Home/Federal/Federal Register/2021-28553

Proposed Rule2021-28553

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps

Primary source

Metadata and text below are from the Federal Register, a public-domain U.S. government work. Always verify the official published version before relying on it for any legal matter.

Published

January 14, 2022

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") proposes to amend its test procedures for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the most recent version of the relevant industry test standard, AHRI 390-2021, and to amend certain provisions for representations for the subject equipment. DOE is also proposing definitions for "single-phase single package vertical air conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h" and for "single-phase single package vertical heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h." The proposed definitions would explicitly define this equipment as subsets of the broader single package vertical air conditioner and single package vertical heat pump equipment categories, and further distinguish such equipment from certain residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE seeks comment from interested parties on this proposal.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 87 Issue 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2490-2522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28553]

[[Page 2489]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 10

January 14, 2022

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical
Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 /
Proposed Rules

[[Page 2490]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020]
RIN 1904-AD94

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package
Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (``DOE'') proposes to amend its
test procedures for single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps. DOE is proposing to incorporate by
reference the most recent version of the relevant industry test
standard, AHRI 390-2021, and to amend certain provisions for
representations for the subject equipment. DOE is also proposing
definitions for ``single-phase single package vertical air conditioners
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and for ``single-phase
single package vertical heat pumps with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h.'' The proposed definitions would explicitly define this
equipment as subsets of the broader single package vertical air
conditioner and single package vertical heat pump equipment categories,
and further distinguish such equipment from certain residential central
air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE seeks comment from interested
parties on this proposal.

DATES:
Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding
this proposal no later than March 15, 2022. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Wednesday, February 9th, 2022,
from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public Participation,''
for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and
information about the capabilities available to webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020,
by any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: To <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3f6c6f697e7c5e515b775a5e4b6f4a524f4c0d0f0e086b6f0f0f0d0f7f5a5a115b505a11585049">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include docket
number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020 in the subject line of the message.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V, ``Public Participation,'' of this document.
Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail
and hand delivery/courier.
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting/webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. All documents in the docket are listed in the
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020">www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020</a>. The docket web page contains
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for information
on how to submit comments through <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 586-7335. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#662716160a0f0708050335120708020714021537130315120f0908152603034802090348010910">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#793c0b101a572a0d180a391108571d161c571e160f">[email&#160;protected]</a>.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting/
webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at
(202) 287-1445 or by email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#410031312d28202f22241235202f25203325321034243235282e2f320124246f252e246f262e37">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE proposes to maintain a previously
approved incorporation by reference and incorporate by reference the
following industry standards into parts 429 and 431:
AHRI Standard 390-2021 ``Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' dated 2021.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,''
ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA 92), ``Standard Methods For
Laboratory Airflow Measurement,'' ASHRAE approved October 1, 1987.
Copies of AHRI Standard 390-2021 can be obtained from the Air-
conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or by going to
<a href="http://www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx">www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx</a>.
Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
41.2-1987 (RA 92) can be obtained from the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 180 Technology
Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092, (404) 636-8400, or by going to
<a href="https://www.ashrae.org/">https://www.ashrae.org/</a>.
See section IV.M for a further discussion of these standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
A. Authority
B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
A. Scope of Applicability
B. Updates to Industry Standards
1. Updates to AHRI 390
2. ASHRAE 37
C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU Test Procedure
D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor
1. Efficiency Metrics
2. Test Conditions Used for Efficiency Metrics
3. Fan Energy Use
E. Test Method

[[Page 2491]]

1. Unit Set-Up
2. Air Temperature Measurements
3. Defrost Energy Use
4. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method
F. Configuration of Unit Under Test
1. Specific Components
G. Represented Values
1. Multiple Refrigerants
2. Cooling Capacity
H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
I. Reserved Appendices for Test Procedures for Commercial Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment
J. Compliance Dates
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
A. Participation in the Webinar
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Webinar
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Single package vertical air conditioners (``SPVACs'') and single
package vertical heat pumps (``SPVHPs''), collectively referred to as
single package vertical units (``SPVUs''), are a category of small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment. Accordingly, SPVUs are included in the list of ``covered
equipment'' for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy
conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
DOE's energy conservation standards and test procedures for SPVUs are
currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR'') section 97 to subpart F of part 431 and section 96 to subpart
F of part 431, respectively. The following sections discuss DOE's
authority to establish test procedures for SPVUs and relevant
background information regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures
for SPVUs.

A. Authority

The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (``EPCA''),\1\
authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of
consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291-
6317) Title III, Part C \2\ of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title
IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes small,
large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, including SPVUs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec.
27, 2020).
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291;42
U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314),
labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the
authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42
U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316)
The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1)
Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C.
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). DOE also uses these
test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
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 of EPCA. (42 U.S.C.
6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)D))
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures
DOE must follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for
covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or
amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test
results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative
average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314 (a)(2))
As discussed earlier in this document, SPVUs are a category of
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA
requires that the test procedures for commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment be those generally accepted industry
testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') or by
the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ``Energy
Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings''
(``ASHRAE Standard 90.1''). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such
an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test
procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure,
unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and
supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test
procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and
(3) related to representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE must
evaluate the test procedures for each type of covered equipment,
including SPVUs, to determine whether amended test procedures would
more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test
procedures in the Federal Register and afford interested persons an
opportunity (of not less than 45 days duration) to present oral and
written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not
appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))

[[Page 2492]]

DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of its obligations
under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))

B. Background

DOE's existing test procedures for SPVUs are set forth at 10 CFR
431.96. The Federal test procedure currently incorporates ANSI/AHRI
Standard 390-2003 (``ANSI/AHRI 390-2003''), ``Performance Rating of
Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' (omitting
section 6.4), and it also includes additional provisions in paragraphs
(c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 that provide for an optional break-in
period and additional provisions for equipment set-up, respectively.
DOE established its test procedure for SPVUs in a final rule for
commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment
published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 28928, 28932.
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 was the SPVU test standard referenced in the edition
of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at that time.
On July 20, 2018, DOE published a request for information (``RFI'')
in the Federal Register to collect information and data to consider
amendments to DOE's test procedures for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499 (``July 2018
RFI''). As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE identified and requested
comment on several issues associated with the currently applicable
Federal test procedures, in particular concerning incorporation by
reference of the most recent version of the relevant industry standard;
efficiency metrics and calculations; and clarification of test methods.
Id. at 83 FR 3449. DOE also sought comment on any additional topics
that may inform DOE's decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking,
including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the test
procedures' accuracy. Id.
DOE received a number of comments from interested parties in
response to the July 2018 RFI. Table I-1 lists each commenter and the
abbreviation for each used in this document. DOE considered these
comments in the preparation of this NOPR. Discussion of the relevant
comments, as well as DOE's responses, are provided in the appropriate
sections of this document.

Table I-1--Interested Parties Providing Comment on the July 2018 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI........................ IR.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE....... EA.
Natural Resources Defense Council,
American Council for an Energy-
Efficient Economy.
GE Appliances, a Haier Company.......... GE.......................... M.
Lennox International Inc................ Lennox...................... M.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, NEEA and NWPCC.............. EA and Interstate Compact Agency.
and Northwest Power and Conservation
Council.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), CA IOUs..................... U.
San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and
Southern California Edison (SCE);
collectively the California Investor-
Owned Utilities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; U: Utility.

A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for
information located in the docket of DOE's rulemaking to amend the
test procedures for SPVUs (Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020, which is
maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail">www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail</a>;D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0020). The references are arranged as follows: (Commenter name,
comment docket ID number, page of that document).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 24, 2021, AHRI published updates to its test procedure for
SPVUs as AHRI Standard 390-2021, ``Performance Rating of Single Package
Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (``AHRI 390-2021''). Among
other things, AHRI 390-2021 maintains the existing efficiency metrics--
energy efficiency ratio (``EER'') for cooling mode and coefficient of
performance (``COP'') for heating mode--but it also added a seasonal
metric that includes part-load cooling performance--the integrated
energy efficiency ratio (``IEER'') metric. AHRI 390-2021 also includes
additional specifications regarding the test methods and conditions.

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to amend the test procedures for
SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI 390-2021. DOE proposes to add a
new appendix G, ``Uniform test method for measuring the energy
consumption of single package vertical air conditioners and single
package vertical heat pumps,'' (``appendix G'') that would include the
relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring the
existing efficiency metrics: (1) EER for cooling mode and (2) COP for
heating mode. DOE is also proposing add a new appendix G1 that would
include the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for
measuring with updated efficiency metrics: (1) IEER for cooling mode
and (2) COP for heating mode. Appendix G1 would provide the test
procedure for representations based on IEER and would be mandatory only
at such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation
standards based on IEER, should DOE adopt standards using such metrics.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to define ``single-phase single
package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as subsets of the broader
SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category, in order to clarify what kind of
single-phase equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h was
contemplated in the broader definitions of SPVAC and SPVHP established
by Congress. Single-phase equipment meeting these definitions would be
subject to the applicable commercial equipment energy conservation
standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, while single-phase products not
meeting these definitions would properly be classified as CAC and
subject to the applicable consumer products energy conservation
standards.
DOE is proposing to establish appendices for the relevant test
procedures for SPVUs to better differentiate the specific testing
requirements. Currently, the test requirements for all types of
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, including SPVUs, are
codified at 10 CFR 431.96. In conjunction, DOE proposes to amend Table
1 to 10 CFR 431.96 to identify the newly added Appendices G and G1 as
the applicable test procedures for testing SPVUs.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II-1 and addressed
in detail in section III of this document.

[[Page 2493]]

Table II-1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to Current Test Procedure
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Current DOE TP Proposed TP Attribution
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 390- Incorporates by reference AHRI 390-2021, Adopt industry test
2003 (excluding section 6.4). which includes the following changes. procedure.
--Includes a new energy efficiency
descriptor, IEER, which incorporates part-
load performance.
--Provides direction and accompanying
definitions for determining whether a
unit is tested as a ducted or non-
ducted unit.
--Directs that the outdoor air-side
attachments used for testing must be
specified by the manufacturer in the
supplemental testing instructions.
--Includes refrigerant charging
instructions for cases where they are
not provided by the manufacturer.
--Specifies tolerances for achieving
the rated airflow and/or minimum
external static pressure (``ESP'')
during testing and specifies how to
set indoor airflow if airflow and ESP
tolerances cannot be simultaneously
met.
--Incorporates specifications for
measuring outdoor air conditions.
--Requires data be recorded at equal
intervals of 5 minutes or less over a
30-minute measurement period.
--Clarifies that test results for
outdoor air enthalpy method are based
on results without test apparatus
connected.
--Defines the term ``manufacturer's
installation instructions'' and
includes hierarchy of precedence if
multiple instructions are included.
Only includes definitions for the Includes additional definitions: ``single- Explicitly delineate SPVUs
equipment categories; ``Single Package phase single package vertical air from other covered
Vertical Air Conditioner'' and ``Single conditioner with cooling capacity less products.
Package Vertical Heat Pump''. than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase
single package vertical heat pump with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h''.
Does not include provisions for certain Includes provisions for testing when Establish provisions for
components. certain components are present. testing with certain
components.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments would
not be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, DOE has tentatively determined
that the proposed amendments described in section III of this NOPR
would not alter the measured efficiency of SPVUs or require retesting
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the
test procedure, if made final. Use of the updated industry test
procedure provisions as proposed in Appendix G1 and the related
proposed amendments to representation requirements in 10 CFR 429.43
would not be required until the compliance date of any amended
standards denominated in terms of IEER. Additionally, DOE has
tentatively determined that the proposed amendments, if made final,
would not increase the cost of testing. Discussion of DOE's proposed
actions are addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of
2007 (``EISA 2007''), Public Law 110-140 (Dec. 19, 2007), defines
``single package vertical air conditioner'' and ``single package
vertical heat pump'' at 42 U.S.C. 6311(22) and (23), respectively. In
particular, these units can be single- or three-phase; must have major
components arranged vertically; must be an encased combination of
components; and must be intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent
interior to, or through an outside wall. DOE codified the statutory
definitions into its regulations at 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, EPCA
established initial equipment classes for SPVUs with a capacity less
than 65,000 Btu/h based on phase. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)(i)-(ii) and
(v)-(vi))
DOE currently defines an SPVAC as air-cooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment that: (1) Is factory-assembled as a
single package that: (i) Has major components that are arranged
vertically; (ii) is an encased combination of cooling and optional
heating components; and (iii) is intended for exterior mounting on,
adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) is powered by a
single-or 3-phase current; (3) may contain 1 or more separate indoor
grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air
discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (4) has heating
components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or
gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating
means. 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, DOE defines an SPVHP as a single
package vertical air conditioner that: (1) Uses reverse cycle
refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may include secondary
supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot
water, or gas. Id. The Federal test procedures are applicable to SPVUs
with a cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D))
DOE is proposing to add specific definitions for ``single-phase
single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' to explicitly delineate
such equipment from certain covered consumer products, such as central
air conditioners, based on design characteristics. On April 24, 2020,
DOE published in the Federal Register a request for information
(``RFI'') with regards to SPVU energy conservation standards (85 FR
22958). In response to this RFI, Lennox commented that misunderstanding
the distinction between CACs and SPVUs remains an outstanding issue on
which DOE should take action. (Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0033-0008 at
pp. 1-2))
EPCA defines a ``central air conditioner'' as a product, other than
a packaged terminal air conditioner,\4\ which is powered by single-
phase electric current, air-cooled, rated below 65,000 Btu per hour, is
not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace with a rated
capacity above 225,000 Btu per hour, and is a heat pump or a cooling
only unit. (42 U.S.C. 6291(21)) DOE has incorporated this definition in
10 CFR 430.2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ ``Packaged terminal air conditioner'' is defined in 10 CFR
430.92 as a wall sleeve and a separate un-encased combination of
heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder and intended
for mounting through the wall, and that is industrial equipment. It
includes a prime source of refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers,
forced ventilation, and heating availability by builder's choice of
hot water, steam, or electricity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading the two definitions of SPVUs and CACs in isolation, certain
single-phase air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacity less
than 65,000

[[Page 2494]]

Btu/h and with their components arranged vertically could be understood
to be SPVUs, as opposed to CACs. DOE has previously explained that the
definitions of SPVUs and CACs must be read in the context of DOE's
authority to regulate certain consumer products (i.e., covered
products) and certain industrial equipment (i.e., covered equipment).
79 FR 78614, 78625 (April 11, 2014). Industrial equipment under EPCA
generally excludes ``covered products.'' (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(iii))
``Covered products'' are certain consumer products explicitly set forth
in the statute, as well as consumer products which have been classified
as a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). EPCA defines ``consumer
product,'' in part, as an article which, to any significant extent, is
distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals.
(42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) CACs are covered products. A product can only be
classified as an SPVU, and, therefore, industrial equipment under EPCA,
if it does not meet the definition of any covered product, including
CACs. 79 FR 78614, 78625 (April 11, 2014).
To clarify the distinction between SPVUs as industrial equipment
and CACs as covered consumer products, DOE proposes to define in 10 CFR
431.92 ``single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single
package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/
h.'' The current definitions of SPVAC and SPVHP at 10 CFR 431.92 allow
for both wall-mounted and floor-mounted units, and either may use
single-phase or three-phase power. DOE proposes to include certain
characteristics as part of these definitions that will evidence that
these equipment would likely not be distributed to any significant
extent in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals.
These characteristics would distinguish SPVU equipment from CACs, which
are consumer products.
DOE has identified specific technical features that differentiate
floor-mounted, single-phase units intended only for commercial
applications (i.e., meaning they are SPVUs) from ones intended for
consumer applications, such as multi-family type floor-mounted, single-
phase units (i.e., meaning they are CACs). DOE has preliminarily
determined that, in order to meet commercial building ventilation
requirements \5\ (an indication that a unit is industrial equipment and
not a consumer product), floor-mounted, single-phase units on the
market have the ability for outdoor air intake. This is evidenced by
the existence of outdoor air intake dampers and associated controls.
These ventilation air provisions make the unit capable of drawing in
and conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space
(with or without first mixing the outdoor air with return air).
Technical specifications for these floor-mounted, single-phase units
detail both the incremental and maximum outdoor air flow rates
available to meet the specific indoor air quality needs of building
occupants. Of the maximum outdoor air flow rates that DOE identified
for each unit on the market, the unit with the lowest maximum outdoor
air flow rate identified was capable of providing a maximum of 400
cubic feet per minute (``CFM'') of outdoor air, with the same drive kit
and motor settings used to determine the certified efficiency rating of
the equipment (as required for submittal to DOE by 10 CFR
429.43(b)(4)(xi)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019 details ventilation standards for
a variety of commercial building spaces, including educational
spaces, which are the primary market for floor-mounted, single-phase
SPVUs. Specifically, for standard classrooms occupied with persons
between the ages of 5 and 8, 10 CFM of outdoor air flow per person
is required at a default occupancy of 25 individuals per 1,000
square feet. This translates to a requirement of 250 CFM per 1,000
square feet under default occupancy. For standard classrooms
occupied by persons 9 years and older, 10 CFM of outdoor air per
person is required at a default occupancy of 35 individuals per
1,000 square feet. This translates to a requirement of 350 CFM per
1,000 square feet under default occupancy. For specialty classrooms
(lecture rooms, art, science, college laboratories, wood/metal
shops, computer labs, media centers, music/theater/dance), specific
outdoor air requirements range from 250 CFM to 350 CFM per 1,000
square feet under default occupancy. (For further details, see ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019, Table 6-1.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conversely, DOE preliminarily has found that the multi-family type
floor-mounted, single-phase units that are consumer products because
they are distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by
individuals (i.e., CACs) have little to no ability to provide outdoor
air to the conditioned space. Based on DOE's review of manufacturer
literature, for those consumer products that do provide outdoor air,
none could provide more than 120 CFM of outdoor air to the conditioned
space. Building ventilation codes may require specific levels of
outdoor air flow for multi-family type structures, but the outdoor
ventilation airflow requirements for such living spaces are
substantially lower than those for the spaces generally served by the
market for floor-mounted, single-phase SPVUs.\6\ Thus, DOE initially
has determined that, at the present time and in most cases, these
outdoor ventilation airflow requirements are adequately met using
ventilation techniques other than the outdoor air provisions
incorporated in single-package units.\7\ In addition, DOE notes that in
other applications in areas where ventilation standards exist
specifically for residences, the required outdoor air flow levels for
these structures are similar to those for multi-family type
structures.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ For the multi-family applications of hotels, motels,
resorts, and dormitories, ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019 requires outdoor
air flow rates of 5 CFM per person at a default occupancy of 10
individuals per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a requirement
of 50 CFM per 1,000 square feet under default occupancy. (For
further details, see ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2019, Table 6-1.)
\7\ Ventilation in high-rise multi-family apartment buildings is
typically achieved using a combination of natural and mechanical
ventilation. The preferred mechanical ventilation method is a
central system, which uses ventilation ducts oriented vertically
through stacks of apartments, with make-up air sourced from air
conditioning/heating units located on the roof and supplied via
vertical ducts. For more information see: A Guide to Energy
Efficient Ventilation in Apartment Buildings. U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE/EE-0196). 1999 (Available at: <a href="http://eetd.lbl.gov/node/50537">eetd.lbl.gov/node/50537</a>).
\8\ Table N1104.2 of the ``Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1322
Residential Energy Code'' specifies ventilation rates for residences
based on a range of square footages and numbers of bedrooms. For
residences with a conditioned space between 1,000 and 1,500 square
feet in area, ventilation rates are similar to those listed in
ASHRAE Standard 62.1-2013 per 1,000 square feet for the multi-family
applications of hotels, motels, resorts, and dormitories.
Specifically, for residences with a conditioned space between 1,000
and 1,500 square feet in area, total ventilation rates range from 60
CFM (for a single-bedroom residence) to 135 CFM (for a six-bedroom
residence).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Based on the discussion in the prior paragraphs, DOE has
preliminarily determined that a key physical characteristic
demonstrating that floor-mounted, single-phase SPVUs are not ``of a
type'' distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by
individuals is the ability to provide outdoor air sufficient for
commercial applications. Equipment with the ability to provide 400 CFM
or greater of outdoor air, which significantly exceeds the outdoor air
requirements for residences and multi-family applications, would likely
not be distributed to any significant extent in commerce for personal
use or consumption by individuals and, therefore, is not a consumer
product. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1))
DOE's review of the market for wall-mounted configurations did not
find that there was a threshold capability of providing outdoor air to
distinguish between wall-mounted, single-phase units for use in
commercial applications

[[Page 2495]]

(SPVUs) and multi-family-type floor-mounted, single-phase units (CACs).
However, based on DOE's review, all wall-mounted units marketed for
commercial applications identified by DOE were weatherized (i.e.,
designed for outdoor use) and denoted on their nameplate that they are
for ``Outdoor Use'' or ``Suitable for Outdoor Use.'' Conversely, all
units marketed for multi-family-type floor-mounted applications
identified by DOE were non-weatherized units. Based on this review, DOE
also proposes that whether a model is weatherized or non-weatherized is
a criterion for distinguishing between single-phase SPVUs and consumer
CACs.
Therefore, DOE proposes to define in 10 CFR 431.92 ``single-phase
single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as SPVACs and SPVHPs,
respectively, that are either (1) weatherized, or (2) non-weatherized
and have the ability to provide a minimum of 400 CFM of outdoor air.
Single-phase single package products with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h not meeting these definitions would be properly classified
as CACs, not SPVUs.
DOE recognizes that the confusion with the appropriate
classification of CACs and SPVUs may have been compounded by DOE's
definition of ``space-constrained'' CACs and ASHRAE Standard 90.1's
definition of ``nonweatherized space constrained single-package
vertical unit.'' Nonetheless, because a space-constrained product is a
central air conditioner or heat pump, it is properly classified as a
consumer product. In 10 CFR 430.2, DOE defines ``space constrained
product'' as a central air conditioner or heat pump with certain
characteristics including rated cooling capacity no greater than 30,000
Btu/hr and an outdoor or indoor unit with dimensions or displacement
substantially smaller than those of other units and that if increased
would increase installation cost or reduce utility, and which was
available for purchase in the United States as of December 1, 2000. As
with CACs more broadly, if a unit meets DOE's definition of ``space
constrained product,'' it is not an SPVU.
In contrast, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 created a new equipment
class for SPVACs and SPVHPs used in space-constrained applications,
with a definition for ``nonweatherized space constrained single-package
vertical unit'' and specified efficiency standards for the associated
equipment class. In a Notice of Data Availability addressing energy
conservation standards for certain commercial heating, air
conditioning, and water heating equipment, including SPVUs, published
in the Federal Register on April 11, 2014, DOE explicitly addressed
``nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical units'' and
tentatively concluded that there was no need to establish a separate
space-constrained class for SPVUs. 79 FR 20114, 20123. In that
document, DOE stated that certain models currently listed by
manufacturers as SPVUs, most of which would have met the ASHRAE space-
constrained definition, were being misclassified and should be
classified as central air conditioners (in most cases, space-
constrained central air conditioners). Id. DOE reaffirmed this position
in a NOPR addressing energy conservation standards for SPVUs, published
in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014, emphasizing that a
product can only be considered commercial/industrial equipment under
EPCA if it does not meet the definition of a consumer product. 79 FR
78614, 78625. In the subsequent final rule addressing energy
conversation standards for SPVUs, DOE did not adopt definitions in
response to this issue and stated it would consider the matter in a
subsequent rulemaking. 80 FR 57438, 57448 (Sept. 23, 2015).
DOE has now tentatively determined that the characteristics
included in the proposed definitions earlier in this section of
``single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package
vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h''
appropriately distinguish such equipment from consumer products and
address any potential confusion as to the application of the DOE
definition of ``space constrained products'' to SPVUs.
In regard to determining if a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM
of outdoor air, DOE is proposing to include provisions in 10 CFR
429.134 that specify the method of measurement of the maximum outdoor
ventilation airflow rate. DOE is proposing to specify that the outdoor
ventilation airflow rate should be set up and measured in accordance
with ASHRAE 41.2-1987, ``Standard Methods for Laboratory Airflow
Measurement,'' and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE notes that the
proposed method for measuring outdoor ventilation airflow is generally
consistent with the test methods specified in AHRI 390-2021 (i.e., AHRI
390-2021 incorporates by reference ASHRAE 37-2009, including Section
6.4, which in turn incorporates by reference ASHRAE 41.2-1987, which
specify the method of airflow measurement.) DOE is proposing additional
specifications in this NOPR to clarify how these provisions are applied
to measure the outdoor ventilation airflow rate. First, DOE is
proposing to specify that all references to the inlet in ASHRAE 41.2-
1987 and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37-2009 refer to the outdoor air inlet.
Second, DOE is proposing to specify that the measurement should take
place at the conditions specified for Full Load Standard Rating
Capacity Test, Cooling in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021, except for the
minimum external static pressure (ESP). The minimum ESP for all
validations shall be 0.00 in. H<INF>2</INF>O measured from inlet to
outlet, with a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in. H<INF>2</INF>O. Finally,
DOE is proposing that the outdoor air inlet pressure shall be 0.00 in.
H<INF>2</INF>O, with a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in. H<INF>2</INF>O when
measured against the room ambient. These additional provisions would
improve the representativeness, repeatability, and reproducibility of
the test methods for validating the outdoor ventilation airflow rate.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its proposal to define ``single-
phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical
heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as subsets of
the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category. DOE requests feedback
on the proposed characteristics that would distinguish this equipment
as SPVUs (i.e., ``weatherized'' or capable of utilizing a maximum of
400 CFM of outdoor air). Additionally, DOE requests comment on the
proposed method to validate that a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM
of outdoor air.

B. Updates to Industry Standards

1. Updates to AHRI 390
As described in section I.A of this NOPR, with respect to SPVUs,
EPCA directs DOE to use industry test methods developed or recognized
by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended, EPCA
requires that DOE amend its test procedure as necessary to be
consistent with the amended industry test method unless DOE determines,
by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that the

[[Page 2496]]

amended test procedure would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would
not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs of that equipment during a
representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
As mentioned, the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 references
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 (excluding Section 6.4) for testing SPVUs, and
ASHRAE Standard 90.1 references this same industry test standard. In
response to the July 2018 RFI, GE commented that DOE should continue to
incorporate by reference the ASHRAE, ANSI, and AHRI test procedures for
SPVUs, including new editions when published by the standards-setting
bodies. (GE, No. 3 at p. 1) \9\ AHRI and Lennox encouraged DOE's
continued participation in the process to revise AHRI 390. (AHRI, No. 5
at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at pp. 1-2) AHRI and Lennox recommended that DOE
adopt the revised industry test standard as the DOE test procedure.
(AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 1)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ A notation in the form ``GE, No. 3 at p. 1'' identifies a
written comment: (1) Made by GE; (2) recorded in document number 3
that is filed in the docket of the SPVU test procedure rulemaking
(Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020) and available for review at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>; and (3) that appears on page 1 of document
number 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On June 24, 2021, AHRI published AHRI 390-2021, which supersedes
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003. AHRI 390-2021, which was developed as part of an
industry consensus process, includes revisions that DOE has initially
determined improve the representativeness, repeatability, and
reproducibility of the test methods. These revisions include, among
other things, the following: (1) A new energy efficiency descriptor,
IEER, which incorporates part-load cooling performance; (2) additional
specification to the testing requirements for ducted and non-ducted
units; (3) refrigerant charging instructions for cases where they are
not provided by the manufacturer; (4) additional specification for
setting the airflow rates and external static pressure for testing; (5)
additional specification for the measurement of air conditions; (6)
additional specification for the secondary capacity measurement using
the outdoor air enthalpy method; (7) guidance on the filter to be used
during test; (8) specification of a maximum compressor break-in period;
(9) further specificity for atmospheric pressure measurement
requirements; (10) additional detail regarding the installation of
outdoor air-side attachments; (11) additional direction on the use of
applicable manufacturer instructions; and (12) a list of components
that must be present for testing. DOE carefully reviewed the changes in
AHRI 390-2021 in consideration of this NOPR. In this NOPR, DOE proposes
to incorporate by reference the latest version of the industry test
procedure for SPVUs, AHRI 390-2021, per 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A) and
(B).
2. ASHRAE 37
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, a method of test for many categories of air
conditioning and heating equipment, is referenced by AHRI 390-2021 for
testing SPVUs. In particular, Appendix E of AHRI 390-2021 specifies the
method of test for SPVUs, including the use of specified provisions of
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Consistent with AHRI 390-2021, DOE is proposing to
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in its test procedure for
SPVUs. Specifically, in Section 1.2 of the proposed test procedure for
SPVUs in the proposed Appendices G and G1 of subpart F of 10 CFR part
431, DOE is proposing to utilize the applicable sections of ANSI/ASHRAE
37-2009--all sections except sections 1, 2 and 4. DOE also is proposing
that in the event of any conflicts between the DOE test procedure, AHRI
390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009, the DOE test procedure takes highest
precedence, followed by AHRI 390-2021, followed by ASHRAE 37-2009.

C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU Test Procedure

DOE is proposing to relocate and centralize the current test
procedure for SPVUs to a new Appendix G to subpart F of part 431.
Appendix G will incorporate by reference AHRI 390-2021, but DOE will
exclude from use those sections pertaining to the calculation of IEER
(section 6.2). Correspondingly, DOE is proposing to update the existing
incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 at 10 CFR 431.95 so
that the incorporation by reference applies to Appendix G rather than
10 CFR 431.96. As proposed, SPVUs would be tested according to Appendix
G unless and until DOE adopts an amended energy conservation standard
that relies on the IEER metric.
DOE also is proposing to amend the test procedure for SPVUs by
adopting the updated version of AHRI 390-2021, including use of the
sections pertaining to IEER (section 6.2) in a new Appendix G1 to
subpart F of part 431, as discussed in the following sections. As
proposed, SPVUs would not be required to test according to the test
procedure in proposed Appendix G1 unless and until DOE adopts an
amended energy conservation standard that relies on the IEER metric.

D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor

For SPVUs, DOE currently prescribes EER as the cooling mode metric
and COP as the heating mode metric. 10 CFR 431.96. These energy
efficiency descriptors are consistent with those included in ASHRAE
90.1-2019 for SPVUs. EER is the ratio of the produced cooling effect of
the SPVU to its net work input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour and measured
at standard rating conditions. COP is the ratio of the produced heating
effect of the SPVU to its net work input, expressed in W/W, and
measured at standard rating conditions.
1. Efficiency Metrics
EER measures efficiency at full-load conditions. DOE's current test
procedure for SPVUs does not include a seasonal metric that measures
part-load performance. A seasonal metric is a weighted average of the
performance of cooling or heating systems at different rating points
intended to represent average efficiency over a full cooling or heating
season.
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that several other categories of
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment are rated
using a seasonal metric, such as IEER for air-cooled commercial unitary
air conditioners (``CUACs''), as presented in Section 6.2 of AHRI 340/
360-2019, ``Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary
Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment.'' 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July
20, 2018). IEER is a weighted average of efficiency at the four load
levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent of full-load capacity,
each measured at an outdoor air condition representative of field
operation at the given load level.
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 includes a
seasonal part-load metric for SPVUs (i.e., integrated part-load value
(``IPLV'')). 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). IPLV integrates unit
performance at each capacity step provided by the refrigeration system.
The IPLV tests are conducted at constant outdoor air conditions of 80
[deg]F dry-bulb temperature and 67 [deg]F wet-bulb temperature. Id. DOE
is aware that some manufacturers make representations of part-load
performance of SPVUs in product literature using IPLV. DOE has noted
that IPLV was formerly used for rating CUACs but has since been removed
from AHRI 340/360 in favor of IEER. Id.

[[Page 2497]]

As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it
should consider adopting for SPVUs a cooling-mode metric that
integrates part-load performance to better represent full-season
efficiency, and whether a part-load metric such as IEER or IPLV would
be appropriate for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018).
AHRI and GE both commented that DOE should not consider adopting a
part-load cooling metric at this time, stating that doing so would
increase test burden for a specialized product sold in a comparatively
small market. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6; GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE noted that
for SPVUs with single-speed compressors, the EER test method requires
only a single test with an average of 8 hours to complete and validate
test data, whereas an IEER test method would require four tests, which
entails additional testing time and cost. (GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE stated
that for dual-voltage units, the IEER test method would increase test
time to approximately 64 hours per unit, and that the time to test 3
units for a given model would increase testing time from 48 hours to
192 hours under the IEER test method. Id.
AHRI commented that a part-load metric may be appropriate for some
equipment, such as two-stage or variable-capacity SPVUs, but only for
certain applications. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) AHRI and Lennox commented
that as part of the revisions to AHRI 390, industry is assessing
whether IEER or IPLV would better represent part-load performance for
units other than single-stage products. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6; Lennox.
No. 6 at p. 5) Lennox commented that while a part-load metric may be a
favorable option for SPVUs in the long term, there was not sufficient
data at that time to evaluate the impacts on performance and the
increase in test burden versus potential consumer benefits of optimized
part-load performance. (Lennox. No. 6 at p. 5)
The CA IOUs commented that the IEER metric was developed for CUACs
with greater than 65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity using office, retail,
and larger permanent school space loads as the basis for the part-load
weighting factors. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 3) They noted that SPVUs are
generally used in smaller settings, such as electronic sheds and
relatively small relocatable classrooms. Id. The CA IOUs stated that,
while there may be some shortcomings with the IEER metric, it results
in ratings more reflective of annual energy efficiency than those
produced by IPLV. Id. The CA IOUs commented that IPLV, on the other
hand, has a strong potential to misrepresent efficiency ratings because
it does not rate all units at identical capacity points, leading to a
difference in the weighting factors used for various equipment. Id. In
addition, the CA IOUs commented that all part-load ratings are measured
at an ambient outdoor temperature of 80 [deg]F. Id. The CA IOUs
asserted that these two factors often cause tested units with fewer
capacity reduction stages to have higher measured efficiencies than
those with more stages, whereas in reality, units with more stages tend
to be more efficient. Id.
The CA IOUs stated that while the IEER metric provides a valuable
measure of annual efficiency, the EER metric is important for achieving
reductions in peak loads. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 3) The CA IOUs stated
that because the IEER metric uses a low weighting (i.e., 2 percent) of
the full-load condition, a standard based only on the IEER metric would
incentive manufacturers to optimize equipment at the part-load
conditions and could potentially result in equipment that is designed
with lower full-load EERs than the current standards for this
equipment. Id. The CA IOUs supported using both the IEER metric that
measures part-load efficiencies in conjunction with the currently
regulated full-load EER metric as a means to prevent poor equipment
performance at full-load conditions. Id.
ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should develop a new
cooling efficiency metric for SPVUs that reflects annual energy
consumption, including part-load operation. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No.
4 at p. 1-2) They stated that the current EER metric reflects only
full-load, steady-state operation, but that SPVUs rarely operate at
full-load in the field. Id. at 1. In addition, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE
stated that the current metric is not able to demonstrate potential
improved efficiency of SPVUs with variable-speed or thermostatic and
electronic expansion valve technologies. Id.
ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE also commented that the IEER metric is not
representative of locations and usage patterns for SPVUs and encouraged
DOE to investigate a part-load performance metric that better reflects
SPVU usage. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at pp. 1-2) They commented
that DOE should consider its analysis from the most recent SPVU
standards rulemaking, which included building simulation models for
modular classrooms, modular offices, and telecommunication shelters, to
inform the development of load points and weightings for a part-load
metric. Id. at 2.
In response, DOE recognizes that SPVUs often operate at part-load
(i.e., less than designed full-load capacity) in the field, depending
on the application and location. As discussed in section III.B, AHRI
390-2021 includes a new part-load cooling metric, IEER. To the extent
that AHRI expressed concerns regarding the IEER test method in response
to the July 2018 TP RFI, DOE presumes that AHRI's original position on
this issue changed during the course of developing AHRI 390-2021. The
test conditions and weighting factors for this IEER metric in AHRI 390-
2021 were developed specifically for SPVUs based on an annual building
load analysis and temperature data for buildings representative of SPVU
installations, including modular classrooms, modular offices, and
telecommunication shelters.\10\ The test conditions and weighting
factors for the four load levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25
percent of full-load capacity are different than those used in the IEER
metric in AHRI 340/360-2019, which were developed based on CUAC
building types. As a result, DOE considers the IEER metric
representative of the cooling efficiency for SPVUs on an annual basis,
and more representative than the current EER metric.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ Based on EnergyPlus analysis developed for the previous
energy conservation standards rulemaking for SPVUs. 80 FR 57438,
57462 (Sept. 23, 2015). EnergyPlus is a whole building energy
simulation program (Available at: <a href="http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus">http://apps1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/energyplus</a>/).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI
390-2021, which maintains the existing full-load cooling mode metric,
EER, and adds the IEER metric for SPVUs. More specifically, DOE is
proposing to add a new Appendix G that would include the relevant test
procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring efficiency using the
existing efficiency metrics (i.e., EER for cooling mode and COP for
heating mode) and to add a new Appendix G1 that would incorporate the
provisions for measuring efficiency using IEER and COP.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the test
methods specified in AHRI 390-2021 for calculating IEER for SPVUs.
As discussed, DOE's current standards for SPVUs at 10 CFR 431.97
specify minimum efficiency requirements based on the full-load cooling
metric, EER, and the heating metric, COP. The current DOE standards
levels are the same as those specified in the current version of ASHRAE
Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 90.1-2019).

[[Page 2498]]

Any future energy conservation standards based on IEER would evaluate
differences in the measured energy efficiency based on the IEER metric
relative to EER (i.e., by developing an appropriate ``crosswalk,'' as
necessary), and would consider data and/or analysis that compares the
ratings of SPVUs under the two metrics.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment and data on ratings under the current
EER metric specified in 10 CFR 431.97 and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 based on
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003, as compared to ratings using the IEER metric under
AHRI 390-2021.
ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA and NWPCC, commented in
response to the July 2018 RFI that DOE should consider a dynamic, load-
based test procedure to measure both cooling and heating efficiency of
SPVUs, similar to the test procedure for residential central air
conditioners developed by the Canadian Standards Association (``CSA'')
Group. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at
p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC commented that a load-based test procedure, such
as the CSA test procedure, could measure energy use of the equipment at
25, 50, 75 and 100-percent load without overriding equipment controls,
as opposed to the current IEER test specified in AHRI 340/360 for CUACs
that locks equipment controls to 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of
capacity. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) They commented that a load-
based test would allow manufacturers to design equipment controls and
thermostats that would reduce unnecessary cycling and improve humidity
control. Id. According to NEEA and NWPCC, the current IEER test method
specified in AHRI 340/360 uses an artificially low maximum cycling loss
that does not provide incentive for manufacturers to reduce cycling
losses. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA and NWPCC, commented
that a load-based test would better capture how SPVUs perform in the
field under varying loads, including capturing the impact of cycling
losses, the potential benefits of variable-speed operation, and the
importance of control strategies. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p.
2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3)
DOE is currently not aware of data showing that any dynamic load-
based test procedure produces repeatable and reproducible test results.
Furthermore, DOE is not aware of data showing that the CSA test
procedure recommended by NEEA and NWPCC produces repeatable and
reproducible results for central air conditioners (``CACs'') and heat
pumps, and that procedure has not yet been evaluated for SPVUs.
Therefore, DOE is not proposing any dynamic load-based test procedures
at this time.
2. Test Conditions Used for Efficiency Metrics
Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1), EPCA requires that representations with
respect to the energy consumption of SPVUs must be based on the DOE
test procedure. DOE notes that the heating mode test used to calculate
COP and determine compliance with standards for SPVHPs is conducted at
47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature and 43 [deg]F outdoor air
wet-bulb temperature, and is designated as the ``Full Load Standard
Rating Capacity Test, Heating'' in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021. DOE is
proposing to also utilize Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021, which includes an
optional ``Low Temperature Operation'' heating application rating test
that manufacturers may use to make representations of energy
consumption for SPVUs. That test is based on an outdoor air dry-bulb
temperature of 17 [deg]F and outdoor air wet-bulb temperature of 15
[deg]F.
To allow manufacturers to make voluntary representations at the
lower temperature condition, DOE is proposing to specify in Appendices
G and G1 that the low temperature operation heating mode test
conditions specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 are optional. This
would clarify that additional representations for SPVHPs at a lower
temperature condition are optional, but that if such representations
are made, they must be based on testing conducted in accordance with
the DOE test procedure using the specified low temperature operation
heating mode test conditions in addition to those made at the full-load
standard heating conditions.
Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify that COP
representations using the ``Low Temperature Operation, Heating''
conditions in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 are optional.
3. Fan Energy Use
As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether
changes to the SPVU test procedure are needed to properly characterize
a representative average use cycle, including changes to more
accurately represent fan energy use in field applications. 83 FR 34499,
34503 (July 20, 2018). DOE also requested information as to the extent
that accounting for the energy use of fans in commercial equipment such
as SPVUs would be additive of other existing accountings of fan energy
use. Id. The Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory
Committee (``ASRAC'') Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers
Working Group (``Working Group'') had earlier provided recommendations
regarding the energy conservation standards, test procedures, and
efficiency metrics for commercial and industrial fans and blowers in a
term sheet. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at p. 1)
Specifically, recommendation #3 discussed the need for DOE's test
procedures and related efficiency metrics to account more fully for the
energy consumption of fan use in regulated commercial air-conditioning
equipment. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at pp. 3-4) The
Working Group recommended that DOE consider revising efficiency metrics
that include energy use of supply and condenser fans in order to
include the energy consumption during all relevant operating modes,
including ventilation and part-load operation, in the next round of
test procedure rulemakings. The Working Group included SPVUs in its
list of regulated equipment for which fan energy use should be
considered. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006-0179 at pp. 3-4, 16)
In response to the 2018 RFI, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA
and NWPCC, commented that DOE should amend the test procedure to
account for fan energy use outside of mechanical cooling and heating
for fans in regulated equipment to more fully capture fan energy use.
(ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 1-
3) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE asserted that by failing to capture fan
operation for economizing, ventilation, and other functions outside of
cooling mode, the test procedure may be significantly underestimating
fan energy consumption. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1) NEEA and
NWPCC added that these amendments would encourage the adoption of
features such as variable-speed fans, which provide additional control
and flexibility for building owners and operators in addition to
reducing energy waste. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2)
NEEA and NWPCC commented that the commercial prototype building
models used in the analysis in support of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 include
information on the operation of fans in ventilation mode and economizer
mode, and these models could be used to develop national average fan
operating hours outside of heating and cooling modes. (NEEA and NWPCC,
No. 7 at p. 4) NEEA and NWPCC commented that the vast majority of SPVUs
are

[[Page 2499]]

installed in commercial buildings requiring a building permit and that
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirements are reflective of building code
requirements. Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that, as a result, the energy
models used in support of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are representative of
how the equipment is installed and used across the United States. Id.
NEEA and NWPCC commented that one potential approach to represent
fan energy use in regulated equipment more accurately would be to use
IEER to assess the efficiency of the refrigeration cycle of SPVUs, and
to use an alternative metric to assess the performance of embedded fans
in SPVUs. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 3-4) NEEA and NWPCC suggested
that ANSI/AMCA 208-18, ``Calculation of the Fan Energy Index,''
provides a potential way to measure embedded fan performance in SPVUs
by using the fan energy index (``FEI''). Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that
DOE could, therefore, develop a revised IEER-type metric that weights
together cooling performance based on the traditional IEER test and an
FEI-based metric for fan efficiency. Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that
accounting for the energy use of fan operation in SPVUs does not need
to alter measured efficiency, and that DOE could align the FEI and IEER
metrics such that manufacturers would have multiple viable design
option pathways to achieve the minimum IEER efficiency standard without
improving the embedded fan efficiency above the minimum FEI efficiency
standard. Id.
AHRI and Lennox commented that the current metrics for SPVUs (EER
and COP) account for fan power and that there is no need to double
count fan contribution, asserting that standards based on these metrics
will likely already require the need for improved fan motor efficiency.
(AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 6, 7; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI commented that
adding a requirement to measure fan energy use during economizing or
electric heating would increase testing burden. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6)
AHRI and Lennox further commented that while most SPVUs can provide
some level of ventilation, their primary function is cooling and
heating. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 7; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI asserted
that DOE is limited to one metric per covered product, and, therefore,
the representative average use cycle for SPVUs should concentrate on
the bulk of energy used during cooling and heating, rather than the
occasional and ancillary fan-only ventilation utility. (AHRI, No. 5 at
p. 7) In addition, AHRI asserted that a key goal in prohibiting
separate component standards was to allow the manufacturer to innovate
to meet energy use standards. Id.
AHRI commented that DOE has the authority to include certain fans
and blowers, by rule, as ``covered equipment'' if such products meet
all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6311(2), but the commenter stated
that it would not be appropriate to apply such standard to fans
embedded in regulated equipment. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 8) AHRI asserted
that 42 U.S.C. 6312 limits DOE's authority to regulate as covered
industrial equipment certain articles that are also components of
consumer products. Id. AHRI commented that because the fans in SPVUs
are built only for the product and cannot be purchased on the open
market and applied as ``stand alone fans,'' the fans in SPVUs are
protected from double-regulation under EPCA. Id. AHRI also commented
that DOE's authority under 42 U.S.C. 6312(b) and (c) to regulate
components is based on necessity, and that adding a fan metric to the
current EER requirement is not necessary because SPVUs already have an
overall energy efficiency requirement. Id. AHRI and Lennox commented
that the fact that Congress was compelled to grant a specific provision
of authority for a consumer furnace ventilation metric affirms that DOE
lacks general authority to create overlapping ventilation requirements
for other regulated products. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 8-9; Lennox, No. 6 at
p. 6)
In response to these comments, DOE does not have sufficient
information at this time regarding the operation of fans outside of
mechanical heating and cooling during an average use cycle (e.g.,
economizing, ventilation) specific to SPVU installations as would allow
it to consider changing the existing efficiency metric(s) to include
this aspect of energy use. DOE recognizes that the current metrics for
SPVUs do not include fan energy use during all relevant operation
modes. Provisions to measure fan energy use when there is no heating or
cooling being provided, and when performing ancillary functions (e.g.,
economizing, ventilation, filtration, and auxiliary heat), are not
included in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 and have not been included in the
updated industry consensus standard, AHRI 390-2021. Further, DOE lacks
sufficient information on the number of units capable of operating in
these modes, total energy use in these operating modes, and information
regarding the frequency of operation of these modes during field
conditions, which the Department would need to determine whether such
testing would be appropriate for SPVUs and/or to develop a metric
representing the national average fan operating hours for SPVUs. DOE
notes further that the commercial prototype building models used in the
analysis in support of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that NEEA and NWPCC
recommended do not include information on building types typical to
SPVU installations (i.e., modular and telecommunications). If
additional information becomes available as would allow DOE to consider
incorporation of fan energy use during other relevant SPVU operating
modes for all relevant building types into the test method and metric
for SPVUs, DOE may consider such information in a subsequent rulemaking
proceeding. With regards to comments concerning fan energy use metrics
and regulation of fan energy use being double-counting, DOE will
consider its authority under EPCA when and if developing such test
procedures.

E. Test Method

This section discusses the various issues that DOE identified in
the test methods for SPVUs, including those raised in the July 2018 RFI
and considered as part of DOE's review of AHRI 390-2021. These issues
include: (1) Provisions for testing ducted and non-ducted units; (2)
outdoor air-side airflow rate; (3) refrigerant charging instructions;
(4) voltage requirements; (5) filter requirements; (6) airflow and
external static pressure requirements; (7) air temperature
measurements; (8) defrost energy use; and (9) provisions for the
outdoor air enthalpy method.
In addition, in DOE's existing regulations, Table 1 to 10 CFR
431.96 specifies the applicable industry test procedure for each
category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
and it identifies additional testing requirements that also apply. In
this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reorganize subpart F to 10 CFR part 431
so that the test procedure requirements for SPVUs are included in
separate appendices (Appendix G and G1). DOE proposes that Table 1 to
10 CFR 431.96 identify only the applicable appendix to use for testing
SPVUs (Appendix G or G1) and that 10 CFR 431.96 would no longer include
any additional test requirements for SPVUs.
1. Unit Set-Up
a. Testing Ducted and Non-Ducted Units
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 specifies
different ESP requirements for ducted and non-ducted units. 83 FR
34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). Specifically, Section 5.2.2 of

[[Page 2500]]

ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 requires that non-ducted units be tested at zero
ESP, and it specifies ESP requirements in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003
for ducted equipment. However, whether an SPVU is ducted may depend on
the installation rather than the model. A given SPVU model could be
installed either with or without a duct, thereby resulting in its
status as ducted or non-ducted being determined in the field. In the
July 2018 RFI, DOE stated that it is not aware of physical
characteristics that would readily distinguish SPVUs as either ducted
or non-ducted models and that several models advertise the capability
for use in both ducted and non-ducted installations. DOE noted that
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not specify how to determine whether an SPVU
model is to be tested using the ducted or non-ducted provisions. As
part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on characteristics for
determining whether SPVU models would be installed as ducted or non-
ducted and on how equipment sold for both configurations are currently
tested. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018).
AHRI commented that many, if not all, SPVUs on the market allow for
installation with or without a duct, and that it is standard practice
to test all SPVUs in the ducted configuration. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 2)
AHRI stated that the (then-draft) revised version of AHRI 390 sought to
standardize industry practice by defining a non-ducted unit as an air
conditioner or heat pump that is not designed and marketed to deliver
conditioned air to the indoor space through a duct(s), and that a
factory-installed wall sleeve(s) would not be considered as a duct.
(AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 2-3) AHRI also noted that the draft version of AHRI
390 specified that if a duct cannot be attached and the unit is
marketed as non-ducted only, then testing would be performed in the
non-ducted configuration, and that all other units would be tested as
ducted. Id. Lennox commented that any model marketed for ducted
applications should be tested in a ducted configuration, and that
testing in a non-ducted configuration would be appropriate if a model
does not provide provisions for duct attachment and the unit is
marketed as non-ducted only. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2)
DOE notes that the draft definition and provisions referenced by
AHRI are included in AHRI 390-2021, along with a definition for ducted
units. DOE preliminarily agrees that the definition of a non-ducted
unit and associated provisions included in AHRI 390-2021 provide
additional specification for testing ducted and non-ducted SPVUs. DOE
understands that these definitions and provisions are consistent with
how units are currently classified by industry and tested, as indicated
by AHRI's comments and the inclusion in AHRI 390-2021. DOE is proposing
to adopt these definitions found in Sections 3.4 and 3.10 of AHRI 390-
2021 and associated provisions specified in section 5.7 of AHRI 390-
2021, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and in
section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
b. Outdoor Air-Side Airflow Rate
The current DOE test procedure for SPVUs requires that the unit be
set up for test in accordance with the manufacturer installation and
operation manuals. 10 CFR 431.96(e). In addition, Section 5.2.3 of
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 specifies that for SPVUs with an outdoor air-side
fan drive that is adjustable, standard ratings are determined at the
outdoor-side airflow rate specified by the manufacturer. Section 5.2.3
of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 also specifies that, where the outdoor air-side
fan drive is non-adjustable, standard ratings are determined at the
outdoor airflow rate inherent to the equipment when operated with all
of the resistance elements associated with inlets, louvers, and any
ductwork and attachments considered by the manufacturer as normal
installation practice.
However, Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not further
specify what attachments the manufacturer considers ``normal
installation practice.'' For externally-mounted SPVUs, provisions for
transferring outdoor air through an external wall are not necessary,
but it may be possible that alternative ``resistance elements'' could
be offered as options (i.e., louvers instead of grills). Furthermore,
for internally-mounted SPVUs, there may be multiple options for the
specific geometry for external wall pass-through, as well as the option
for louvers instead of grills.
As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comments on the
variations in outdoor air-side attachments (e.g., grills, louvers, wall
sleeve) that could affect performance during testing and test procedure
provisions to standardize outdoor air flow for both externally and
internally mounted SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). On this
topic, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should standardize
which resistive elements should be present for testing to ensure that
the test is representative of field installations and to improve
repeatability and reproducibility of test results. (ASAP, NRDC, and
ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) AHRI stated that options for different outdoor
air-side attachments do exist and could impact the performance during
testing. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI and Lennox commented that, to
mitigate this issue, the attachments to be used for testing should be
specified by the manufacturer in the supplemental testing instructions
submitted to DOE. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) AHRI
added that information regarding the installation of plenums, grills,
or other outdoor air-side attachments is provided by manufacturers for
testing conducted as part of the AHRI certification program. (AHRI, No.
5 at p. 3)
DOE notes that Section 5.8.4 of AHRI 390-2021 explicitly specifies
use of the outdoor air-side attachments specified in the manufacturer's
supplemental testing instructions. DOE expects this practice would
improve the representativeness in that the unit is tested in a
configuration more similar to that of the unit as installed in the
field.\11\ DOE also expects that the more specific test set-up
instruction would improve the reproducibility of test results by
reducing potential variation in the configuration of the unit when
tested. DOE understands that some equipment may be offered for sale
with multiple outdoor air-side attachment options, including an option
to ship the unit without any attachments. Based on its review of
manufacturer materials, DOE has found that in such cases most
manufacturer's instructions or marketing materials indicate that use of
outdoor air-side attachments are recommended or necessary for
installation. Based on the manufacturer instructions, use of outdoor
air-side attachments is standard practice in field use for units for
which they are offered for sale.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Section 3.8.2 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that the
supplemental testing instructions shall include no instructions that
deviate from the manufacturer's installation instructions unless
necessary to comply with steady-state requirements (in which case
the steady operation must match, to the extent possible, the average
performance obtained without deviating from the manufacturer's
installation instructions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHRI 390-2021 states that if a unit includes multiple outdoor air-
side attachment options, including an option for the unit to ship
without any attachments, an outdoor air-side attachment must be
specified in the supplemental testing instructions. DOE would expect
that this instruction helps ensure testing is representative of how a
unit would be installed and operated in the field. DOE is proposing to
adopt these provisions regarding the outdoor air-side attachments, as
specified in Section 5.8.4 of AHRI 390-2021,

[[Page 2501]]

enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and section 0 of the
proposed Appendix G1.
c. Refrigerant Charging Instructions
The amount of refrigerant can have a significant impact on the
system performance of air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE's current
test procedures for commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps,
including the test procedures for SPVUs, require that units be set up
for test in accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation
manuals. 10 CFR 431.96(e). In addition, the current DOE test procedures
state that if the manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-
cooling, and/or refrigerant pressures in the installation and operation
manual, any value within that range may be used to determine
refrigerant charge, unless the manufacturer clearly specifies a rating
value in its installation or operation manual, in which case the
specified value shall be used. 10 CFR 431.96(e)(1). However, the
current DOE test procedures do not provide charging instructions to be
used if the manufacturer does not provide instructions in the manual
that is shipped with the unit or if the provided instructions are
unclear or incomplete.
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not
provide any specific guidance on setting and verifying the refrigerant
charge of a unit. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE also noted in
the July 2018 RFI that the test procedure final rule for central air
conditioners and heat pumps (``CAC/HPs'') published in the Federal
Register on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36992; ``June 2016 CAC TP final rule'')
established a comprehensive approach for refrigerant charging to
improve test reproducibility. Id. The approach specifies which set of
installation instructions to use for charging, explains what to do if
there are no instructions, specifies that target values of parameters
are the centers of the ranges allowed by installation instructions, and
specifies tolerances for the measured values. 10 CFR part 430, subpart
B, appendix M, section 2.2.5. This approach also requires that
refrigerant line pressure gauges be installed for single-package units,
unless otherwise specified in manufacturer instructions. Id.
As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether it
would be appropriate to adopt an approach for charging requirements for
SPVUs similar to the approach adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final
rule. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE also requested data
demonstrating how sensitive the performance of an SPVU is to changes in
the various charge indicators used for different charging methods,
specifically the method based on sub-cooling. Id.
ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that while most manufacturers
appear to ship SPVUs with the refrigerant already charged, DOE should
still develop consistent and comprehensive charging instructions to
ensure repeatable and reproducible test results, and to account for the
possibility of products offering different charging instructions in the
future. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC commented
that DOE should review how often SPVUs are charged with refrigerant at
the site when installed, and that if refrigerant charge is often
modified at installation, they support adopting charging requirements
consistent with the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at
p. 2)
AHRI commented that the charging requirements adopted in the June
2016 CAC TP final rule are not appropriate for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 5 at
p. 3) AHRI stated that SPVUs are shipped charged with refrigerant and
no charging should be required. Id. AHRI added that many units do not
have service ports, and those that do are charged by weight to the
specification on the unit's nameplate. Id. Lennox stated that all of
its models are shipped with a full refrigerant charge, and no further
charge adjustments are required. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Lennox also
stated that if there is any discrepancy regarding charge quantity, the
unit should be charged by weight to the specification on the unit
nameplate. Id. Similarly, the CA IOUs commented that because SPVUs are
factory-sealed, package units, many charging requirements that were
adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule would not apply to SPVUs.
(CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 1) The CA IOUs did state that some language from
the June 2016 CAC TP final rule would be beneficial to adopt; in
particular, provisions related to pressure gauges for single-package
units and language banning refrigerant charge adjustment during
testing. (Id. at pp. 1-2)
Based on a review of equipment available on the market, DOE finds
that SPVUs are typically shipped from the factory charged with
refrigerant, consistent with comments received. DOE observed that while
the majority of units are charged by weight, at least one
manufacturer's instructions specified that if the refrigerant charge
needs to be adjusted (e.g., due to leaks), the charge should be
adjusted based on the manufacturer's specified values for sub-cooling
and superheat.
Section 5.6 of AHRI 390-2021 includes instructions for charging to
be used if sufficient information is not provided in the manufacturer's
installation instructions, similar to the provisions for CACs adopted
in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. Specifically, AHRI 390-2021 directs
that charging be performed at the conditions specified in the
manufacturer's installation instructions or, if not specified, at the
full-load cooling Standard Rating Conditions. AHRI 390-2021 directs
that if the manufacturer's installation instructions specify a range
for superheat, sub-cooling, or refrigerant pressure, the average of the
range is used to determine the refrigerant charge. AHRI 390-2021 also
specifies a hierarchy of charging parameters to follow (with charge
weight being the highest priority) if different requirements provided
in the manufacturer's installation instructions cannot be
simultaneously met. DOE proposes to adopt section 5.6 in AHRI 390-2021
for refrigerant charging, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed
Appendix G and in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
The proposed refrigerant charging instructions provide additional
specification to the Federal test method that would produce more
repeatable and reproducible results. DOE notes that as proposed, these
refrigerant charging provisions would only apply if the manufacturer
installation instructions do not provide sufficient guidance regarding
refrigerant charging. As a result, these provisions would not restrict
the flexibility that manufacturers currently have in providing
refrigerant charging instructions, so long as the provided instructions
are sufficient.
d. Voltage Requirements
In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that Section 5.2.1 of ANSI/AHRI
390-2003 requires that, for units rated with 208/230 dual nameplate
voltages, the test be performed at 230 volts (V). 83 FR 34499, 34501
(July 20, 2018). For all other dual nameplate voltage units, the test
standard requires that the test be performed at both voltages, or at
the lower voltage if only a single rating is to be published. Id. DOE
also noted that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of air
conditioners, and requested data demonstrating the effect of voltage on
air conditioning equipment. Id. DOE requested comment on whether
certain voltages within common dual nameplate voltage ratings (e.g.,
208/230 V) are more representative of a typical field installation. Id.

[[Page 2502]]

Lennox commented that the voltage requirements specified in ANSI/
AHRI 390-2003 are consistent with other similar industry test
procedures and are appropriate for this equipment. (Lennox, No. 6 at p.
3) AHRI acknowledged that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of
air conditioners, but it stated that these variations tend to be
insignificant and do not correlate to a specific voltage. (AHRI, No. 5
at pp. 2-3) AHRI also commented that the majority of SPVUs are applied
at 230 V, and, therefore, the current test procedure is appropriate.
Id.
In response, DOE first points out that Section 5.8.1 of AHRI 390-
2021 maintains the same voltage requirements for SPVUs as specified in
the current DOE test procedure and in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003. DOE notes
that these voltage requirements are generally consistent with industry
test procedures for other commercial air conditioning and heat pump
equipment. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt the voltage
requirements in Section 5.8.1 AHRI 390-2021, consistent with the
existing voltage requirements, as enumerated in section 0 of the
proposed Appendix G and in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
e. Filter Requirements
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that Section 5.2.2.a of ANSI/AHRI
390-2003 requires that non-filtered ducted equipment be tested at the
minimum ESP specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 plus an
additional 0.08 inches of water column (``in H<INF>2</INF>O'') of ESP.
83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE further noted that ANSI/AHRI
390-2003 does not define ``non-filtered equipment.'' Id. As part of the
July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether any SPVUs are designed
to be installed without a filter. Id. at 83 FR 34499, 34502. DOE also
requested comment on the typical effectiveness (i.e., minimum
efficiency reporting value (``MERV'') rating) of filters provided with
SPVUs. Id. DOE requested comment on whether non-ducted SPVUs intended
for installation with a filter are ever tested without a filter
installed and, if so, how such testing has accounted for the filter
pressure drop to better represent actual performance. Id.
AHRI and Lennox commented that all SPVUs on the market are designed
to be installed with a filter, are shipped with a filter, and should be
tested with the supplied filter. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 6 at
p. 3) AHRI added that the effectiveness of the filter can vary based on
application. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI also stated that all SPVUs on
the market are tested with a filter. Id. NEEA and NWPCC commented that
SPVUs are used primarily in commercial buildings, and that ASHRAE
Standard 52.2, ``Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning
Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size,'' recommends MERV 8
filters for commercial buildings. Consequently, NEEA and NWPCC
recommended that SPVUs be tested with a MERV 8 filter rating to be
representative of equipment use in the field. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at p.
2) GE commented that any test procedure change requiring the addition
of a filter would increase test burden and product development cost.
(GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE stated that filter types, sometimes specified by
local or State requirements, differ and that there is a risk of
unintended test variation depending upon the filter specified. Id. GE
stated that such variation could result in erroneous enforcement test
results. Id. GE also commented that it opposes any test procedure
change that potentially could dictate product design requirements, such
as filter selection. Id.
Section 3.19 of AHRI 390-2021 includes a definition for the term
``Standard Filter'' and requires that an SPVU must be tested with the
filter designated by the manufacturer in the marketing materials for
the model as the ``default'' or ``standard'' filter in Table 2, and
does not allow for testing without a filter. Section 5.7.3.1 of AHRI
390-2021 states that if the manufacturer does not specify a ``default''
or ``standard'' filter option, then the Standard Filter is the filter
with the lowest level of filtration, as specified in the marketing
materials for the model. If the marketing materials do not specify a
Standard Filter, or do not specify which filter option has the lowest
filtration level, then the Standard Filter is any filter shipped by the
manufacturer for that model.
In light of the above, DOE preliminarily concludes that a 0.08 in
H<INF>2</INF>O increase in the minimum ESP for units tested without a
filter is not necessary in the SPVU test procedure because, based on a
review of equipment on the market and supported by the comments from
AHRI and Lennox, DOE finds that all SPVUs are designed to be installed
with a filter, are shipped with a filter, and are tested with a filter.
In response to NEEA and NWPCC, DOE identified many SPVUs that offered
filters with lower filtration than MERV 8 filters, so requiring them
may not be representative of all field applications. In addition, based
on a review of equipment on the market, different manufacturers might
specify different filters as ``standard'' (i.e., there is not a single
filter type recognized as ``standard'' by the industry). Manufacturers
might also market an SPVU with multiple filter options from which the
consumer can choose.
DOE has, therefore, initially determined that the requirement to
test with a filter and the provisions on filter selection would provide
more representative results by testing with a filter that is more
likely to be used by a consumer in the field and is consistent with how
manufacturers are currently testing. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to
adopt the provisions in Section 3.19 and Table 2 in AHRI 390-2021 for
testing with the Standard Filter, as enumerated in section 0 of the
proposed Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
f. External Static Pressure and Airflow Requirements
SPVUs include fans that circulate indoor air over a heat exchanger
and provides heating or cooling either through ductwork or directly to
the conditioned space. To deliver sufficient conditioned air to the
intended space, the airflow provided by the unit must overcome pressure
losses throughout duct work (if present), and to a smaller degree,
within the unit itself. Pressure losses are the result of directional
changes in the ductwork, friction between the moving air and surfaces
of the ductwork, and possible appurtenances in the airflow path.
Further, different modes of operation may require different amounts of
airflow. Therefore, indoor fan speed is typically adjustable to assure
that the provided airflow rate is appropriate for the field-installed
ductwork system serving the building in which the unit is installed.
The performance of an SPVU can be significantly affected by variation
in ESP or operation with an indoor airflow that is different from the
intended or designed airflow. To ensure that a test procedure provides
results that are representative of an average-use cycle, appropriate
airflow settings for testing and ESP requirements are needed to reflect
the typical pressure losses. Such specifications would also contribute
to the repeatability of the test procedure.
i. External Static Pressure
As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI
390-2003 specifies the minimum ESP required for testing ducted SPVUs
based on capacity range. DOE sought comments on whether the minimum ESP
requirements in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 are representative of field

[[Page 2503]]

operation for ducted SPVUs, and if not, comment and data on what
representative minimum ESP levels would be. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July
20, 2018).
The CA IOUs, as well as ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, commented that the
minimum ESP requirements in the test procedure may be significantly
lower than typical ESPs in the field, which would significantly
underestimate fan power consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2-3; ASAP,
NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that
DOE should ensure that the minimum ESP requirements specified in the
SPVU test procedure adequately reflect conditions in the field. (ASAP,
NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC added that the ASRAC
Working Group for commercial package air conditioners recommended that
DOE develop minimum ESP requirements for SPVUs that adequately
represent performance in the field and that provide accurate
information to consumers to make purchasing decisions. (NEEA and NWPCC,
No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
NEEA and NWPCC stated that for CUACs, there is inconsistency
between the range of ESPs specified in the test procedure (0.2 to 0.75
in H<INF>2</INF>O) compared to the range of ESPs used for the analysis
for the standards rulemaking (0.75 and 1.25 in H<INF>2</INF>O). (NEEA
and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) NEEA and NWPCC stated that if the ESP
requirements in the test procedure are lower than those typically found
in the field, the ratings of SPVUs will provide neither an adequate
representation of actual efficiency nor accurate information to
consumers. Id. NEEA and NWPCC added that the ESP requirements should
have no impact on test burden since there would be no change to how the
test is conducted. Id.
The CA IOUs referenced the minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in
H<INF>2</INF>O for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps
with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as specified in 10 CFR part
430, subpart B, appendix M1, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the
Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' and
commented that DOE should align all other heating, ventilating, and air
conditioning (``HVAC'') equipment, including SPVUs, with the values
specified in Appendix M1, which increase in ESP based on corresponding
increases in cooling capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2-3)
AHRI commented that based on conversations with company application
engineers, the minimum ESP requirements specified in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003
are representative of field operation for ducted SPVUs installed with
10 feet of ductwork or less. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox also stated
that the current ESP requirements are representative of field operation
for ducted SPVUs. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) No commenter provided data as
to the ESPs experienced in field operation.
In response, DOE notes the range of comments received as to the
appropriate ESP for testing. AHRI 390-2021 maintained the same minimum
ESP requirements as specified in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003. DOE does not have
data indicating that these minimum ESP requirements are
unrepresentative of field operation for ducted SPVUs. DOE also
recognizes that SPVUs are typically installed in smaller modular
buildings with different duct configurations. As a result, DOE notes
that minimum ESP requirements for other equipment (e.g., CACs, CUACs)
may not be relevant for SPVUs. DOE also notes that in the previous
standards rulemaking the ESP values were aligned with the values used
in the test procedure. As a result, DOE does not expect there to be
inconsistency between the test procedure and the analysis conducted for
the standards rulemaking. Based on this, DOE is tentatively not
proposing to revise the ESP requirements in the DOE test procedure for
SPVUs but to instead remain consistent with AHRI 390-2021.
Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and information on ESP conditions
experienced in field operation of ducted SPVUs.
ii. Airflow Rate
Full-Load Cooling Test
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not
specify tolerances on achieving the rated airflow or the minimum ESP
during testing. As discussed previously, the performance of an air
conditioner or heat pump can be affected by variations in airflow and
ESP. In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that the current DOE test
procedure for CUACs requires that the indoor airflow for the full-load
cooling test be within <plus-minus>3 percent of the rated airflow and
specifies a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in H<INF>2</INF>O for the ESP
requirements. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). DOE also noted that
in DOE's test procedure for CAC/HPs, the method for setting indoor air
volume rate for ducted units without variable-speed constant-air-
volume-rate indoor fans is a multi-step process that addresses the
discrete-step fan speed control of these units. Id. In this method, (a)
the air volume rate during testing may not be higher than the certified
air volume rate, but may be up to 10 percent less, and (b) the ESP
during testing may not be lower than the minimum specified ESP, but may
be higher than the minimum if this is required to avoid having the air
volume rate overshoot its certified value. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B,
appendix M, section 3.1.4.2.a. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE
requested information on the different types of indoor air fan drive
systems that are used for SPVUs and information on appropriate
tolerances for setting airflow and ESP. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20,
2018).
On this topic, AHRI stated that SPVUs use permanent split-capacitor
motors with discrete speed settings or electronically-commutated motors
with variable speed settings; and that in either case, the unit leaves
the factory with the fan and motor set at a specific speed to provide
the rated performance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox commented that its
equipment uses motors and controls with speed/airflow settings
developed for each specific product and mode of operation, which are
factory pre-set to optimize performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) Lennox
stated that for its equipment, the manufacturer-specified airflow
setting should allow the ability to set the airflow to the specified
value while meeting the ESP requirements for testing. Id. Lennox
further commented that the manufacturer settings should be used for
testing. Id. Lennox stated that if the minimum ESP cannot be
maintained, the airflow should be set to the maximum airflow while
maintaining the required ESP. Id.
AHRI commented that the then-draft version of AHRI 390 directed use
of the manufacturer-specified fan control settings for all tests for
which they are provided. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI also commented that
the draft version of AHRI 390 directed use of the full-load cooling fan
control settings specified by the manufacturer for all tests for which
fan control settings are specified, and if there are no specified fan
control settings for any tests, use the as-shipped fan control settings
for all tests. Id. AHRI added that for testing, the priority is setting
the correct airflow speed, and the ESP is adjusted to match the
required airflow. Id. AHRI noted that the draft version of AHRI 390
provided that the airflow-measuring apparatus should be adjusted to
maintain ESP within -0/+0.05 in H<INF>2</INF>O of the required minimum
ESP and to maintain the airflow within <plus-minus>3 percent of the
manufacturer-specified full-load cooling airflow. Id.
DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 specifies an airflow tolerance of
<plus-minus>3

[[Page 2504]]

percent of the full-load cooling airflow. This would be consistent with
the test procedure for other commercial air conditioning and heat pump
equipment, and it would ensure that the rated airflow remains
representative of field use during testing. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively concluded that the <plus-minus>3 percent airflow tolerance
included in AHRI 390-2021 is appropriate for testing SPVUs.
Accordingly, DOE proposes to adopt the full-load cooling airflow
tolerance specified in Section 5.7 of AHRI 390-2021.
AHRI 390-2021 also includes additional instructions for how to set
indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be maintained
simultaneously. For non-ducted units, ducting is not installed in the
field; therefore, increasing ESP (which simulates the resistance to
airflow from longer duct length in the field) beyond the specified
tolerance of -0/+0.05 in H<INF>2</INF>O during testing would not be
representative of field application. Consequently, if both the ESP and
airflow cannot be maintained within tolerance during the test, Section
5.7.3.3.4 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that the ESP be maintained within
the required tolerance and an airflow as close to the certified value
as possible be used.
For ducted units, if ESP and/or airflow are higher than the
tolerance range at the lowest fan control setting (e.g., lowest fan
speed), maintaining airflow within tolerance should take precedence
over maintaining ESP within tolerance. This is because operating with
an airflow higher than the certified value would likely result in an
airflow (and thus measured efficiency) that is unrepresentative of
field operation. Section 5.7.3.4.1.2 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that
the airflow-measuring apparatus be adjusted to maintain airflow within
tolerance and to operate with the lowest possible ESP that meets the
minimum requirement. If ESP or airflow are lower than the tolerance
range at the maximum fan control setting (e.g., highest fan speed),
maintaining ESP at or above the minimum value should take precedence
over maintaining airflow within tolerance because operating with an ESP
lower than the minimum value does not reflect typical duct lengths (or
measured efficiency) in field application. In such a case, Section
5.7.3.4.1.3 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that the airflow-measuring
apparatus be adjusted to maintain ESP within tolerance and to operate
with an airflow as close as possible to the certified value.
DOE understands the provisions regarding tolerances and priority
for adjustment of fan speed and ESP in AHRI 390-2021 are consistent
with the methodology in the draft version of AHRI 390, as evidenced by
the excerpt provided in AHRI's comments (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 5). DOE
preliminarily finds that these provisions would not conflict with any
provisions in the current DOE test procedure, and would improve test
repeatability and provide test conditions that are more representative
of those during operation in the field. Based on this, DOE is proposing
to adopt the provisions specified in Section 5.7.3 of AHRI 390-2021 for
setting indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be
maintained simultaneously, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed
Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
Heating Test
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not
distinguish between cooling and heating airflow rates required for
testing. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). For SPVHPs with multiple-
speed or variable-speed indoor fans, the indoor airflow rate in heating
operation could be different from that in cooling operation. Id.
Different airflow rates may be used for heating and cooling operation
because of different indoor comfort needs in the heating season, and
there may be a minimum heating airflow rate for electrical resistance
heating safety that exceeds the cooling airflow rate. Id. DOE also
noted in the July 2018 RFI that, for CUAC heat pumps, DOE's current
test procedure requires that indoor airflow and ESP first be
established within required tolerances for the full-load cooling test
condition by adjusting both the unit under test and the test facility's
airflow-measuring apparatus (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix
A, section 6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018)) The CUAC test
procedure further provides that, unless the unit is designed to operate
at different airflow rates for cooling and heating modes, if necessary,
the airflow-measuring apparatus (but not the unit under test) may be
adjusted to achieve an airflow in heating mode equal to the cooling
full-load airflow rate within the specified tolerance, without regard
to changes in ESP (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A, section
6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018).
As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether
provisions similar to those required for CUACs would be appropriate for
determining airflow rate and minimum ESP for heating mode tests for
SPVHPs. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). NEEA and NWPCC commented
that if SPVHPs operate at different airflow speeds for heating and
cooling, then SPVUs should be tested similar to CUACs, for which the
heating efficiency is evaluated at the unique heating airflow rate.
(NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) Lennox commented that SPVHP airflow
rates for heating and cooling are generally the same, but that the test
procedure should not preclude using different airflow rates that could
provide benefits in performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) AHRI added
that the draft version of AHRI 390 included procedures that provide for
a difference in the manufacturer-specified heating airflow and full-
load cooling airflow. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 4-5)
In response, DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 includes provisions for
setting the heating airflow rate that are consistent with the excerpt
of the draft version of AHRI 390 provided in AHRI's comments, (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 5), which allows for testing with a manufacturer-specified
heating airflow that is different than the full-load cooling airflow.
These provisions reflect that units may be designed to operate in the
field at a different heating airflow rate as compared to the cooling
airflow rate. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt Sections 5.7.2.3 and
5.7.3.4.2 of AHRI 390-2021 with regards to setting the airflow and ESP
for heating tests (as applicable), as enumerated in section 0 of the
proposed Appendix G and section 0 of proposed Appendix G1.
2. Air Temperature Measurements
Measurement of air conditions is a critical aspect of performance
testing for air-conditioning and heat pump equipment generally. The air
conditions affect performance (both capacity and power input), and the
primary methods for determination of capacity rely on measurements of
air temperature and humidity. ANSI/ASHRAE 390-2003 references ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 37-1988, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988'') for
methods of testing SPVUs. As relevant here, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988
provides specifications for temperature sensors (section 5.1), as well
as for ensuring measurement uniformity (section 8.5).
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that, for air-cooled and
evaporatively-cooled CUACs, AHRI 340/360-2015 provides more extensive
direction for condenser air temperature measurement in its Appendix C,
including specifications to use air sampling trees and psychrometers,
temperature measurement accuracy requirements,

[[Page 2505]]

and other specifications to ensure that the measured conditions are
representative of average condenser air inlet conditions. 83 FR 34499,
34503 (July 20, 2018). In the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on
whether requirements similar to AHRI 340/360-2015 should be adopted for
testing SPVUs. Id.
DOE also noted in the July 2018 RFI that while Appendix C of AHRI
340/360-2015 provides detailed direction for measurement of entering
outdoor air temperature, it provides no such direction for measurement
of entering indoor air temperature, indoor leaving air temperature, or
outdoor leaving air temperature. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018).
However, these parameters have a significant impact on performance of
an SPVU as measured by the indoor air enthalpy method and the outdoor
air enthalpy method. Id. Therefore, in the July 2018 RFI, DOE also
requested comment on whether the requirements contained in Appendix C
of AHRI 340/360-2015 would be appropriate for measurement of these
parameters when testing SPVUs. Id.
The CA IOUs, NEEA and NWPCC supported using provisions similar to
Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 to measure indoor air entering and
leaving temperatures, as well as outdoor air entering and leaving
temperatures. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3)
NEEA and NWPCC added that this would result in the most accurate and
repeatable test measurement. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) AHRI
commented that adding measurement requirements for indoor air entering
and leaving temperatures, as well as outdoor air entering and leaving
temperatures for water slinger systems (i.e., units that use condensate
from the evaporator to enhance condenser cooling), similar to those in
Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360-2015 would be appropriate. (AHRI,
No. 5 at p. 6) Lennox commented that further evaluation of various SPVU
configurations is needed to determine appropriateness of the provisions
in Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 5)
In the interim, AHRI 390-2021 has addressed this issue.
Specifically, Appendix D of AHRI 390-2021 includes a comprehensive set
of provisions to measure air temperatures, including the measurement of
entering indoor temperature, indoor leaving temperature, entering
outdoor temperature, and outdoor leaving temperature. DOE notes that
these additional requirements were also included in the revised AHRI
340/360-2019. Specifically, AHRI 390-2021 includes the following
requirements:
<bullet> Measurements of indoor and outdoor air entering dry-bulb
temperatures and water vapor conditions. In addition, measurement of
the indoor air leaving dry-bulb temperatures and water vapor conditions
if the indoor air enthalpy method is used, and outdoor air leaving dry-
bulb temperatures and water vapor conditions if the outdoor air
enthalpy method is used;
<bullet> Temperature measurement accuracies and display resolutions
for dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, as well as thermopile
temperatures;
<bullet> Methods of water vapor measurement using either an
aspirating psychrometer or a dew point hygrometer;
<bullet> Air sampling tree specifications, including construction
provisions, hole density requirements, average air velocity of the flow
area, and thermopile arrangement;
<bullet> Description of the test set-up for air sampling trees,
which includes defining the arrangement of the face area, the number of
aspirating psychrometers per unit side, the location of the air
sampling trees and their coverage of the entrance to the unit, and the
number of sampling trees per aspirating psychrometer;
<bullet> Dry-bulb temperature measurement using psychrometer dry-
bulb sensors;
<bullet> Wet-bulb or dew point temperature measurements to
determine air water vapor content using psychrometers or hygrometers;
<bullet> Measurements of temperature change and pressure drop
across the conduit used to transfer air from air samplers to
psychrometers and, if certain thresholds are exceeded, provisions for
determining dry-bulb temperature and atmospheric pressure (used to
calculate humidity ratio);
<bullet> Specifications for dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperature
uniformity;
<bullet> Additional specifications for measuring air conditions
entering the indoor coil, including provisions for returning sampled
air to the room, conditions for temperature uniformity specifications,
and directions if air is sampled within a duct; and
<bullet> Additional specifications for measuring both indoor coil
and outdoor coil leaving air conditions, including conditions for
temperature uniformity requirements, provisions for returning sampled
air to the duct leaving the coil, provisions if the coil has a blow-
through fan, and additional requirements for the air sampling tree.
DOE has tentatively determined that the air measurement provisions
of AHRI 390-2021 in Appendix D address the lack of specificity in the
current DOE test procedure for SPVUs, improve temperature uniformity
and ensure accurate and repeatable temperature measurements for SPVUs,
and ensure that representative conditions are maintained during
testing. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt the provisions for
measurement of air conditions in Appendix D of AHRI 390-2021 both into
section 1 of the proposed Appendix G and into section 1 of the proposed
Appendix G1. Inclusion in AHRI 390-2021 and AHRI's comments in support
indicate that the proposed air measurement specifications are
considered best practice by industry and reflect current industry
practice. As such, DOE would expect that adoption of the air
measurement specifications in AHRI 390-2021 would present minimal, if
any, increase in test burden for manufacturers.
3. Defrost Energy Use
In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that SPVHPs generally include a
defrost cycle to periodically defrost the outdoor coil when operating
in outdoor ambient conditions in which frost collects on it during
heating operation. 83 FR 34499, 34504 (July 20, 2018). Based on
preliminary DOE review of product literature, the time between defrost
cycles can be between 30 and 90 minutes, and typical defrost cycle
duration is approximately 10 minutes. Id. During the defrost cycle, the
SPVHP is consuming energy but is not providing heat to the conditioned
space, unless it also energizes auxiliary heat during defrost. Id.
The current Federal test procedure for SPVUs is based on testing in
outdoor air conditions for which defrost is not necessary (i.e., 47
[deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature). This means that any
differences in defrost cycle performance between different SPVHP models
is not reflected in the heating mode metric (i.e., COP). DOE noted in
the July 2018 RFI that the DOE test procedure for CACs/HPs includes
measurement of average delivered heat and total energy use (including
for defrost cycles) during operation in outdoor conditions for which
frost forms on the outdoor coil. Id. In contrast, DOE's test procedures
for commercial heat pumps do not include consideration of defrost. Id.
In the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested information regarding the types of
buildings most commonly served by SPVHPs, as well as the annual heating
and cooling loads for such buildings. Id. DOE also requested
information on the impact on heating mode efficiency associated with
the defrost cycle for SPVHPs, including

[[Page 2506]]

impacts associated with the potential use of resistance heating during
defrost. Id.
On this topic, the CA IOUs stated that relocatable classrooms
commonly utilize SPVUs. The CA IOUs suggested that DOE should consider
the CA Public Utilities Commission building prototype for relocatable
classrooms.\12\ This prototype provides typical dimensions, plug loads,
lighting, occupancy schedule, envelope characteristics, and thermostat
set points of relocatable classrooms which allows for the modeling of
annual cooling and heating loads. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 4) The CA IOUs
stated that this building prototype was based on the Lawrence Berkeley
National Laboratory study titled ``High-Performance Commercial
Buildings Project'' from 2003.\13\ Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ The CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) building
prototype for relocation classrooms is available as part of the
CPUC's Database for Energy Efficiency Resources, available at:
<a href="http://www.deeresources.com/">http://www.deeresources.com/</a>.
\13\ Selkowitz, Stephen, High Performance Commercial Building
Systems. Prepared by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for
the California Energy Commission. LBNL-53538 (October 2003)
(Available at: <a href="https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/821762">https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/821762</a>).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should incorporate defrost
and performance at lower ambient temperatures in the heating efficiency
metric. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 2) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE
stated that incorporating defrost would allow the test procedure to
better reflect actual heating capacity and efficiency in the field,
thereby providing better information to consumers and encouraging
manufacturers to develop innovative defrost strategies. Id. ASAP, NRDC,
and ACEEE also encouraged DOE to incorporate performance at lower
ambient temperatures into the metric for heating efficiency. Id. SPVHPs
typically include back-up electric resistance heating, which is used
when the heat pump cannot meet the heating load. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE
stated that because the test procedure only requires testing SPVHPs at
47 [deg]F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature for heating mode, it does
not differentiate the ability of equipment to maintain good heating
capacity using the heat pump cycle at low ambient temperatures, as
opposed to shutting the heat pump cycle off and switching to electric
resistance heating. Id. According to ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE,
incorporating performance at lower ambient temperatures in the heating
efficiency metric would encourage equipment designs that maintain
efficiency performance at low ambient temperatures, which will
ultimately benefit consumers. Id.
NEEA and NWPCC commented that the frequency of defrost cycles
varies between manufacturers and that the defrost cycle typically stays
on for approximately 10 minutes. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 4) NEEA
and NWPCC recommended decreasing the efficiency rating by a given
increment based on average annual defrost energy use for the default
defrost cycle frequency setting. Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that this
would likely lead to manufacturers reducing the frequency of their
default defrost cycles, which would result in energy savings for
building applications that do not need frequent defrost cycles. Id.
AHRI and Lennox commented that they respectively estimated that
fewer than 30 and 20 percent of SPVUs are heat pumps, and they argued
that DOE's proposal to include provisions to measure the average
delivered heat and total energy use, including for defrost cycles,
during operation in outdoor conditions for which frost forms on the
outdoor coil is not necessary for this equipment. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 9;
Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI added that the electric heat used during
defrost is small in comparison to electric heat use when the heat pump
cannot keep up to meet the heating load. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 9)
DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 does not include provisions for
measuring defrost energy for SPVHPs. Consistent with ANSI/AHRI 390-
2003, AHRI 390-2021, and DOE's test procedures for other commercial
heat pumps, DOE is not proposing to include provisions for including
the defrost energy of SPVHPs. DOE notes that the study the CA IOUs
cited only monitored relocatable classrooms within the State of
California and does not encompass the different types of SPVU
installations or operating conditions. At this time, DOE lacks
sufficient information on the number of SPVHP installations by building
type and geographical region, as well as information regarding the
frequency of operation of defrost cycles or representative low ambient
conditions during field use and the annual heating and cooling loads in
those installations, which would be needed to determine whether such
testing conditions would be appropriate for SPVUs and to develop a
metric representing the national average for SPVUs.
Issue 6: DOE requests comment and data on the number of SPVHP
installations by building type and geographical region and the annual
heating and cooling loads for such buildings. DOE also requests data on
the frequency of operation of defrost cycles and representative low
ambient conditions for those buildings and installations.
4. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method
As discussed previously, the current DOE test procedure, which
incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 390-2003, also references ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-1988 for methods of testing SPVUs. Section 7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE
37-1988 specifies primary and secondary capacity measurements for
equipment with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h.
Specifically, the indoor air enthalpy method must be used as the
primary method for capacity measurement, and Table 3 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
1988 specifies the applicable options for selecting a secondary method.
The two test methods must agree within 6 percent (see Section 10.1.2 of
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988).
DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that the outdoor air enthalpy test
method is commonly used as the secondary test method for determining
capacity for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34502-34503 (July 20, 2018). The
outdoor air enthalpy method specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 specified
the use of an air-side test apparatus that is connected to the unit
under test. However, the airflow and operating conditions achieved with
the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected may differ from those
achieved without the apparatus connected. Therefore, Section 8.5 of
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 (which is referenced by ANSI/AHRI 390-2003)
specifies testing both with and without the air-side test apparatus
connected. Id. at 83 FR 34503. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 specifies first
conducting a one-hour preliminary test without the outdoor air-side
test apparatus connected, followed by a second one-hour test with the
outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. Id. The second test (with
the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected) serves as the official
test. Id. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 further provides that there must be
agreement of the evaporating and condensing temperatures between the
two tests for a valid test. Id.
DOE further noted in the July 2018 RFI that in a test procedure
final rule for CACs/HPs (82 FR 1426 (Jan. 5, 2017)), DOE amended its
test procedure requirements for use of the outdoor air enthalpy method
as the secondary test method for capacity measurement for CAC/HPs. 83
FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). DOE's test procedure for CAC/HPs had
previously included provisions similar to those in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-

[[Page 2507]]

1988: The preliminary test was conducted without the outdoor air-side
test apparatus connected, and the official test was conducted with the
outdoor air-side test apparatus connected, with a requirement to
achieve agreement of the evaporating and condensing temperatures
between the two tests. For CAC/HPs, DOE determined that testing with
the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected introduced more
variability to the test results when compared to testing without the
apparatus connected, and that test variability could be reduced by
shifting to an approach in which the official test is the one without
the apparatus connected. See 82 FR 1426, 1508-1509 (Jan. 5. 2017). As
part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether
modifications to the requirements for using the outdoor air enthalpy
method as the secondary method for testing SPVUs (similar to those made
for CAC/HPs) would be appropriate, including that the official test be
conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. 83 FR
34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018).
The CA IOUs commented that the outdoor air enthalpy method should
be used as the secondary method for testing SPVUs and agreed that the
official test should be conducted without the outdoor air-side test
apparatus connected. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 2) AHRI commented that the
AHRI 390 committee was reviewing the secondary capacity measurement
methods. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) AHRI stated that after that evaluation
is complete, it would recommend conducting the official test without
the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. Id. Lennox commented
that further evaluation of the secondary capacity measurements is
needed, but it stated that secondary methods using refrigerant flow
require altering the system to place the flowmeter into the refrigerant
system and, therefore, could significantly alter performance. (Lennox,
No. 6 at p. 5)
Since the time of the July 2018 RFI, AHRI 390-2021 was adopted, and
that test method includes provisions in Section E5 consistent with
those adopted in the January 2017 CAC/HP TP final rule. More
specifically, AHRI 390-2021 requires that the official test be the one
in which the outdoor air side test apparatus is not connected. For the
same reasons DOE presented in the January 2017 CAC/HP TP final rule and
discussed previously, DOE has preliminarily determined that the
provisions in AHRI 390-2021 would better represent field use of SPVUs
and improve test repeatability and reproducibility. For these reasons,
DOE proposes to adopt the capacity measurements specified in Section E5
of AHRI 390-2021, into section 1 of the proposed Appendix G and into
section 1 of the proposed Appendix G1. DOE has tentatively determined
that this proposal would impose only minimal additional burden to
manufacturers and would not require retesting of units because the
existing test results contain the data necessary for the capacity
measurements as specified in Section E5 of AHRI 390-2021.

F. Configuration of Unit Under Test

1. Specific Components
An ASRAC working group for certain commercial heating, ventilating,
and air conditioning (``HVAC'') equipment (``Commercial HVAC Working
Group''),\14\ which included SPVUs, submitted a term sheet
(``Commercial HVAC Term Sheet'') providing the Commercial HVAC Working
Group's recommendations. (Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023, No. 52)
\15\ The Commercial HVAC Working Group recommended that DOE issue
guidance under current regulations on how to test certain equipment
features when included in a basic model, until such time as the testing
of such features can be addressed through a test procedure rulemaking.
The Commercial HVAC Term Sheet listed the subject features under the
heading ``Equipment Features Requiring Test Procedure Action.'' (Id at
pp. 3-9) The Commercial HVAC Working Group also recommended that DOE
issue an enforcement policy stating that DOE would exclude certain
equipment with specified features from Departmental testing, but only
when the manufacturer offers for sale at all times a model that is
identical in all other features; otherwise, the model with that feature
would be eligible for Departmental testing. These features were listed
under the heading ``Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy.''
(Id. at pp. 9-15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ In 2013, ASRAC formed the Commercial HVAC Working Group to
engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort regarding the certification
of certain commercial HVAC equipment, including SPVUs. The
Commercial HVAC Working Group's recommendations are available at
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> under Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052.
\15\ Available at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052">www.regulations.gov/document/EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

On January 30, 2015, DOE issued a Commercial HVAC Enforcement
Policy addressing the treatment of specific features during
Departmental testing of commercial HVAC equipment. (See <a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/commercial-equipment-testing-enforcement-policies">www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/commercial-equipment-testing-enforcement-policies</a>.) The
Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy stated that--for the purposes of
assessment testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, verification testing
pursuant to 10 CFR 429.70(c)(5), and enforcement testing pursuant to 10
CFR 429.110--DOE would not test a unit with one of the optional
features listed for a specified equipment type if a manufacturer
distributes in commerce an otherwise identical unit that does not
include one of the optional features. (Id at p. 1) The objective of the
Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy is to ensure that each basic model
has a commercially-available version eligible for DOE testing, meaning
that each basic model includes either a model without the optional
feature(s) or a model with the optional features that is eligible for
testing. Id. The features in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy for
SPVUs (Id. at pp. 3-4) align with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet's list
designated ``Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy.''
AHRI 390-2021 includes Appendix F, ``Unit Configuration for
Standard Efficiency Determination--Informative.'' Section F1.3 of AHRI
390-2021 includes a list of features that are optional for testing.
Section F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021 further specifies the following general
provisions regarding testing of units with optional features:
<bullet> If an otherwise identical model (within the basic model)
without the feature is not distributed in commerce, conduct tests with
the feature according to the individual provisions specified in Section
F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021.
<bullet> For each optional feature, Section F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021
includes explicit instructions on how to conduct testing for equipment
with the optional feature present.
The optional features provisions in AHRI 390-2021 are generally
consistent with DOE's Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, but the
optional features in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021 do not entirely
align with the list of features included for SPVUs in the Commercial
HVAC Enforcement Policy. The list of optional features in section F1.3
includes five features that are not present in the Commercial HVAC
Enforcement Policy for SPVUs: (1) Fresh air dampers; (2) barometric
relief dampers; (3) power correction capacitors; (4) hail guards, and
(5) UV lights. All five of these features in Section F1.3 are included
for SPVUs in the ``Equipment Features Requiring Test Procedure Action''
section of the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet. Therefore, DOE has
tentatively concluded that their inclusion as

[[Page 2508]]

optional features for SPVUs is appropriate.
DOE notes that the list of features and provisions in Section F1.3
of Appendix F of AHRI 390-2021 conflates features that can be addressed
by testing provisions with features that warrant enforcement relief
(i.e., features that, if present on a unit under test, could have a
substantive impact on test results and that cannot be disabled or
otherwise mitigated). This differentiation was central to the
Commercial HVAC Term Sheet, which as noted previously, included
separate lists for ``Equipment Features Requiring Test Procedure
Action'' and ``Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy,'' and
remains central to providing clarity in DOE's regulations. Further,
provisions more explicit than included in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021
are warranted to clarify the differences between how specific
components must be treated when manufacturers are making
representations as opposed to when DOE is conducting enforcement
testing.
In order to provide clarity between test procedure provisions
(i.e., how to test a specific unit) and certification and enforcement
provisions (e.g., which model to test), DOE is not proposing to adopt
Appendix F of AHRI 390-2021 and instead is proposing related provisions
in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F,
Appendix G1. Specifically, in Appendix G1, DOE proposes test provisions
for specific components, including all of the components listed in
Section F1.3 which there is a neutralizing test procedure action (i.e.,
test procedure provisions specific to the component that are not
addressed by general provisions in AHRI 390-2021 that negates the
components impact on performance).\16\ These provisions would specify
how to test a unit with such a component--i.e., for a unit with hail
guards, remove hail guards for testing. These proposed test provisions
are consistent with the provision in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021, but
include revisions for further clarity and specificity (e.g., adding
clarifying provisions for how to test units with modular economizers as
opposed to units shipped with economizers installed).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ For the following components listed in Section F1.3 of AHRI
390-2021, DOE has tentatively concluded that there is not a
neutralizing test procedure action specified in Section F1.3 of AHRI
390-2021 for testing a unit with the component present, and is,
therefore, not proposing to include test procedure actions specific
to these components in Appendix G1: Powered Exhaust/Powered Return
Air Fans and Hot Gas Bypass.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial
HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions that would allow
determination of represented values of a model equipped with a
particular component to be based on an individual model distributed in
commerce without the component in specific cases. The provisions apply
to certain components for which the test provisions for testing a unit
with the component may result in differences in ratings compared to
testing a unit without the component.\17\ For these such components,
DOE proposes in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4) that:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ DOE has tentatively concluded that for the following
features included in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390-2021, testing a unit
with these components in accordance with the proposed test
provisions would not result in differences in ratings compared to
testing a unit without these components; therefore, DOE is not
proposing to include these features in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4): UV
lights, Power Correction Capacitors, Hail Guards, Barometric Relief
Dampers, and Fresh Air Dampers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

<bullet> If a basic model includes only individual models
distributed in commerce with a specific component, or does not include
any otherwise identical individual models without the specific
component, the manufacturer must determine represented values for the
basic model based on performance of an individual model with the
component present (and consistent with any relevant proposed test
procedure provisions in Appendix G1).
<bullet> If a basic model includes both individual models
distributed in commerce with a specific component and otherwise
identical individual models without the specific component, the
manufacturer may determine represented values for the basic model based
on performance of an individual model either with the component present
(and consistent with any relevant proposed test procedure provisions in
Appendix G1) or without the component present.
DOE notes that in some cases, individual models may include more
than one of the specified components (i.e., both an economizer and
dehumidification components) or there may be individual models within a
basic model that include various dehumidification components that
result in more or less energy use. In these cases, the represented
values of performance must be representative of the lowest efficiency
found within the basic model.
Also consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the
Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions in 10
CFR 429.134(s)(1) regarding how DOE would assess compliance for basic
models that include individual models distributed in commerce with air
economizers or dehumidification components. Specifically:
<bullet> If a basic model includes only individual models
distributed in commerce with a specific component, or does not include
any otherwise identical individual models without the specific
component, DOE may assess compliance for the basic model based on
testing an individual model with the component present (and consistent
with any relevant proposed test procedure provisions in Appendix G1).
<bullet> If a basic model includes both individual models
distributed in commerce with a specific component and otherwise
identical individual models without the specific component, DOE will
assess compliance for the basic model based on testing of an otherwise
identical model within the basic model that does not include the
component; except if DOE is not able to obtain such a model for
testing. In such a case, DOE will assess compliance for the basic model
based on testing of an individual model with the specific component
present (and consistent with any relevant proposed test procedure
provisions in Appendix G1).
Were DOE to adopt the provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134,
and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix G1 as proposed, DOE would
rescind the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy to the extent it is
applicable to SPVUs. In a separate certification rulemaking, DOE may
consider certification reporting requirements such that manufacturers
would be required to certify which otherwise identical models are used
for making representations of basic models that include individual
models with specific components.
Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding specific
components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431,
subpart F, Appendices G and G1.

G. Represented Values

1. Multiple Refrigerants
DOE recognizes that some commercial package air conditioning and
heating equipment may be sold with more than one refrigerant option
(e.g., R-410A or R-407C). Typically, manufacturers specify a single
refrigerant in their literature for each unique model, but in its
review, DOE has identified at least one commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment manufacturer that provides two
refrigerant options under the same model number. The refrigerant chosen

[[Page 2509]]

by the customer in the field installation may impact the energy
efficiency of a unit. For this reason, DOE is proposing representation
requirements specific for models approved for use with multiple
refrigerants. So that the proposals in this NOPR would only require
manufacturers to update representations once, DOE proposes to align the
compliance date for these representation requirements with the proposed
metric change (i.e., these proposals would only be required when
certifying to amended standards denominated in terms of IEER, if
adopted).
Use of a refrigerant (such as R-407C as compared to R-410A) that
requires different hardware (i.e., compressors, heat exchangers, or air
moving systems that are not the same or comparably performing) would
represent a different basic model, and according to the current CFR,
separate representations of energy efficiency are required for each
basic model. 10 CFR 429.43(a). On the other hand, some refrigerants
(such as R-422D and R-427A) would not require different hardware, and a
manufacturer may consider them to be the same basic model, per DOE's
current definition for ``basic model at 10 CFR 431.92. In the latter
case of an SPVU with multiple refrigerant options that do not require
different hardware, DOE proposes that a manufacturer determine the
represented values (for example, IEER, COP, and cooling capacity) based
on the refrigerant(s)--among all refrigerants listed on the unit's
nameplate--that results in the lowest cooling efficiency. These
represented values would apply to the basic model with the use of all
refrigerants specified by the manufacturer.
Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding
representations for SPVU models approved for use with multiple
refrigerants.
2. Cooling Capacity
For SPVUs, cooling capacity determines equipment class, which in
turn determines the applicable energy conservation standard. 10 CFR
431.97. While cooling capacity is a required represented value for
SPVUs, DOE does not currently specify provisions for SPVUs regarding
how close the represented value of cooling capacity must be to the
tested or alternative energy-efficiency determination method (``AEDM'')
simulated cooling capacity, or whether DOE will use measured or
certified cooling capacity to determine equipment class for enforcement
testing. In contrast, at paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(2)(ii) of 10 CFR
429.43 and paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 429.134, DOE specifies such
provisions regarding the cooling capacity for air-cooled CUACs. Again,
because energy conservation standards for SPVUs are dependent on
cooling capacity, inconsistent approaches to the application of cooling
capacity between basic models could result in inconsistent
determinations of equipment class and, in turn, inconsistent
applications of the energy conservation standards.
For these reasons, DOE is proposing to add to its regulations the
following provisions regarding cooling capacity for SPVUs: (1) A
requirement that the represented cooling capacity be between 95 percent
and 100 percent of the tested or AEDM-simulated cooling capacity; and
(2) an enforcement provision stating that DOE would use the mean of
measured cooling capacity values from testing, rather than the
certified cooling capacity, to determine the applicable standards.
First, DOE proposes to require in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(B) that
the represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 percent
and 100 percent of the mean of the cooling capacity values measured for
the units in the sample (if determined through testing), or between 95
percent and 100 percent of the cooling capacity output simulated by an
AEDM. This tolerance would help to ensure that equipment is capable of
performing at the cooling capacity for which it is represented to
commercial consumers, while also enabling manufacturers to
conservatively rate the cooling capacity to allow for minor variations
in the capacity measurements from different units tested at different
laboratories.
Second, DOE is proposing in its product-specific enforcement
provisions at 10 CFR 429.134(s)(1) that the cooling capacity of each
tested unit of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test
requirements of part 431 and that the mean of the measurement(s) will
be used to determine the applicable standard with which the model must
comply.
As discussed in this section, applicable energy conservation
standards for SPVUs are dependent on the rated cooling capacity. DOE
has tentatively concluded that these proposals would result in more
accurate ratings of cooling capacity, and ensure appropriate
application of the energy conservation standards, while still providing
flexibility for manufacturers to conservatively rate cooling capacity
so that they can be confident the equipment is capable of delivering
the cooling capacity represented to commercial consumers.
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to
represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity for
SPVUs.

H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact

As stated, EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes SPVUs,
be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an
industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure
to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE
determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would
not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
SPVUs by: (1) Incorporating by reference the updated version of the
applicable industry test method, AHRI 390-2021, including the energy
efficiency descriptors; (2) adding definitions for ``single-phase
single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than
65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' to clarify which single-
phase equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are
properly classified as SPVU rather than CAC; (3) specifying provisions
for specific components; and (4) further specifying the requirements
for determination of represented values for cooling capacity and for
models approved for use with multiple refrigerants.
DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amended test
procedures would be representative of an average use cycle and would
not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. Based on review
of AHRI 390-2021, DOE expects that the proposed test procedure in
Appendix G for measuring EER and COP would not increase testing costs
per unit compared to the current DOE test procedure, which DOE
estimates to be $3,100 for SPVACs and $3,700 for SPVHPs per unit for
third-party lab testing. DOE estimates that the cost for third-party
lab testing according to the proposed Appendix G1 for measuring IEER
and COP to be $4,900 for SPVACs and $5,500 for SPVHPs per unit.
DOE further notes that manufacturers are not required to perform
laboratory testing on all basic models. In

[[Page 2510]]

accordance with 10 CFR 429.70 of DOE's regulations, SPVU manufacturers
may elect to use AEDMs. An AEDM is a computer modeling or mathematical
tool that predicts the performance of non-tested basic models. These
computer modeling and mathematical tools, when properly developed, can
provide a means to predict the energy usage or efficiency
characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or
equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing. DOE
estimates the per-manufacturer cost to develop and validate an AEDM for
SPVU equipment to be $15,800. DOE estimates an additional cost of
approximately $50 per basic model \18\ for determining energy
efficiency using the validated AEDM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ DOE estimated initial costs to validate an AEDM assuming 80
hours of general time to develop an AEDM based on existing
simulation tools and 16 hours to validate two basic models within
that AEDM at the cost of an engineering technician wage of $50 per
hour plus the cost of third-party physical testing of two units per
validation class (as required in 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE
estimated the additional per basic model cost to determine
efficiency using an AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic model at the cost
of an engineering technician wage of $50 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As discussed in section II of this NOPR, the proposed test
procedure provisions regarding IEER would not be mandatory unless and
until DOE adopts energy conservation standards that specify IEER as the
regulatory metric and compliance with such standards is required. Given
that most SPVU manufacturers are AHRI members and that DOE is
referencing the prevailing industry test procedure that was established
for use in AHRI's certification program (which DOE presumes will be
updated to include IEER), DOE expects that manufacturers will already
be testing using the IEER test method. Based on this, DOE has
tentatively determined that the proposed test procedure amendments
would not be expected to increase the testing burden on most SPVU
manufacturers. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the
test procedure amendments, if finalized, would not require
manufacturers to redesign any of the covered equipment, would not
require changes to how the equipment is manufactured, and would not
impact the utility of the equipment.
Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact
of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically DOE's
initial conclusion that the proposed DOE test procedure amendments, if
finalized, would not increase testing burden on SPVU manufacturers, as
compared to current industry practice indicated by AHRI 390-2021.

I. Reserved Appendices for Test Procedures for Commercial Air
Conditioning and Heating Equipment

DOE proposes to amend its test procedures for SPVUs and to relocate
those test procedures to new Appendix G and Appendix G1 to 10 CFR part
431, subpart F. This proposed reorganization of the SPVU test
procedures would be consistent with the organization of the test
procedures for other covered equipment and covered products. DOE has
tentatively concluded that providing the test procedures for specific
equipment in a designated appendix would improve the readability of the
test procedure. Further, DOE proposes to make the provisions currently
in 10 CFR 431.96(c) and (e) specific to SPVUs in 10 CFR part 431,
subpart F, Appendices G and G1, thereby eliminating the references to
test procedures for other equipment. To provide for future
consideration of a similar reorganization for other commercial package
air conditioning and heating equipment test procedures, DOE is
proposing to reserve Appendices B through F under 10 CFR part 431,
subpart F. The reserved appendices are presented to facilitate any
future reorganization of the regulations and are not an indication of
any substantive changes to the respective test procedures at this time.
Any such reorganization of test procedures for the equipment identified
in the proposed reserved appendices would be addressed in separate
rulemakings.

J. Compliance Dates

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends its test procedure for covered
commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (including
SPVUs), all representations of energy efficiency and energy use,
including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be
made in accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 360 days
after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1))

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has determined that
this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute ``significant
regulatory actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order (``E.O.'')
12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993).
Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive
order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in
OMB.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General
Counsel's website: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>. DOE
reviewed this proposed rule to amend the test procedures for SPVUs
under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies
and procedures published on February 19, 2003.
The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this test procedure
rulemaking.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for
SPVUs. DOE must update the Federal test procedures to be consistent
with the updated industry consensus test procedure, unless DOE
determines by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by
clear and convincing evidence, that the industry update would not be
representative of an average use cycle or would be unduly burdensome to
conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA, as amended, requires that the test procedures for commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes SPVUs,
be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating
procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced
in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an
industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure
to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE
determines,

[[Page 2511]]

by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and
convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would not meet
the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to
representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE must
evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment including
SPVUs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test
procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy
use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. (42 U.S.C. 614(a)(1)(A))
Once completed, the current rulemaking will satisfy both of these
legal requirements of EPCA.
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
DOE uses the Small Business Administration (``SBA'') small business
size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as ``small
businesses,'' which are listed by the North American Industry
Classification System (``NAICS'').\19\ The SBA considers a business
entity to be small business if, together with its affiliates, it
employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR
part 121.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Available at: <a href="http://www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards">www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

SPVU manufacturers, who produce the equipment covered by this rule,
are classified under NAICS code 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air
Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.'' In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250
employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business
for this category. This employee threshold includes all employees in a
business's parent company and any other subsidiaries.
DOE reviewed the test procedures proposed in this NOPR under the
provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19, 2003. The Department conducted a
focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of the equipment
covered by this rulemaking. DOE used publicly available information to
identify potential small businesses that manufacture SPVUs
domestically. DOE identified manufacturers using DOE's Compliance
Certification Database (``CCD''),\20\ the California Energy
Commission's Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System
(``MAEDbS''),\21\ and prior rulemakings. Additionally, DOE used
publicly-available information and subscription-based market research
tools (e.g., reports from Dun & Bradstreet \22\). As a result of this
inquiry, DOE identified a total of eight companies that are
manufacturers or private labelers of SPVUs in the United States. DOE
screened out companies that do not meet the definition of a ``small
business'' or are foreign-owned and operated. Of these eight SPVU
manufacturers or private labelers, DOE identified three potential small
businesses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ DOE's Compliance Certification Database is available at:
<a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms">www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms</a> (last accessed September 1, 2021).
\21\ California Energy Commission's MAEDbS is available at
<a href="http://cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx">cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ApplianceSearch.aspx</a> (last
accessed September 1, 2021).
\22\ Dun & Bradstreet reports are available at:
app.dnbhoovers.comI (last access September 1, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two of the three small businesses are original equipment
manufacturers (``OEM'') of the SPVUs each small business sells. The
third small business is not an OEM of the SPVUs they sell. Instead, it
rebrands its SPVU models which are supplied by a different OEM (i.e.,
making the small business a private labeler). Of the two OEM small
businesses, one is a member of AHRI and the other is not a member of
AHRI. The private labeler small business is not a member of AHRI.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
DOE assumed each small business would have different potential
regulatory costs depending on if they are an OEM and if they are a
member of AHRI. DOE assumed all AHRI members, including small
businesses, will be testing their SPVU models in accordance with AHRI
390-2021, the industry test procedure DOE is proposing to reference,
and using AHRI's certification program, which DOE presumes will be
updated to include the IEER metric. Therefore, the proposed test
procedure amendments would not add testing burden to SPVU manufacturers
that are or will be using the AHRI 390-2021 test procedure for their
SPVU models, including one of the identified small businesses.
DOE assumed the small business that is not an OEM of the SPVU
models they sell (i.e., the private labeler) does not pay for the
testing costs for the rebranded SPVU models they sell because the test
performance of the rebranded SPVU models is identical to the SPVU
models the OEM sells. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate that any non-
OEMs, including this small business, incur any testing burden to sell
rebranded SPVU models.
Lastly, while DOE assumed that all SPVU manufacturers will be using
the industry test procedure, AHRI 390-2021, DOE estimated the potential
testing costs for the small business that is an OEM but is not an AHRI
member. This small business would only incur additional testing costs
if that small business will not be using the AHRI 390-2021 to test
their SPVU models. This one small business manufactures six SPVU basic
models.
As previously stated in section III.H of this NOPR, DOE estimated
that the cost for third-party lab testing according to the proposed
appendix G1 for measuring IEER and COP to be $4,900 for SPVACs and
$5,500 for SPVHPs per unit. If SPVU manufacturers conduct physical
testing to certify a SPVU basic model, two units are required to be
tested per basic model. However, manufacturers are not required to
perform laboratory testing on all basic models, as SPVU manufacturers
may elect to use AEDMs.\23\ An AEDM is a computer modeling or
mathematical tool that predicts the performance of non-tested basic
models. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, when properly
developed, can provide a means to predict the energy usage or
efficiency characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product
or equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When developing cost estimates, DOE considered the cost to develop
an AEDM, the costs to validate the AEDM through physical testing, and
the cost per model to determine ratings using the AEDM. DOE estimated
the cost to develop and validate an AEDM for SPVUs to be approximately
$15,800, which includes physical testing of two models per validation
class.\24\ Additionally, DOE estimated a cost of approximately $50 per
basic model for determining energy efficiency using the validated AEDM.
In the case of the single small, non-AHRI member, the estimated cost to
rate the remaining four basic models with the AEDM would be

[[Page 2512]]

$200.\25\ Based on these estimates, the small SPVU manufacturer that is
an OEM and not a member of AHRI would incur $16,000 to test and rate
all six of its SPVU models.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ $4,800 (AEDM development and validation costs) + $5,500
(per-unit physical testing costs) x (units required for physical
testing per validation class) = $15,800. AEDM development ad
validation costs are based on 96 hours of development and testing
using an engineering technician wage of $50 per hour. This estimate
utilizes the more costly SPVHP testing cost of $5,500 per unit.
\25\ $50 (per-unit rating cost) x 4 (remaining units) = $200.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Market research tools report that company's annual revenue to be
approximately $1.3 million. The cost to re-rate all model would be
approximately 1.2 percent of annual revenue for that small
manufacturer.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ $16,000 (costs) / $1,300,000 (annual revenue) = 1.2% of
annual revenue.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses
DOE identified. DOE also requests comment on the potential cost
estimates for each small business identified, compared to current
industry practice, as indicated by AHRI 390-2021.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate,
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small
businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic
models. The use of AEDMs is less costly than physical testing for
SPVUs. Without AEDMs, the cost for the small, non-AHRI-member to rate
all basic models would increase to $66,000.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ $5,500 (per-unit test cost) x 2 (units tested per model) x
6 (number of SPVU models) = $66,000. This estimate utilizes the more
costly SPVHP testing cost of $5,500 per unit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additionally, DOE considered alternative test methods and
modifications to the AHRI 390-2021 test procedure for SPVUs. However,
DOE has tentatively determined that there are no better alternatives
than the existing industry test procedures, in terms of both meeting
the agency's objectives and reducing burden on manufacturers.
Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedure
for SPVUs through incorporation by reference of AHRI 390-2021.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. Manufacturers subject to DOE's energy efficiency standards may
apply to DOE's Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief
under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part
1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Manufacturers of SPVUs must certify to DOE that their products
comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify
compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their
products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments
adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for
the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered
consumer products and commercial equipment, including SPVUs. (See
generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement
for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and
approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (``PRA''). This
requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910-
1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to
average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the
collection of information.
Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the
National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (``NEPA'') and DOE's NEPA
implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE's regulations include
a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an
existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental
effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021,
subpart D, appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies
for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking
that does not change the environmental effects of the rule and
otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical
exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review
before issuing the final rule.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 10,
1999), imposes certain requirements for agencies formulating and
implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that
have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to
examine the constitutional and statutory authority supporting any
action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and
to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order
also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure
meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the
intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the
development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this
proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial
direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs
and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy
conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed
rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the
extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d))
No further action is required by Executive Order 13132.

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation
of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ``Civil
Justice Reform,'' 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal
agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1)
Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to
minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected
conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification
and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988
specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable
effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the
preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing
Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for
affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction;
(4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines
key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney
General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive
agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in
sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is
unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the
required

[[Page 2513]]

review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the
proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988.

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (``UMRA'')
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the
private sector. Public Law 104-4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531).
For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may
cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the
aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one
year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a
Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the
resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy.
(2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to
develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers
of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ``significant
intergovernmental mandate,'' and requires an agency plan for giving
notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small
governments before establishing any requirements that might
significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997,
DOE published a statement of policy on its process for
intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available
at <a href="http://www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel">www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel</a>. DOE examined this proposed
rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that
the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate
that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year,
so these requirements do not apply.

H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
1999

Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105-277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family
Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being.
This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or
integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has
concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking
Assessment.

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ``Governmental
Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property
Rights,'' 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation
would not result in any takings that might require compensation under
the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act,
2001

Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most
disseminations of information to the public under guidelines
established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by
OMB. OMB's guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and
DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant
to OMB Memorandum M-19-15, Improving Implementation of the Information
Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which
are available at <a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final%20Updated%20IQA%20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf</a>. DOE has
reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has
concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those
guidelines.

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,'' 66 FR 28355
(May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB,
a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy
action. A ``significant energy action'' is defined as any action by an
agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a
final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under
Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a
significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action,
the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented,
and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected
benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use.
The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for
measuring the energy efficiency of SPVUs is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy
Effects.

L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of
1974

Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788;
``FEAA'') Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where
a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the
notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and
background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE
to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal
Trade Commission (``FTC'') concerning the impact of the commercial or
industry standards on competition.
The proposed amendments to the Federal test procedure for SPVUs are
primarily in response to modifications to the applicable industry
consensus test standards (i.e., AHRI 390-2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009).
DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether
they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA
(i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for
public participation, comment, and review).DOE will consult with both
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact
of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final
rule.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test
standard published by AHRI, titled ``Performance Rating of Single
Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' AHRI Standard 390-
2021. Specifically, the Federal test procedure proposed in this NOPR
would adopt sections 3 (except 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, and 3.15), 5
(except section 5.8.5), 6 (except 6.1.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5),
Appendices A, D, and E of the industry test method. AHRI 390-2021 is an
industry-accepted

[[Page 2514]]

test procedure for measuring the performance of SPVUs. AHRI Standard
390-2021 is available online at <a href="http://www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx">www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx</a>.
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the
test standard published by ASHRAE, titled ``Methods of Testing for
Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009
is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring the performance of
electrically driven unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment.
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009 is available on ANSI's website at <a href="https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FASHRAE+Standard+37-2009">https://webstore.ansi.org/RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI%2FASHRAE+Standard+37-2009</a>.
In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the
test standard published by ASHRAE, titled ``Standard Methods For
Laboratory Airflow Measurement,'' ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA
92). ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA 92) is an industry-accepted
test procedure for consistent measurement procedures for use in the
preparation of other ASHRAE standards. Procedures described are used in
testing air-moving, air-handling, and air-distribution equipment and
components. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2-1987 (RA 92) is available on
ANSI's website at <a href="https://webstore.ansi.org/Standards/ASHRAE/ANSIASHRAE411987RA92">https://webstore.ansi.org/Standards/ASHRAE/ANSIASHRAE411987RA92</a>.
The following standards, which appear in the regulatory text, were
previously approved for IBR and no changes are proposed: AHRI 210/240-
2008, AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 1230-2010, ASHRAE 127-2007, and ISO
Standard 13256-1 (1998).

V. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at
the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information,
participant instructions, and information about the capabilities
available to webinar participants will be published on DOE's website:
<a href="http://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines">www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/public-meetings-and-comment-deadlines</a>.
Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible
with the webinar software.

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution

Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this
notice, or who is representative of a group or class of persons that
has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an
oral presentation at the webinar/public meeting. Such persons may
submit requests to speak via email to the Appliance and Equipment
Standards Program at: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b2f3c2c2dedbd3dcd1d7e1c6d3dcd6d3c0d6c1e3c7d7c1c6dbdddcc1f2d7d79cd6ddd79cd5ddc4">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Persons
who wish to speak should include with their request a computer file in
WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that
briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and
the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a
daytime telephone number where they can be reached.
DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to
submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before
the webinar/public meeting. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons
who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if
those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the
Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral
presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements.

C. Conduct of the Webinar

DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public
meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion.
The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing,
but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42
U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the
proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to
schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures
governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be
discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share,
or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After
the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period,
interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and
any aspect of the rulemaking.
The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE
will present summaries of comments received before the webinar/public
meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants,
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues
affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a
general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the
discussion of specific topics. DOE will permit, as time permits, other
participants to comment briefly on any general statements.
At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit
participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on
statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer
questions posed by DOE and by other participants concerning these
issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants
concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official
conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments
or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding
official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of
the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the
webinar/public meeting.
A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the
docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the
beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of
the transcript from the transcribing reporter.

D. Submission of Comments

DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at
the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit
comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at
the beginning of this document.
DOE has historically provided a 75-day comment period for test
procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement,
U.S.-Canada-Mexico (``NAFTA''), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993);
the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law
103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C.A.
2576) (1993) (``NAFTA Implementation Act''); and Executive Order 12889,
``Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement,'' 58 FR
69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020, the Agreement between
the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and the United
Canadian States (``USMCA''), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the
successor to NAFTA), went into effect, and Congress's action in
replacing NAFTA through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et
seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment
period requirement for technical regulations. Thus, the controlling
laws are EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA's
public comment

[[Page 2515]]

period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-
day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
Submitting comments via <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. The
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment.
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names,
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any
documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a> 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 <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via
email also will be posted to <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>. 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. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will
be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of
encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the electronic
signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on January 14, 2022.

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.