 8-8-19; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P