[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 92 (Tuesday, May 12, 2020)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27941-27955]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-09414]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Part 431

[EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042]
RIN 1904-AE59


Energy Conservation Program: Energy Conservation Standards for 
Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment 
and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces

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 energy conservation standards 
for air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment (referred to as air-cooled commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (ACUACs and ACUHPs) in this document), and 
commercial warm air furnaces (CWAFs). This request for information 
(RFI) solicits information from the public to help DOE determine 
whether amended standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs, subsets of 
covered commercial equipment, would result in significant additional 
energy savings and whether such standards would be technologically 
feasible and economically justified. DOE welcomes written comments from 
the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including 
those topics not specifically raised in this RFI), as well as the 
submission of data and other relevant information.

DATES: Written comments and information are requested and will be 
accepted on or before June 11, 2020.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 
the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested 
persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0042 and/or RIN 1904-AE59, 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-2019-BT-STD-0042 and/or RIN 1904-AE59 in the subject line 
of the message.
    3. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: 
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc 
(CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards 
Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 
L'Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 
287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case 
it is not necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimilies (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section III of this document.
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, 
is available for review at [email protected]. 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/docket?D=EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section III for information on how to submit 
comments through http://www.regulations.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Stephanie Johnson and 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) 287-1445. 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. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    2. Max-Tech Efficiency Levels
    3. Manufacturer Production Costs and Manufacturer Selling Price
    E. Mark-ups and Distribution Channels
    F. Energy Use Analysis
    G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis
    1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    H. Shipments Analysis
    I. National Impact Analysis
    J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
    K. Other Energy Conservation Standards Topics
    1. Market Failures
    2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
    3. Other Issues
III. Submission of Comments

[[Page 27942]]

I. Introduction

A. Authority and Background

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 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 (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), added by Public Law 95-
619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation 
Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of 
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment 
includes ACUACs and ACUHPs, which are a category of small, large, and 
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, 
and CWAFs, all of which are the subject of this RFI. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(B)-(D) and (J)) EPCA prescribed initial standards for this 
equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(1)-(2) and (4))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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, the 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. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in 
accordance with the procedures and other provisions set forth under 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
    In EPCA, Congress initially set mandatory energy conservation 
standards for certain types of commercial heating, air-conditioning, 
and water-heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)) Specifically, the 
statute sets standards for small, large, and very large commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment,\3\ 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. Id. 
In doing so, EPCA established Federal energy conservation standards at 
levels that generally corresponded to the levels in 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPCA defines commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment as meaning air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, 
or water source (not including ground water source) electrically 
operated, unitary central air conditioners and central air-
conditioning heat pumps for commercial application. (42 U.S.C. 
6311(8)(A)) Commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment includes ACUACs and ACUHPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In acknowledgement of technological changes that yield energy 
efficiency benefits, Congress further directed DOE through EPCA to 
consider amending the existing Federal energy conservation standard for 
each type of covered equipment listed, each time ASHRAE amends Standard 
90.1 with respect to such equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)) When 
triggered in this manner, DOE must undertake and publish an analysis of 
the energy savings potential of amended energy efficiency standards, 
and amend the Federal standards to establish a uniform national 
standard at the minimum level specified in the amended ASHRAE Standard 
90.1, unless DOE determines that there is clear and convincing evidence 
to support a determination that a more-stringent standard level as a 
national standard would produce significant additional energy savings 
and be technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(i)-(ii)) If DOE decides to adopt as a uniform national 
standard the minimum efficiency levels specified in the amended ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1, DOE must establish such standard not later than 18 
months after publication of the amended industry standard. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(I)) However, if DOE determines, supported by clear 
and convincing evidence, that a more-stringent uniform national 
standard would result in significant additional conservation of energy 
and is technologically feasible and economically justified, then DOE 
must establish such more-stringent uniform national standard not later 
than 30 months after publication of the amended ASHRAE Standard 
90.1.\4\ (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II) and (B)(i))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In those situations where ASHRAE has not acted to amend the levels 
in Standard 90.1 for the equipment types enumerated in the statute, 
EPCA 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)(i)(I)-(II)) In proposing new standards under the 
6-year-lookback 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); 42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(B)) This is a separate statutory review obligation, as 
differentiated from the obligation triggered by an ASHRAE Standard 90.1 
amendment, as previously discussed.
    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

[[Page 27943]]

that standard unless there is clear and convincing evidence that a 
more-stringent level is justified. In those instances where DOE makes a 
determination that the standards for the equipment in question do not 
need to be amended, the statute requires the Department to revisit that 
decision within three years to either make a new determination or 
propose amended standards. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(iii)(II))
    In a direct final rule published on January 15, 2016, (January 2016 
final rule), DOE adopted amended standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and 
CWAFs. 81 FR 2420. As part of the January 2016 final rule, DOE also 
adopted a definition and separate standards for a sub-category of 
ACUACs and ACUHPs--double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps (double-
duct systems). 81 FR 2420, 2446. For ACUACs and ACUHPs (other than 
double-duct systems), DOE adopted two tiers of amended standards with 
staggered compliance dates, and changed the regulated cooling metric 
from energy efficiency ratio (EER) to integrated energy efficiency 
ratio (IEER).\5\ Id. at 81 FR 2529, 2531-2533. The first tier of 
amended standards--with compliance date of January 1, 2018--are 
equivalent to the IEER minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs 
in ASHRAE 90.1-2016. The second tier of amended standards--with 
compliance date of January 1, 2023--are more stringent than the levels 
in ASHRAE 90.1-2016. The January 2016 final rule also adopted CWAF 
standards for which compliance is required beginning on January 1, 
2023. These CWAF standards adopted in the January 2016 final rule are 
more stringent than the minimum efficiency levels for CWAF in ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2016.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The EER metric only accounts for the efficiency of the 
equipment operating at full load. The IEER metric factors in the 
efficiency of operating at part loads of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 
25 percent of capacity, as well as the efficiency at full load. This 
is accomplished by weighting the full-load and part-load 
efficiencies with the average amount of time operating at each 
loading point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser 
temperatures (i.e., reduced outdoor ambient temperatures) for part-
load operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Since publication of the January 2016 final rule, ASHRAE published 
an updated version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019), 
which updated the minimum efficiency levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs 
(other than double-duct systems) and CWAFs to align with those adopted 
by DOE in the January 2016 final rule (i.e., specifying two tiers of 
minimum levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs, with a 2023 compliance date for 
the second tier).\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Table 6.8.1-5 of ASHRAE 90.1-2019 specifies a TE requirement 
of 80 percent for oil-fired warm-air furnaces >=225,000 Btu/h 
applicable before January 1, 2023; however, the previous version of 
ASHRAE 90.1 (ASHRAE 90.1-2016) specifies a TE requirement of 81 
percent for this class. DOE understands this 80 percent level in 
ASHRAE 90.1-2019 to be a typographical error, and understands that 
the TE requirement for oil-fired warm-air furnaces >=225,000 Btu/h 
before January 1, 2023 should be 81 percent, aligning with ASHRAE 
90.1-2016 and the current Federal standard. In any event, because 
this 80 percent level in ASHRAE 90.1-2019 is lower than the 
corresponding current Federal standard, DOE cannot consider adopting 
the ASHRAE 90.1-2019 level due to the ``anti-backsliding'' provision 
in EPCA, which prevents the Secretary from prescribing any amended 
standard that either increases the maximum allowable energy use or 
decreases the minimum required energy efficiency of a covered 
product. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(B)(iii)(I)) Further, because the 
revised ASHRAE Standard 90.1 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) (i.e., DOE is not triggered). See 84 FR 3910, 3915 
(Feb 13, 2019); See also 74 FR 36312, 36313 (July 22, 2009); 77 FR 
28928, 28929 (May 16, 2012); 80 FR 42614, 42617 (July 17, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE established separate equipment classes for double-duct systems 
in the January 2016 final rule. The standard levels applicable to 
double-duct systems were not amended in the January 2016 final rule; 
therefore, the current EER standards for double-duct systems correspond 
to the levels in effect for all ACUACs and ACUHPs prior to the January 
2016 final rule. 81 FR 2420, 2442, 2445-2446, 2532-2533 (Jan. 15, 
2016). (ASHRAE 90.1-2019 does not specify efficiency requirements for 
double-duct systems.)
    The current energy conservation standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and 
double-duct systems are codified in DOE's regulations at 10 CFR 431.97. 
Similarly, the energy conservation standards for CWAFs are codified at 
10 CFR 431.77.
    As a preliminary step in the process of reviewing the standards for 
ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs, DOE is publishing this RFI to request data 
and information pursuant to its 6-year-lookback review. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)) Such information will help DOE inform its decisions, 
consistent with its obligations under EPCA.

B. Rulemaking Process

    As discussed, DOE is required to conduct an evaluation of each 
class of covered equipment in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 every six years. (42 
U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(C)(i)) In making a determination of whether standards 
for such equipment need to be amended, DOE must follow specific 
statutory criteria. DOE must evaluate whether amended Federal standards 
would result in significant additional conservation of energy and are 
technologically feasible and economically justified. (42 U.S.C. 
6313(a)(6)(C)(i) (referencing 42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(6)(A)(ii)(II)) To 
determine whether a potential proposed standard is economically 
justified, EPCA requires that DOE determine, after receiving comments 
on the proposed standard, whether the benefits of the standard exceed 
its burdens by considering, to the maximum extent practicable, the 
following seven statutory factors:
    (1) The economic impact of the standard on manufacturers and 
consumers of the 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 price of, initial charges for, or maintenance expenses 
of the covered equipment which are likely to result from the standard;
    (3) The total projected amount of energy savings likely to result 
directly from the standard;
    (4) Any lessening of the utility or the performance of the covered 
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)(C)(i)(II), referencing 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.

[[Page 27944]]



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

    As 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 energy conservation 
standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs.

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 amended standards for ACUACs, 
ACUHPs, and CWAFs may be warranted. DOE also welcomes comments on other 
issues relevant to this data-gathering process that may not 
specifically be identified in this document.
    In addition, as an initial matter, DOE seeks comment on whether 
there have been sufficient technological or market changes 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 a significant additional 
savings of energy; (2) is not technologically feasible; (3) is not 
economically justified; or (4) any combination of foregoing.

A. Equipment Covered by This Process

    This RFI covers equipment that meet the definitions that apply to 
ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs, as codified at 10 CFR 431.92 and 431.72. The 
definitions that apply to ACUACs and ACUHPs were most recently amended 
in the January 2016 final rule-- specifically, as previously discussed, 
a definition was added for ``double-duct air conditioner or heat 
pump.'' 81 FR 2420, 2446, 2529 (Jan. 15, 2016). The current definitions 
for CWAFs were established in a final rule published in the Federal 
Register on October 21, 2004. 69 FR 61916, 61939.
    As established in 10 CFR 431.72 and 10 CFR 431.92, the definitions 
applicable to ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs include:
    Commercial warm air furnace means a warm air furnace that is 
industrial equipment, and that has a capacity (rated maximum input) of 
225,000 Btu per hour or more.
    Commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment means 
air-cooled, water-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, or water source (not 
including ground water source) electrically operated, unitary central 
air conditioners and central air-conditioning heat pumps for commercial 
application.
    Small commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment 
means commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is 
rated below 135,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
    Large commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment 
means commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment that is 
rated--(1) At or above 135,000 Btu per hour; and (2) Below 240,000 Btu 
per hour (cooling capacity).
    Very large commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment means commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment that is rated--(1) At or above 240,000 Btu per hour; and (2) 
Below 760,000 Btu per hour (cooling capacity).
    Double-duct air conditioner or heat pump means air-cooled 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that--(1) Is 
either a horizontal single package or split-system unit; or a vertical 
unit that consists of two components that may be shipped or installed 
either connected or split; (2) Is intended for indoor installation with 
ducting of outdoor air from the building exterior to and from the unit, 
as evidenced by the unit and/or all of its components being non-
weatherized, including the absence of any marking (or listing) 
indicating compliance with UL 1995, ``Heating and Cooling Equipment,'' 
or any other equivalent requirements for outdoor use; (3)(i) If it is a 
horizontal unit, a complete unit has a maximum height of 35 inches; 
(ii) If it is a vertical unit, a complete unit has a maximum depth of 
35 inches; and (4) Has a rated cooling

[[Page 27945]]

capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and up to 300,000 Btu/h.
    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on whether the definitions that apply 
to ACUACs and ACUHPs require any revisions--and if so, how those 
definitions should be revised. Please provide the rationale for any 
suggested change.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether the definitions for CWAFs 
require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions should be 
revised. Please provide the rationale for any suggested change.
    Issue 3: DOE requests comment on whether additional equipment 
definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage 
between equipment types. DOE also seeks input on whether such models 
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 energy 
conservation standard provides information about the ACUAC/ACUHP and 
CWAF industries that will be used in DOE's analysis throughout the 
rulemaking process. DOE uses qualitative and quantitative information 
to characterize the structure of the industry and market. DOE 
identifies manufacturers, estimates market shares and trends, addresses 
regulatory and non-regulatory initiatives intended to improve energy 
efficiency or reduce energy consumption, and explores the potential for 
efficiency improvements in the design and manufacturing of ACUACs, 
ACUHPs, and CWAFs. DOE also reviews equipment literature, industry 
publications, and company websites. Additionally, DOE considers 
conducting interviews with manufacturers to improve its assessment of 
the market and available technologies for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs.
1. Equipment Classes
    For ACUACs and ACUHPs, the current energy conservation standards 
specified in 10 CFR 431.97 are based on 24 equipment classes determined 
according to the following performance-related features that provide 
utility to the consumer: Rated cooling capacity, equipment type (air 
conditioner versus heat pump), and supplementary heating type. Table 
II-1 lists the current 24 equipment classes for ACUACs and ACUHPs.

                              Table II-1--Current ACUAC and ACUHP Equipment Classes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Equipment type               Cooling capacity           Sub-category              Heating type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-       >=65,000 Btu/h and      AC                       Electric Resistance
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <135,000 Btu/h.                                  Heating or No Heating.
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
                                                             HP                       Electric Resistance
                                                                                       Heating or No Heating.
                                                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
Large Commercial Packaged Air-       >=135,000 Btu/h and     AC                       Electric Resistance
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <240,000 Btu/h.                                  Heating or No Heating.
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
                                                             HP                       Electric Resistance
                                                                                       Heating or No Heating.
                                                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
Very Large Commercial Packaged Air-  >=240,000 Btu/h and     AC                       Electric Resistance
 Conditioning and Heating Equipment   <760,000 Btu/h.                                  Heating or No Heating.
 (Air-Cooled).                                                                        All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
                                                             HP                       Electric Resistance
                                                                                       Heating or No Heating.
                                                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
Small Double-Duct Commercial         >=65,000 Btu/h and      AC                       Electric Resistance
 Packaged Air-Conditioning and        <135,000 Btu/h.                                  Heating or No Heating.
 Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
                                                             HP                       Electric Resistance
                                                                                       Heating or No Heating.
                                                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
Large Double-Duct Commercial         >=135,000 Btu/h and     AC                       Electric Resistance
 Packaged Air-Conditioning and        <240,000 Btu/h.                                  Heating or No Heating.
 Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
                                                             HP                       Electric Resistance
                                                                                       Heating or No Heating.
                                                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
Very Large Double-Duct Commercial    >=240,000 Btu/h and     AC                       Electric Resistance
 Packaged Air-Conditioning and        <300,000 Btu/h.                                  Heating or No Heating.
 Heating Equipment (Air-Cooled).                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
                                                             HP                       Electric Resistance
                                                                                       Heating or No Heating.
                                                                                      All Other Types of
                                                                                       Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AC = Air conditioner; HP = Heat pump.

    For CWAFs, the current energy conservation standards specified in 
10 CFR 431.77 are based on two equipment classes determined according 
to fuel source (e.g., oil-fired or gas-fired). The two CWAF equipment 
classes are gas-fired CWAFs and oil-fired CWAFs.
2. Technology Assessment
    In analyzing the feasibility of potential new or amended energy 
conservation standards, DOE uses information about existing and past 
technology options and prototype designs to help identify technologies 
that manufacturers could use to meet and/or exceed a given set of 
energy conservation standards under consideration. In consultation with 
interested parties, DOE intends to develop a list of technologies to 
consider in its analysis. That analysis will likely include a number of 
the technology options DOE previously considered during its most recent 
rulemaking for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs (i.e., the January 2016 final 
rule). 81 FR 2420 (Jan. 15, 2016). A complete list of those prior 
options for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs appear in Table II.2 and Table 
II.3 respectively.

[[Page 27946]]



 Table II.2--Technology Options for ACUACs and ACUHPs Considered in the
               Development of the January 2016 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Compressor.............................  High-Efficiency Compressors.
                                         Multiple Compressor Staging.
                                         Variable-Capacity or Multiple-
                                          Tandem Compressors.
Heat Exchangers........................  Larger Heat Exchangers.
                                         Microchannel Heat Exchangers.
                                         Electro-Hydrodynamic
                                          Enhancement.
                                         Subcoolers.
Condenser Fans and Fan Motors..........  Larger Fan Diameter.
                                         More-Efficient Fan Blades.
                                         High-Efficiency Motors.
                                         Variable-Speed Fans/Motors.
Evaporator Fans and Fan Motors.........  Larger Fan Diameter.
                                         More-Efficient Fan Blades.
                                         High-Efficiency Motors.
                                         Variable-Speed Fans/Motors.
                                         Synchronous (Toothed Belts).
                                         Direct-Drive Fans.
Expansion Valves.......................  Thermostatic Expansion Valve.
                                         Electronic Expansion Valve.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


 Table II.3--Technology Options for CWAFs Considered in the Development
                     of the January 2016 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                           Technology Options
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology Options that Improve Thermal  Condensing Secondary Heat
 Efficiency.                              Exchanger.
                                         Increased Heat Exchanger
                                          Surface Area.
                                         Heat Exchanger Enhancements.
                                         Low-NOX Premix Burners.
                                         Burner De-rating.
                                         Low Pressure, Air-Atomized
                                          Burner (Oil-fired CWAF Only).
                                         Concentric Venting.
                                         Pulse Combustion.
                                         High-static Flame-retention
                                          Head Oil Burner.
Technology Options that Do Not Improve   Two-stage or Modulating
 Thermal Efficiency *.                    Combustion.
                                         Insulation Improvements.
                                         Delayed-Action Oil Pump
                                          Solenoid Valve (Oil-fired CWAF
                                          Only).
                                         Off-Cycle Dampers.
                                         Electronic Ignition.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Technology options that do not improve thermal efficiency are shown
  for informational purposes only, and will not be the basis for a
  decision regarding whether to amend standards because they do not
  affect the regulatory metric (i.e., thermal efficiency).

    Issue 4: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.2 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of ACUACs and ACUHPs, including 
double-duct systems, as measured according to the DOE test procedure. 
DOE also seeks information on how these technologies may have changed 
since they were considered in the January 2016 final rule analysis. 
Specifically, DOE seeks information on the range of efficiencies or 
performance characteristics that are currently available for each 
technology option.
    Issue 5: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Table 
II.3 regarding their applicability to the current market and how these 
technologies may impact the efficiency of CWAFs as measured according 
to the DOE test procedure. DOE also seeks information on how these 
technologies may have changed since they were considered in the January 
2016 final rule analysis. Specifically, DOE seeks information on the 
range of efficiencies or performance characteristics that are currently 
available for each technology option.
    Issue 6: DOE seeks information on the technologies listed in Tables 
II.2 and II.3 regarding any changes in their market adoption, costs, 
and any concerns with incorporating them into equipment (e.g., impacts 
on consumer utility, potential safety concerns, manufacturing/
production/implementation issues), that may have occurred since the 
January 2016 final rule.
    Issue 7: DOE seeks comment on other technology options that it 
should consider for inclusion in its analysis and if these technologies 
may impact equipment features or consumer utility.

C. Screening Analysis

    The purpose of the screening analysis is to evaluate the 
technologies that improve equipment efficiency to determine which 
technologies will be eliminated from further consideration and which 
will be passed to the engineering analysis for further consideration.
    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 equipment 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

[[Page 27947]]

scale necessary to serve the relevant market at the time of the 
compliance date of the standard, then that technology will not be 
considered further.
    (3) Impacts on equipment utility or equipment availability. If a 
technology is determined to have significant adverse impact on the 
utility of the equipment to significant subgroups of consumers, or to 
result in the unavailability of any covered equipment type or class 
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.
    (5) Unique-pathway proprietary technologies. If a design option 
utilizes proprietary technology that represents a unique pathway to 
achieving a given efficiency level, that technology will not be 
considered further.
    See 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, 6(e)(3) and 7(b).
    Technology options identified in the technology assessment are 
evaluated against these criteria using DOE analyses and inputs from 
interested parties (e.g., manufacturers, trade organizations, and 
energy efficiency advocates). Technologies that pass through the 
screening analysis are referred to as ``design options'' in the 
engineering analysis. Technology options that fail to meet one or more 
of the five criteria are eliminated from consideration.
    Table II-4 and Table II-5 summarize the technology options that DOE 
screened out in the January 2016 final rule, and the applicable 
screening criteria.

     Table II-4--Previously Screened Out ACUAC and ACUHP Technology Options From the January 2016 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Screened technology                         Practicability to                      Adverse     Unique-pathway
        option             Technological         manufacture,     Adverse impact   impacts on      proprietary
                            feasibility          install, and      on equipment    health and      technology
                                                   service            utility        safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Electro-hydrodynamic    X                    X                    ..............  ............  ................
 enhanced heat
 transfer
Alternative             X                    ...................  ..............  ............  ................
 refrigerants
Sub-coolers             X                    ...................  ..............  ............  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


          Table II-5--Previously Screened Out CWAF Technology Options From the January 2016 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      EPCA criteria (X = basis for screening out)
                       ------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Screened technology                         Practicability to                      Adverse     Unique-pathway
        option             Technological         manufacture,     Adverse impact   impacts on      proprietary
                            feasibility          install, and      on equipment    health and      technology
                                                   service            utility        safety
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pulse Combustion        ...................  X                    ..............  X             ................
Low-NOX Premix Burner   X                    ...................  ..............  ............  ................
Low Pressure, Air-      X                    ...................  ..............  ............  ................
 Atomized Burner (Oil-
 fired CWAF Only)
Burner De-rating        ...................  ...................  X               ............  ................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 8: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five 
screening criteria described in this section would have on 
consideration of each of the technology options listed in Table II.2 
with respect to ACUACs and ACUHPs. Similarly, DOE seeks information 
regarding how these same criteria would affect consideration of any 
other technology options not already identified in this document with 
respect to their potential use in ACUACs and ACUHPs, including double-
duct systems.
    Issue 9: DOE requests feedback on what impact, if any, the five 
screening criteria described in this section would have on 
consideration of each of the technology options listed in Table II.3 
with respect to CWAFs. Similarly, DOE seeks information regarding how 
these same criteria would affect consideration of any other technology 
options not already identified in this document with respect to their 
potential use in CWAFs.
    Issue 10: With respect to the screened out ACUAC and ACUHP 
technology options listed in Table II-4, DOE seeks information on 
whether these options would, based on current and projected assessments 
regarding each of them, remain screened out under the five screening 
criteria described in this section. With respect to each of these 
technology options, what steps, if any, could be (or have already been) 
taken to facilitate the introduction of each option as a means to 
improve the energy performance of ACUACs/ACUHPs, and the potential to 
impact consumer utility of ACUACs/ACUHPs?
    Issue 11: With respect to the screened out CWAF technology options 
listed in Table II-5, DOE seeks information on whether these options 
would, based on current and projected assessments regarding each of 
them, remain screened out under the five screening criteria described 
in this section. With respect to each of these technology options, what 
steps, if any, could be (or have already been) taken to facilitate the 
introduction of each option as a means to improve the energy 
performance of CWAFs, and the potential to impact consumer utility of 
CWAFs?

D. Engineering Analysis

    The engineering analysis estimates the cost-efficiency relationship 
of equipment at different levels of increased energy efficiency 
(efficiency

[[Page 27948]]

levels). This relationship serves as the basis for the cost-benefit 
calculations for consumers, manufacturers, and the Nation. In 
determining the cost-efficiency relationship, DOE estimates the 
increase in manufacturer production cost (MPC) associated with 
increasing the efficiency of equipment above the baseline, up to the 
maximum technologically feasible (max-tech) efficiency level for each 
equipment class.
    DOE historically has used the following three methodologies to 
generate incremental manufacturing costs and to 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. Baseline Efficiency Levels
    As noted previously, the current standards for each ACUAC and ACUHP 
equipment class (excluding double-duct systems) are found in tables 3 
and 4 of 10 CFR 431.97 and are based on the IEER cooling metric and the 
coefficient of performance (COP) heating performance metric. The 
current standards for double-duct systems (which are found in tables 5 
and 6 of 10 CFR 431.97) are based on the EER cooling metric and the COP 
heating performance metric. The current standards for each CWAF 
equipment class are found in 10 CFR 431.77 and are based on the thermal 
efficiency (TE) metric.
    For each established equipment class, DOE selects a baseline model 
as a reference point against which any changes resulting from new or 
amended energy conservation standards can be measured. The baseline 
model in each equipment class represents the characteristics of common 
or typical equipment in that class. Typically, a baseline model is one 
that just meets the current minimum energy conservation standards and 
provides basic consumer utility.
    If it determines that a rulemaking is necessary, consistent with 
this analytical approach, DOE tentatively plans to consider the energy 
conservations standards for which compliance is required beginning on 
January 1, 2023 for ACUACs and ACUHPs (other than double-duct systems) 
and CWAFs as the baseline efficiency levels for each equipment class. 
For double-duct systems, DOE tentatively plans to consider the current 
EER and COP energy conservation standards as the baseline efficiency 
levels.
    Issue 12: DOE seeks comment on whether currently available models 
of ACUACs and ACUHPs (excluding double-duct systems) with efficiency 
ratings that meet or exceed the 2023 standard levels are representative 
of the designs and characteristics of models that would be expected to 
be on the market after the 2023 compliance date.
    Issue 13: DOE seeks comment on whether currently available models 
of CWAFs with efficiency ratings that meet or exceed the 2023 standard 
levels are representative of the designs and characteristics of models 
that would be expected to be on the market after the 2023 compliance 
date.
    Issue 14: DOE requests feedback on whether the 2023 energy 
conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs (other than double-duct 
systems) and the current standards for double-duct systems are 
appropriate baseline efficiency levels for DOE to apply to each 
equipment class in evaluating whether to amend energy conservation 
standards for this equipment.
    Issue 15: DOE requests feedback on whether the 2023 energy 
conservation standards for CWAFs are appropriate baseline efficiency 
levels for DOE to apply to each equipment class in evaluating whether 
to amend the current energy conservation standards for this equipment.
    Issue 16: DOE requests feedback on the appropriate baseline 
efficiency levels for any newly analyzed equipment classes that are not 
currently in place or for the contemplated combined equipment classes, 
as discussed in section II.B.1 of this document.
2. Max-Tech Efficiency Levels
    As part of the January 2016 final rule, DOE determined max-tech 
efficiency levels for each equipment class of ACUACs and ACUHPs 
(excluding double-duct systems) and CWAFs. For ACUACs and ACUHPs 
(excluding double-duct systems), DOE used the AHRI Directory to 
identify levels on the market, and DOE used differentials/correlations 
consistent with ASRAC Working Group recommendations to develop 
efficiency levels, including max-tech levels, for: (1) ``all other 
types of heating'' classes, (2) ACUHP IEER levels, and (3) ACUHP COP 
levels. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0105 at pp. 5-17--5-19) For 
CWAFs, DOE used DOE's Compliance Certification Management System (CCMS) 
Database, manufacturers' websites, and discussions with manufacturers 
during manufacturer interviews to determine max-tech levels for each 
equipment class. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021-0050 at pp 3-5, 5-
4--5-5)
    Table II.6 and Table II.7 present the max-tech levels by equipment 
class that were analyzed in the January 2016 final rule. As noted, the 
energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs (excluding double-
duct systems) and CWAFs were amended, with compliance required 
beginning in 2023. The markets are still responding in advance of that 
compliance date. Therefore, models at efficiency levels higher than the 
currently maximum available efficiency levels may be introduced in 
advance of the January 1, 2023 compliance date. DOE notes that, based 
on a review of the current market, the current max-tech levels for 
certain equipment classes are higher than those considered as part in 
the January 2016 final rule and listed in Table II.6 and Table II.7.

      Table II.6--Max-Tech Efficiency Levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs Analyzed in the January 2016 Final Rule
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                  January 2016
        Equipment type           Cooling capacity     Sub-category          Heating type        final rule max-
                                                                                                  tech levels
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Packaged Air-  >=65,000 Btu/h     AC                  Electric Resistance     21.5 IEER.
 Conditioning and Heating        and <135,000 Btu/                      Heating or No Heating. 21.1 IEER.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).         h.                                    All Other Types of
                                                                        Heating.
                                                   HP                  Electric Resistance     20.3 IEER, 3.7
                                                                        Heating or No Heating.  COP.

[[Page 27949]]

 
                                                                       All Other Types of      19.9 IEER, 3.7
                                                                        Heating.                COP.
Large Commercial Packaged Air-  >=135,000 Btu/h    AC                  Electric Resistance     20.1 IEER.
 Conditioning and Heating        and <240,000 Btu/                      Heating or No Heating. 19.7 IEER.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).         h.                                    All Other Types of
                                                                        Heating.
                                                   HP                  Electric Resistance     18.8 IEER, 3.3
                                                                        Heating or No Heating.  COP.
                                                                       All Other Types of      18.4 IEER, 3.3
                                                                        Heating.                COP.
Very Large Commercial Packaged  >=240,000 Btu/h    AC                  Electric Resistance     15.6 IEER.
 Air-Conditioning and Heating    and <760,000 Btu/                      Heating or No Heating. 15.3 IEER.
 Equipment (Air-Cooled).         h.                                    All Other Types of
                                                                        Heating.
                                                   HP                  Electric Resistance     14.3 IEER, 3.2
                                                                        Heating or No Heating.  COP.
                                                                       All Other Types of      14.0 IEER, 3.2
                                                                        Heating.                COP.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Table II.7--Max-Tech Levels for CWAFs Analyzed in the January 2016 Final
                                  Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           January 2016 final rule max-
            Equipment class                        tech levels
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired commercial warm air furnaces.  92 percent TE.
Oil-fired commercial warm air furnaces.  92 percent TE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 17: DOE requests comment on what efficiency levels should be 
considered as max-tech levels for ACUACs and ACUHPs, including double-
duct systems, for the evaluation of whether amended standards are 
warranted.
    Issue 18: DOE requests comment on what efficiency levels should be 
considered as max-tech levels for CWAFs, for the evaluation of whether 
amended standards are warranted.
3. 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 for the analyzed equipment 
classes. For the January 2016 final rule, DOE developed the cost-
efficiency relationships by estimating the costs associated with 
efficiency levels for each analyzed equipment class through reverse-
engineering. 81 FR 2420, 2451-2452 (Jan. 15, 2016).
    Issue 19: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.2 to increase 
energy efficiency in ACUACs and ACUHPs (including double-duct systems) 
beyond the current levels. This includes information on the order in 
which manufacturers would incorporate the different technologies to 
incrementally improve the efficiencies of equipment. DOE also requests 
feedback on whether the increased energy efficiency would lead to other 
design changes that would not occur otherwise. DOE is also interested 
in information regarding any potential impact of design options on a 
manufacturer's ability to incorporate additional functions or 
attributes in response to consumer demand.
    Issue 20: DOE requests feedback on how manufacturers would 
incorporate the technology options listed in Table II.3 to increase 
energy efficiency in CWAFs beyond the current levels. This includes 
information on the order in which manufacturers would incorporate the 
different technologies to incrementally improve the efficiencies of 
equipment. DOE also requests feedback on whether the increased energy 
efficiency would lead to other design changes that would not occur 
otherwise. DOE is also interested in information regarding any 
potential impact of design options on a manufacturer's ability to 
incorporate additional functions or attributes in response to consumer 
demand.
    Issue 21: DOE also seeks input on the increase in MPC associated 
with incorporating each particular design option and/or with reaching 
efficiency levels above the baseline. Specifically, DOE is interested 
in whether and how the costs estimated in the January 2016 final rule 
have changed since the time of that analysis. DOE also requests 
information on the investments necessary to incorporate specific design 
options, including, but not limited to, costs related to new or 
modified tooling (if any), materials, engineering and development 
efforts to implement each design option, and manufacturing/production 
impacts.
    Issue 22: DOE requests comment on whether certain design options 
may not be applicable to (or incompatible with) specific equipment 
classes.
    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 small, large, and very large ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE used a 
manufacturer mark-up of 1.3, 1.34, and 1.41 respectively in the January 
2016 final rule. 81 FR 2420, 2488 (Jan. 15, 2016). For CWAFs, DOE used 
a manufacturer markup of 1.31 for gas-fired CWAFs and 1.28 for oil-
fired CWAFs in the January 2016 final rule. Id. The manufacturer mark-
ups from the January 2016 final rule were vetted by manufacturers in 
confidential interviews done at the time of that prior rulemaking and 
went through public notice and comment. As a result, DOE considers the 
manufacturer mark-ups from the January 2016 final rule to be the most 
robust product-specific estimate that is currently publicly available.

[[Page 27950]]

    Issue 23: DOE requests feedback on whether manufacturer mark-ups 
determined in the January 2016 final rule are still appropriate for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    Issue 24: DOE requests feedback on whether manufacturer mark-ups 
determined in the January 2016 final rule are still appropriate for 
CWAFs.

E. Mark-ups and Distribution Channels

    In generating end-user price inputs for the life-cycle cost (LCC) 
analysis and the national impact analysis (NIA), DOE must identify 
distribution channels (i.e., how the equipment is moved from the 
manufacturer to the customer) and estimate relative sales volumes 
through each channel. Additionally, DOE needs to determine the cost to 
the commercial customer of a baseline piece of equipment that satisfies 
the currently applicable standards, and the cost of the more-efficient 
piece of equipment the consumer would purchase under potential new and/
or amended standards. By applying a multiplier called a ``mark-up'' to 
the MSP, DOE estimates the commercial customer's price. The appropriate 
mark-ups for determining the end-user equipment price depend on the 
distribution channels (i.e., how equipment is moved form the 
manufacturer to the consumer), and estimated sales volume through each 
channel.
    In the January 2016 final rule, DOE identified two primary 
distribution channels through which ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs move from 
manufacturers to customers, one involving distributors and contractors 
and another from manufacturer to customer via national accounts. In the 
first channel, the manufacturer sells the equipment to a wholesaler, 
who in turn sells it to either a small or large mechanical contractor, 
who in turn sells it to a general contractor, who in turns sells it to 
the commercial customer and performs the installation. In the second 
channel, the manufacturer sells the equipment directly to the customer 
through a national account. Within these two primary channels, DOE 
distinguished between new and replacement applications, as only new 
construction applications are expected to include a general contractor. 
DOE also distinguished between small and large mechanical contractors. 
81 FR 2420, 2467 (Jan. 15, 2016). In summary, the two distribution 
channels for new construction and retrofits are:

New Construction:
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Small or Large Mechanical 
Contractor [rarr] General Contractor [rarr] Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] Consumer

Retrofits:
Manufacturer [rarr] Wholesaler [rarr] Small or Large Mechanical 
Contractor [rarr] Consumer
Manufacturer [rarr] National Account [rarr] Consumer

    Issue 25: DOE requests information on distribution channels that 
describe how equipment moves from manufacturer to customer and the 
relative sales volume through each channel. DOE requests information on 
any other distribution channels that may occur for this equipment. If 
DOE should consider other distribution channels, DOE requests 
information and data on the percent of equipment that relies on such 
channels.
    To develop mark-ups for each stage of the distribution channel in 
the January 2016 final rule, DOE utilized several data sources. To 
estimate the manufacturer mark-up, DOE relied on Securities and 
Exchange Commission (SEC) 10-K reports filed by publicly-traded 
manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-cooled commercial 
unitary air conditioners and heat pumps and CWAF manufacturers.\7\ To 
estimate wholesaler mark-ups, DOE relied on data from the Heating, Air-
condition & Refrigeration Distributers International (HARDI) Profit 
Report.\8\ To estimate contractor mark-ups, DOE relied on data from the 
U.S. Census Bureau and the Air Conditioning Contractors of America 
(ACCA).9 10
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, SEC 10-K Reports 
(Available at: http://www.sec.gov/) (Last accessed Feb. 19, 2020).
    \8\ Heating, Air-Conditioning & Refrigeration Distributors 
International, 2010 Profit Report (2010).
    \9\ U.S. Census Bureau, 2007 Plumbing, Heating, and Air-
Conditioning Contractors. Sector 23: 238220, Construction: Industry 
Series, Preliminary Detailed Statistics for Establishments, 2007 
(Available at: https://www.census.gov/econ/isp/sampler.php?naicscode=238220&naicslevel=6) (Last accessed March 12, 
2020).
    \10\ Air Conditioning Contractors of America, Financial Analysis 
for the HVACR Contracting Industry (2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 26: For ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE seeks recent data, including 
publicly-available data, to establish mark-ups for each stage of the 
distribution channel.
    Issue 27: For CWAFs, DOE seeks recent data, including publicly-
available data, to establish mark-ups for each stage of the 
distribution channel.

F. Energy Use Analysis

    As part of a typical rulemaking process, DOE conducts an energy use 
analysis to identify how equipment is used by consumers, and thereby 
determine potential energy and customer operating cost savings from 
energy efficiency improvements. The energy use analysis provides 
representative annual energy use estimates for the efficiency levels 
identified in the engineering analysis.
    In the January 2016 final rule, DOE only developed unit energy 
consumption estimates for ACUAC equipment classes that had no heating 
or electric resistance heating. 81 FR 2420, 2469 (Jan. 15, 2016). For 
all other ACUAC equipment classes with heating, the incremental change 
in IEER for each efficiency level increases to maintain the same energy 
savings as was determined for the equipment classes with electric 
resistance heating or no heating within each equipment class and 
capacity range. DOE did not perform an energy use analysis for ACUHP 
equipment classes because their cooling-side performance was nearly 
identical to that of ACUACs. Although DOE did not analyze ACUHPs in the 
energy use analysis in the January 2016 final rule, DOE did account for 
the aggregate energy savings of ACUHPs, in both cooling and heating 
modes, in the NIA. 81 FR 2420, 2484 (Jan. 15, 2016).
    In the January 2016 final rule, DOE made use of building 
simulations conducted to develop a representative distribution of 
cooling loads for small, large, and very large ACUAC units. The 
simulation data consisted of a subset of 1,033 buildings from the 1995 
Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey (CBECS) that use CUAC 
equipment. 81 FR 2420, 2469 (Jan. 15, 2016) DOE made adjustments to the 
building sample to represent the building stock in the compliance year 
of the January 2016 final rule. The simulations data provided the 
hourly load profile for each building over the course of one year using 
typical meteorological year weather files to represent local weather. 
The annual energy use of each building in the sample was determined by 
matching the hourly load profile with equipment performance data for 
each representative capacity ACUAC. 81 FR 2420, 2469-2471 (Jan. 15, 
2016). For more detail on the energy use analysis, please refer to 
Chapter 7 of the January 2016 final rule Technical Support Document for 
Small, Large, and Very Large Package Air Conditioning and Heating 
Equipment.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If DOE determines a rulemaking is necessary, DOE intends to update 
its building loads from those used for the January 2016 final rule 
using

[[Page 27951]]

simulations based on DOE reference buildings. DOE also intends to 
update CBECS building weights to reflect ACUAC equipment in the 
compliance year based on the most recent release of CBECS microdata.
    CWAF energy consumption includes the gas and oil fuel used for 
space heating and the auxiliary electrical energy use associated with 
the furnace electrical components. In the January 2016 final rule, DOE 
developed a representative sample of commercial and multi-family 
residential buildings with CWAFs as their primary space heating 
equipment using two data sources: The 2003 Commercial Building Energy 
Consumption Survey (CBECS 2003) \12\ and the 2009 Residential Energy 
Consumption Survey (RECS 2009).\13\ Both CBECS 2003 and RECS 2009 
reported the annual space heating energy consumption, and DOE used this 
value to estimate the heating load of each building. The heating load 
is the amount of heat required to keep the occupants of a building 
comfortable throughout an average year. The sample that was developed 
captures the variability in heating loads by building type, occupancy, 
vintage, and location. The heating loads were then adjusted for average 
weather conditions, existing CWAF equipment efficiency, and for 
projected improvements in building shell efficiency. 81 FR 2420, 2473-
2474 (Jan. 15, 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration, 2012 CBECS Survey Data (Available at: https://www.eia.gov/consumption/commercial/data/2012/index.php?view=microdata) (Last accessed March 12, 2020).
    \13\ U.S. Department of Energy--Energy Information 
Administration, 2009 RECS Survey Data (Available at: http://www.eia.gov/consumption/residential/data/2009/) (Last accessed March 
12, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To calculate CWAF energy consumption, DOE used the equipment output 
capacity and the heating loads to calculate burner operating hours. DOE 
assigned the representative 250 kbtu/hr capacity for all CWAF 
efficiency levels. DOE used the same fan power values as used in the 
CUAC analysis. 81 FR 2420, 2473 (Jan. 15, 2016). For a more detailed 
description of the energy use analysis, please refer to Chapter 7, 
Appendix 7A, and Appendix 7B of the January 2016 final rule Technical 
Support Document for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021-0050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If DOE determines a rulemaking is necessary, DOE intends to use a 
similar approach to determine the energy consumption of CWAFs with 
updated data from the most recent Commercial Building Energy 
Consumption Survey and the most recent Residential Energy Consumption 
Survey.
    Issue 28: DOE welcomes comment and feedback on the intended 
approach to estimate the energy use analysis of ACUAC and ACUHPs, 
including double-duct systems.
    Issue 29: DOE requests comment on the proposed approach to 
calculate the energy consumption of CWAFs that is described above. DOE 
also requests any data related to field energy consumption of CWAFs, if 
available.

G. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Analysis

    DOE conducts the LCC and payback period (PBP) analysis to evaluate 
the economic effects of potential amended energy conservation standards 
for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs on individual customers. For any given 
efficiency level, DOE measures the PBP and the change in LCC relative 
to an estimated baseline level (i.e., the level that just meets the 
current minimum energy conservation standards and provides basic 
consumer utility). The LCC is the total customer expense over the life 
of the equipment, consisting of purchase, installation, and operating 
costs (expenses for energy use, maintenance, and repair). Inputs to the 
calculation of total installed cost include the cost of the equipment--
which includes MSPs, distribution channel mark-ups, and sales taxes--
and installation costs. Inputs to the calculation of operating expenses 
include annual energy consumption, energy prices and price projections, 
repair and maintenance costs, equipment lifetimes, discount rates, and 
the year that compliance with new and amended standards is required.
    Equipment lifetime is the age at which the equipment is retired 
from service. In the January 2016 final rule, DOE based equipment 
lifetime on a retirement function, which utilized a Weibull probability 
distribution calibrated to historical stock and shipments. 81 FR 2420, 
2481 (Jan. 15, 2016). A Weibull distribution is a probability 
distribution function that is commonly used to measure failure rates. 
Its form is similar to an exponential distribution, which would model a 
fixed failure rate, except that it allows for a failure rate that 
changes over time. DOE estimated lifetime distributions for equipment 
classes based on equipment size with mean and median values as 
presented in Table II-8 and Table II-9. For more detail on the lifetime 
measurement, please refer to Chapter 9 of the January 2016 final rule 
Technical Support Document for Small, Large, and Very Large Package Air 
Conditioning and Heating Equipment and Appendix 8F of the January 2016 
final rule Technical Support Document for Commercial Warm Air 
Furnaces.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0105.

  Table II-8--Mean and Median Equipment Lifetime by Equipment Size for
     ACUACs and ACUHPs as Developed for the January 2016 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Equipment size                    Mean           Median
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h.......            21.0            21.0
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h......            22.6            23.0
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h......            33.7            34.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 30: For ACUACs and ACUHPs, DOE seeks comment on the approach 
of using Weibull probability distributions with mean and median values 
as presented in Table II-8. DOE also requests data or information which 
can be used to inform the equipment lifetime.

  Table II-9--Mean and Median Equipment Lifetime for CWAFs as Developed
                     for the January 2016 Final Rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
               Equipment                      Mean            Median
------------------------------------------------------------------------
All CWAF..............................            23.0             22.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 27952]]

    Issue 31: For CWAFs, DOE seeks comment on the approach of using a 
Weibull probability distribution with the mean and median value 
presented in Table II-9. DOE also requests data or information which 
can be used to inform the equipment lifetime.
    DOE measures the life-cycle savings of an amended energy 
conservation standard relative to a no-new standards case that reflects 
the likely market in the absence of amended standards. DOE generally 
estimates the no-new-standards efficiency distribution using estimates 
for the current efficiency distribution and by projecting forward using 
current efficiency trends. However, as discussed in section I.A, ACUACs 
(not including double duct), ACUHPs (not including double duct), and 
CWAFs will be subject to higher stringency standards that take effect 
on January 1, 2023. The current market does not fully reflect 
compliance with the future 2023 standards, making it less certain as to 
how the efficiency distribution of the market will be impacted in the 
years after 2023.
    Issue 32: DOE requests information to how the standards for ACUACs, 
ACUHPs, and CWAFs set to take effect in 2023 will impact the market 
efficiency distribution in the years after 2023. DOE requests 
information and data on current trends that may predict market 
efficiency distribution following the January 2023 compliance date.
1. Repair and Maintenance Costs
    In order to develop annual operating costs and savings for the LCC 
analysis, DOE estimates repair and maintenance costs over the lifetime 
of an ACUAC, ACUHP, and CWAF. In the January 2016 final rule, DOE 
identified two different types of repair costs for ACUACs and ACUHPs: 
Non-compressor repairs and compressor repairs. 81 FR 2420, 2478-2479 
(Jan. 15, 2016). Both the labor and material costs for non-compressor 
repair costs were developed using 2013 RS Means Facilities Maintenance 
& Repair Cost Data (RS Means 2013),\16\ scaled with equipment price. 
DOE applied a one-time, non-compressor repair cost to all customers in 
the building sample in the seventh year of the equipment's lifetime. 
Compressor repair costs were developed using price information for 
compressors from a commercial and industrial supplier \17\ and labor 
rates from RS Means 2013, scaled with equipment price. DOE applied a 
one-time compressor repair cost to 20 percent of customers in the 
thirteenth year of the equipment's lifetime. DOE used RS Means 2013 to 
calculate the maintenance costs for ACUACs and ACUHPs. For more detail 
on the repair and maintenance costs, please refer to Chapter 8 of the 
January 2016 final rule Technical Support Document for Small, Large, 
and Very Large Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ RS Means, Facilities Maintenance and Repair Cost Data 2013 
(2012) (Available at: http://rsmeans.reedconstructiondata.com/60303.aspx) (Last accessed April 10, 2013).
    \17\ W.W. Grainger, Air Conditioner Compressors (Available at: 
http://www.grainger.com/category/air-conditioner-compressors/air-conditioners/hvacand-refrigeration/ecatalog/N-jo6#nav=%2Fcategory%2Fair-conditionercompressors%2Fair-conditioners%2Fhvac-and-refrigeration%2Fecatalog%2FN-jo6) (Last 
accessed May 6, 2015).
    \18\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0105.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For CWAFs, DOE developed its repair costs using RS Means 2013. For 
condensing furnaces, DOE included additional maintenance costs to 
inspect the condensate withdrawal system and to clean the secondary 
heat exchanger. For more detail on the repair and maintenance costs, 
please refer to Chapter 8 and Appendix 8E of the January 2016 final 
rule Technical Support Document for Commercial Warm Air Furnaces.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0021-0050.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 33: DOE requests feedback on the approach for repair and 
maintenance costs for ACUACs and ACUHPs used in the January 2016 final 
rule and proposed for use in this current rulemaking.
    Issue 34: DOE requests feedback on its planned use of RS Means to 
develop repair and maintenance costs for CWAFs.

H. Shipments Analysis

    DOE develops shipments forecasts of ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs to 
calculate the national impacts of potential amended energy conservation 
standards on energy consumption, net present value (NPV), and future 
manufacturer cash flows. DOE shipments projections are based on 
available historical data broken out by equipment class, capacity, and 
efficiency. Current sales estimates allow for a more accurate model 
that captures recent trends in the market.
    In the January 2016 final rule, DOE relied on available historic 
data for ACUACs and ACUHPs spanning from 1969 to 2010. For the years 
1980 through 2001, for small and large ACUAC and ACUHP, DOE used 
shipments data provided by the Air-Conditioning and Refrigeration 
Institute (ARI) in 2005.\20\ For the remainder of years (1969-1979 and 
2002-2010), for small and large ACUAC and ACUHP and all years for very 
large equipment, DOE relied upon the U.S. Census Bureau's Current 
Industrial Reports on Refrigeration, Air Conditioning, and Warm Air 
Heating Equipment.\21\ The last five years of historical data used in 
the January 2016 final rule are presented in Table II-10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute. 
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioner and Heat Pump Unit Shipments for 
1980-2001 (2005).
    \21\ U.S. Census Bureau, MA333M--Refrigeration, Air 
Conditioning, and Warm Air Heating Equipment (2010) (Available at: 
https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/econ/cir/ma333m.html) 
(Last accessed Nov. 5, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Most gas-fired CWAF units are installed as part of a combined 
packaged cooling and heating unit. As separate shipments data for CWAFs 
did not exist, DOE based its CWAF shipments on ACUAC and ACUHP 
shipments in the January 2016 final rule National Impact Analysis 
Spreadsheet \22\. DOE estimated a ratio of gas-fired CWAFs to total 
ACUAC shipments to populate its shipments model for CWAFs. According to 
a report by the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, AHRI reported 
shipments of 164,300 CWAFs in 1994, which was 80 percent of the ACUAC 
shipments in that year. DOE also determined that 20 percent of ACUHPs 
have a CWAF, based on building data in CBECS 2003. The ratios of CWAF 
shipments to ACUAC shipments and CWAF shipments to ACUHP shipments did 
not change over time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ Available at: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0107.

                        Table II-10--Historical Shipments of ACUACs and ACUHPs by Equipment Size From the January 2016 Final Rule
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                               ACUAC                                           ACUHP
                          Year                           -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               Small           Large        Very Large         Small           Large        Very Large
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2006....................................................         186,465          72,702          28,744          24,593           4,565           1,805

[[Page 27953]]

 
2007....................................................         191,877          72,811          31,758          26,144           4,853           2,117
2008....................................................         176,437          68,119          29,013          24,493           4,547           1,936
2009....................................................         123,152          43,356          17,745          17,673           3,280           1,343
2010....................................................         122,792          43,964          16,756          17,703           3,286           1,252
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 35: DOE requests 2019 annual sales data (i.e., number of 
shipments) for ACUACs and ACUHPs disaggregated by equipment class and 
size. If disaggregated fractions of annual sales are not available at 
the equipment class level by equipment size, DOE requests more 
aggregated fractions of annual sales at the equipment category level.
    Issue 36: If available, DOE requests the same information in Table 
II-10 for the previous eight years (2011-2018).
    Issue 37: DOE requests historical data on double-duct ACUAC and 
ACUHP systems. If the absolute number of historical shipments for 
double-duct systems are not available, DOE requests information on the 
approximate fraction of double-duct systems relative to the total 
shipments of ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    Issue 38: DOE requests comment on its approach to develop CWAF 
shipments. If available, DOE requests available annual sales data 
(i.e., number of shipments) for CWAFs for the years after 2010.

I. National Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the NIA is to estimate the aggregate economic 
impacts of potential new or amended energy conservation standards at 
the national level. The NIA assesses the NES and the national NPV of 
total customer costs and savings that would be expected to result from 
new or amended standards at specific efficiency levels.
    A key component of DOE's estimates of NES and NPV is the equipment 
energy efficiencies forecasted over time for the no-new-standards case 
and for standards cases. DOE generally analyzes trends in market 
efficiency to project the no-new-standards case efficiency over the 
NIA's 30-year analysis period. However, in the case of ACUAC (not 
including double ducted), ACUHP (not including double ducted), and 
CWAFs, the market is in the process of moving to compliance with the 
2023 standards, which adds further uncertainty to projections of 
efficiency distribution over the NIA analysis period in the years 
following 2023 based on current trends.
    Issue 39: DOE seeks information on the expected efficiency trends 
in the ACUAC and ACUHP markets, accounting for the impact of the 2023 
standards on the ACUAC and ACUHP equipment classes. In particular, DOE 
requests information on how current efficiency trends will be impacted 
by the 2023 standards.
    Issue 40: DOE seeks information on the expected efficiency trend in 
double-duct ACUAC and ACUHP equipment classes.
    Issue 41: DOE seeks information on expected efficiency trend in the 
CWAF market, accounting for the impact of the 2023 standards.

J. Manufacturer Impact Analysis

    The purpose of the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA) is to 
estimate the financial impact of amended energy conservation standards 
on manufacturers of ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs, and to evaluate the 
potential impact of such standards on direct employment and 
manufacturing capacity. The MIA includes both quantitative and 
qualitative aspects. The quantitative part of the MIA primarily relies 
on the Government Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM), an industry cash-flow 
model adapted for each category of equipment in this analysis, with the 
key output being industry net present value (INPV). The qualitative 
part of the MIA addresses the potential impacts of energy conservation 
standards on manufacturing capacity and manufacturing employment, as 
well as factors such as equipment characteristics, impacts on 
particular subgroups of firms, and important market and equipment 
trends.
    As part of the MIA, DOE intends to analyze impacts of amended 
energy conservation standards on subgroups of manufacturers of covered 
equipment, including small business manufacturers. DOE uses the Small 
Business Administration's (SBA) small business size standards to 
determine whether manufacturers qualify as small businesses, which are 
listed by the applicable North American Industry Classification System 
(NAICS) code.\23\ Manufacturing of ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs is 
classified under NAICS 335415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating 
Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment 
Manufacturing,'' and the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or 
less for a domestic entity to be considered as a small business. This 
employee threshold includes all employees in a business's parent 
company and any other subsidiaries.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Available 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 a covered product or equipment. While any one 
regulation may not impose a significant burden on manufacturers, the 
combined effects of several existing or impending regulations may have 
serious consequences for some manufacturers, groups of manufacturers, 
or an entire industry. Assessing the impact of a single regulation may 
overlook this cumulative regulatory burden. In addition to energy 
conservation standards, other regulations can significantly affect 
manufacturers' financial operations. Multiple regulations affecting the 
same manufacturer can strain profits and lead companies to abandon 
product lines or markets with lower expected future returns than 
competing products. For these reasons, DOE conducts an analysis of 
cumulative regulatory burden as part of its rulemakings pertaining to 
appliance efficiency.
    Issue 42: To the extent feasible, DOE seeks the names and contact 
information of any domestic or foreign-based manufacturers that 
distribute ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs in commerce in the United States.
    Issue 43: DOE identified small businesses as a subgroup of 
manufacturers that could be disproportionally impacted by amended 
energy conservation standards. DOE

[[Page 27954]]

requests the names and contact information of small business 
manufacturers (as defined by the SBA's size threshold) of ACUACs, 
ACUHPs, and CWAFs that distribute equipment in commerce in the United 
States. In addition, DOE requests comment on any other manufacturer 
subgroups that could be disproportionally impacted by amended energy 
conservation standards. DOE requests feedback on any potential 
approaches that could be considered to address impacts on 
manufacturers, including small businesses.
    Issue 44: DOE requests information regarding the cumulative 
regulatory burden impacts on manufacturers of ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs 
associated with: (1) Other DOE standards applying to different 
equipment that these manufacturers may also make and (2) equipment-
specific regulatory actions of other Federal agencies. DOE also 
requests comment on its methodology for computing cumulative regulatory 
burden and whether there are any flexibilities it can consider that 
would reduce this burden while remaining consistent with the 
requirements of EPCA.

K. 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 ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs.
2. Network Mode/``Smart'' Technology
    DOE 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 inadvertently impede such innovation in 
fulfilling its statutory obligations in setting efficiency standards 
for covered products and equipment. DOE seeks comments, data, and 
information on the issues presented in that RFI as they may be 
applicable to energy conservation standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and 
CWAFs.
3. Other Issues
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on any other aspect of energy 
conservation standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs 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). Consistent with 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 ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs while remaining consistent with the 
requirements of EPCA.

III. Submission of Comments

    DOE invites all interested parties to submit in writing by the date 
specified previously in the DATES section of this document, comments 
and information on matters addressed in this document and on other 
matters relevant to DOE's consideration of amended energy conservations 
standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and CWAFs. After the close of the comment 
period, DOE will review the public comments received and may begin 
collecting data and conducting the analyses discussed in this 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 Office staff only. Your contact information will 
not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, 
organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). 
If your comment is not processed properly because of technical 
difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot 
contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your 
comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Following such instructions, 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,

[[Page 27955]]

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.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).
    DOE considers public participation to be a very important part of 
the process for developing energy conservation standards. DOE actively 
encourages the participation and interaction of the public during the 
comment period in each stage of the rulemaking process. Interactions 
with and between members of the public provide a balanced discussion of 
the issues and assist DOE in the process.
    Anyone who wishes to be added to the DOE mailing list to receive 
future notices and information about this process should contact 
Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287-1445 or 
via email at [email protected].

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on April 2, 
2020, by Alexander N. Fitzsimmons, Deputy Assistant Secretary for 
Energy Efficiency Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on April 29, 2020.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.
[FR Doc. 2020-09414 Filed 5-11-20; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6450-01-P