Home/Federal/Federal Register/2023-08897

Proposed Rule2023-08897

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 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

May 12, 2023

Issuing agencies

Energy Department

Abstract

The U.S. Department of Energy ("DOE") proposes to amend the test procedures for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners ("PTACs") and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps ("PTHPs") to establish seasonal energy efficiency metrics for heating and cooling. DOE also proposes to revise the current test procedure to measure dehumidification energy use of make-up air PTACs and PTHPs. DOE is seeking comment from interested parties on the proposal.

Full Text

<html>
<head>
<title>Federal Register, Volume 88 Issue 92 (Friday, May 12, 2023)</title>
</head>
<body><pre>
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 92 (Friday, May 12, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30836-30887]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [<a href="http://www.gpo.gov">www.gpo.gov</a>]
[FR Doc No: 2023-08897]

[[Page 30835]]

Vol. 88

Friday,

No. 92

May 12, 2023

Part II

Department of Energy

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

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 92 / Friday, May 12, 2023 / Proposed
Rules

[[Page 30836]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2019-BT-TP-0027]
RIN 1904-AE65

Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Packaged Terminal
Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal 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 the
test procedures for Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners (``PTACs'') and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps (``PTHPs'') to establish seasonal energy
efficiency metrics for heating and cooling. DOE also proposes to revise
the current test procedure to measure dehumidification energy use of
make-up air PTACs and PTHPs. DOE is seeking comment from interested
parties on the proposal.

DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
proposal no later than July 11, 2023. See section V, ``Public
Participation,'' for details. DOE will hold a webinar on Tuesday, June
6, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 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> under docket
number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0027. Follow the instructions for submitting
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments,
identified by docket number EERE-2019-BT-TP-0027, by any of the
following methods:
Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88d8dcc9cbc0d8bab8b9b1dcd8b8b8babfc8ededa6ece7eda6efe7fe">[email&#160;protected]</a>. Include the docket number EERE-
2019-BT-TP-0027 in the subject line of the message.
Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S.
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC, 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-1445. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc
(``CD''), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 1000
Independence Ave SW, Washington, DC 20585. Telephone: (202) 287-1445.
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not
necessary to include printed copies.
No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this
process, see section V of this document.
Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal
Register notices, public meeting attendee lists and transcripts (if a
public meeting is held), 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
The docket web page can be found at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-TP-0027">www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2019-BT-TP-0027</a>. The docket web page contains instructions on how
to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section V for information on how to submit comments through
<a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy
Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone:
(202) 287-5904. Email: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9adbeaeaf6f3fbf4f9ffc9eefbf4fefbe8fee9cbefffe9eef3f5f4e9daffffb4fef5ffb4fdf5ec">[email&#160;protected]</a>
Ms. Amelia Whiting, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-2588. Email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#3879555d545159166f50514c51565f785049165c575d165f574e">[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 (if
one is held), contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program
staff at (202) 287-1445 or by email:
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#317041415d58505f52546245505f55504355426044544245585e5f427154541f555e541f565e47">[email&#160;protected]</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
DOE proposes to maintain material previously approved for
incorporation by reference in part 431: AHRI 310/380-2014, and update
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014), ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009
and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986. DOE incorporates by reference the
following industry standards into 10 CFR part 431:
AHRI Standard 310/380-2017, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-
Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' July 2017 (``AHRI 310/380-2017''). ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 16-2016, ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air
Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners, and Packaged Terminal
Heat Pumps for Cooling and Heating Capacity,'' ANSI approved November
1, 2016 (``ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016'').
Copies of AHRI 310/380-2014 and AHRI 310/380-2017 can be obtained
from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute
(``AHRI''), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201 (703)
524-8800, or online at: <a href="http://www.ahrinet.org/standards">www.ahrinet.org/standards</a>.
See section IV.M of this document 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. Proposed Organization of the PTAC/HP Test Procedure
C. Updates to Industry Standards
1. AHRI 310/380-2017
2. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
D. Definitions
E. Operation at Part Load Conditions and Integrated Metrics
1. Market Size of PTACs and PTHPs With Part-Load Operation
Capability
2. Potential Part-Load Efficiency Metrics
3. Low-Ambient Heating
F. Proposed Cooling Metric and Test Procedure
1. Test Conditions
2. Cooling Tests
3. Cyclic Losses
4. SCP Calculation
5. Cooling Temperature Bins and Weights
G. Proposed Heating Metric and Test Procedure
1. Test Conditions
2. Heating Tests
3. Evaluating Cut-In and Cut-Out Temperatures
4. Defrost Degradation
5. SHP Calculation
6. Heating Temperature Bins and Weights
H. Dehumidification of Fresh Air
1. Market Size of Make-Up Air PTACs and PTHPs
2. Dehumidification Energy Use
3. Proposed Test Procedure
I. Fan-Only Mode
J. Use of Psychrometric Testing
K. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
L. Compliance Date
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

[[Page 30837]]

1. Description of Why Action Is Being Considered
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
5. Duplication Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and
Regulations
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
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. Attendance at the Public Meeting
B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for
Distribution
C. Conduct of the Public Meeting
D. Submission of Comments
E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment
VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

I. Authority and Background

Package terminal air conditioners (``PTACs'') and package terminal
heat pumps (``PTHPs'') (collectively ``PTAC/HPs'') 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)(I)) DOE's current test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs are
currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations
(``CFR''), part 431, section 96(g) ``Test Procedures for Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioners and Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps,'' with
additional provisions provided in section 96 paragraphs (c) and (e).
The following sections discuss DOE's authority to establish test
procedures for PTACs and PTHPs and relevant background information
regarding DOE's consideration of test procedures for this equipment.

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, Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for
Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions
designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes PTACs
and PTHPs, the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(I))
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\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), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
\2\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code,
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), test
procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315),
energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42
U.S.C. 6296).
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 other representations about
the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE
uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies
with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. 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
42 U.S.C. 6316(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.
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 must be reasonably designed to produce test
results which reflect energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated
annual operating cost of a given type of covered equipment during a
representative average use cycle and requires that test procedures not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) With respect to
small, large, and very large commercial package air-conditioning and
heating equipment, packaged terminal air conditioners, packaged
terminal heat pumps, warm air furnaces, packaged boilers, storage water
heaters, instantaneous water heaters, and unfired hot water storage
tanks (collectively ``ASHRAE equipment''), EPCA requires DOE to use
industry test procedures developed or recognized by the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (``AHRI'') or the
American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers (``ASHRAE''), as referenced in ASHRAE/IES 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 is required
to amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry
test procedure, unless it determines, by rule published in the Federal
Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the
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))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven years, DOE
evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including
PTACs and PTHPs, 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))
DOE is publishing this notice of proposed rulemaking (``NOPR'') in
satisfaction of the seven-year review requirement specified in EPCA.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))

B. Background

DOE's existing test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs appear at title
10 of

[[Page 30838]]

the CFR part 431, subpart F, section 96(g).
For PTACs and PTHPs, DOE currently specifies the energy efficiency
ratio (``EER'') as the energy efficiency descriptor for cooling
efficiency. Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96. EER is the ratio of the produced
cooling effect of the PTAC or PTHP to its net work input, expressed in
Btu/watt-hour, and measured at standard rating conditions. 10 CFR
431.92. For PTHPs, DOE specifies the coefficient of performance
(``COP'') as the energy efficiency descriptor for heating efficiency.
Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96. COP is the ratio of the produced heating
effect of the PTHP to its net work input, expressed in watts/watts, and
measured at standard rating conditions. 10 CFR 431.92.
The test procedures were most recently amended after AHRI published
AHRI Standard 310/380-2014, ``Standard for Packaged Terminal Air-
Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (``AHRI 310/380-2014'') in February 2014.
The 2014 version of the standard updated and superseded AHRI Standard
310/380-2004. In a final rule published on June 30, 2015 (``June 2015
TP final rule''), DOE amended the test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs.
80 FR 37136, 37136-37149. In the June 2015 TP final rule, DOE
incorporated by reference certain sections of AHRI 310/380-2014. Id. at
80 FR 37148. DOE also incorporated by reference (1) American National
Standard Institute (``ANSI'')/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 (RA 2014),
``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air Conditioners and Packaged
Terminal Air Conditioners'' (``ASHRAE 16-1983''); (2) ANSI/ASHRAE
Standard 58-1986 (RA2014), ``Method of Testing for Rating Room Air
Conditioner and Packaged Terminal Air Conditioner Heating Capacity''
(``ASHRAE 58-1986''); and (3) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, ``Methods
of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ASHRAE 37-2009''). Id. Additionally, DOE
amended the PTAC and PTHP test procedures to specify an optional break-
in period; explicitly require that wall sleeves be sealed; allow for
the pre-filling of the condensate drain pan; require that measurements
of cooling capacity be conducted using electrical instruments accurate
to <plus-minus> 0.5 percent of reading; and require testing with 14-
inch deep wall sleeves and the filter option most representative of a
typical installation. Id. at 80 FR 37149.
In July 2017, AHRI published AHRI Standard 310/380-2017, ``Packaged
Terminal Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps'' (``AHRI 310/380-2017''). The
2017 version of the standard updated and superseded AHRI Standard 310/
380-2014. The 2017 version of the standard incorporated DOE's
additional PTAC and PTHP test procedure specifications listed
previously. The current DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs are
therefore consistent with AHRI 310/380-2017.
EPCA requires DOE to use industry test procedures developed or
recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. The
latest update to ASHRAE Standard 90.1, published on October 24, 2019
(``ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019'') updated the AHRI Standard 310/380
reference to the 2017 edition. As discussed, the DOE test procedures
for PTACs and PTHPs are already consistent with AHRI 310/380-2017. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A))
EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including PTACs and
PTHPs, 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))
Under this seven-year lookback provision, DOE initiated a test
procedure rulemaking for PTACs and PTHPs to collect data and
information to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence
that would justify the adoption of procedures other than those
referenced in ASHRAE 90.1-2019. On December 8, 2020, DOE published an
early assessment request for information (``RFI'') in which it sought
data and information pertinent to whether amended test procedures would
(1) more accurately or fully comply with the requirement that the test
procedure produces results that measure energy use during a
representative average use cycle for the equipment without being unduly
burdensome to conduct, or (2) reduce testing burden. See 85 FR 78967
(``December 2020 Early Assessment RFI'').
Based on the comments received on the December 2020 Early
Assessment RFI and DOE's review of the test procedures for PTACs and
PTHPs, DOE determined it appropriate to continue the test procedure
rulemaking after the early assessment process. On May 25, 2021, DOE
published in the Federal Register a RFI (``May 2021 RFI'') in which DOE
requested comments, information, and data about a number of issues,
including (1) the market size of PTAC and PTHP units that include make-
up air dehumidification, the equipment designs of PTACs and PTHPs that
provide make-up air dehumidification, and the energy use associated
with this function of PTACs and PTHPs; (2) the market size of PTAC and
PTHP units that are capable of part-load operation and the energy use
associated with part-load operation of PTACs and PTHPs; (3) the power
use associated with fan-only mode operation of PTACs and PTHPs and
whether fan-only operation reflects energy use during a representative
average use cycle; and (4) low-temperature performance for cold climate
PTHPs and whether and how the test procedure should be updated for such
equipment. 86 FR 28005.
DOE received comments in response to the May 2021 RFI from the
interested parties listed in Table I.1. Discussion of the relevant
comments, and DOE's responses, are provided in the appropriate sections
of this document. 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 develop
test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs. (Docket NO. EERE-2019-BT-TP-
0027, which is maintained at <a href="http://www.regulations.gov">www.regulations.gov</a>). The references
are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number,
page of that document).

Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2021 RFI
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commenter(s) Reference in this NOPR Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI..................... Trade Association.
Refrigeration Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Joint Advocates.......... Efficiency Organizations.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
California Investor Owned Utilities... CA IOUs.................. Utility.

[[Page 30839]]

Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance.. NEAA..................... Efficiency Organizations.
LG Electronics USA.................... LG....................... Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to relocate the existing test
procedures for PTACs and PTHPs from 10 CFR 431.96(g) to a new appendix
H to subpart F of part 431, ``Uniform test method for measuring the
energy consumption of package terminal air conditioners and heat
pumps,'' (``appendix H'') that would include the relevant test
procedure requirements for measuring existing efficiency metrics: (1)
EER for cooling mode and (2) COP for heating mode. DOE is also
proposing to establish a new appendix H1 to subpart F of part 431,
``Uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of package
terminal air conditioners and heat pumps,'' (``appendix H1'') that
would include the relevant test procedure requirements for PTACs and
PTHPs for measuring seasonal cooling and heating efficiency via new
efficiency metrics: (1) seasonal cooling performance (``SCP'') for
cooling mode and (2) seasonal heating performance (``SHP'') for heating
mode and provide test procedure requirements for making representations
of dehumidification energy use via a new efficiency metric,
dehumidification efficiency (``DE''). The current DOE test procedures
for PTACs and PTHPs would be relocated from Sec. 431.96(g) to appendix
H without change, and the new test procedures would be established at
appendix H1. Appendix H1 would provide the test procedure for
representations based on SCP, SHP and DE and would be mandatory at such
time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation
standards based on SCP and SHP, should DOE adopt standards using such
metrics. In conjunction, DOE is proposing to amend Table 1 of 10 CFR
431.96 to identify the newly added appendices H and H1 as the
applicable test procedures for PTAC/HPs.
DOE's proposed actions are summarized in Table II.1 compared to the
current test procedure as well as the reason for the proposed change.

Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed test
Current DOE test procedure procedure Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Located at 10 CFR 431.96(g)... Current test procedure Improves
unchanged but readability.
relocated to appendix
H. The proposed new
test procedure would
be located in
appendix H1.
Incorporates by reference AHRI Updates incorporation Updates to the
310/380-2014, ANSI/ASHRAE 16- by reference to AHRI applicable
1983, ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986, 310/380-2017 and industry test
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. maintains other procedures.
existing references
in appendix H..
In appendix H1
incorporates by
reference AHRI 310/
380-2017, ANSI/ASHRAE
16-2016 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009.
Includes provisions for Maintains existing More
determining full-load metrics in appendix representative
efficiency metrics, EER and H. In appendix H1, test procedure.
COP. includes provisions
for determining
seasonal efficiency
metrics, SCP and SHP.
Does not define make-up PTAC/ Maintains existing More
HPs nor includes provisions approach in appendix representative
to measure dehumidification H. In appendix H1, test procedure.
energy use of these units. defines make-up PTAC/
HPs and includes
provisions to measure
dehumidification
energy use.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments
described in section III of this NOPR regarding the establishment of
appendix H would not alter the measured efficiency of PTAC/HPs or
require retesting solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed
amendments to the test procedure, if made final. DOE has tentatively
determined, however, that the proposed test procedure amendments in
appendix H1 would, if adopted, alter the measured efficiency of PTAC/
HPs. DOE has tentatively determined that these amendments will provide
efficiency measurements more representative of the energy efficiency of
PTACs and PTHPs and are not unduly burdensome to conduct. Further, use
of the proposed appendix H1 would not be required until the compliance
date of amended standards denominated in terms of SCP and SHP.
Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in further detail in
section III of this NOPR.

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

This rulemaking applies to PTACs and PTHPs. DOE defines PTAC as a
wall sleeve and a separate un-encased combination of heating and
cooling assemblies intended for mounting through the wall. 10 CFR
431.92. It includes a prime source of refrigeration, separable outdoor
louvers, forced ventilation, and heating availability by builder's
choice of hot water, steam, or electricity. Id. DOE defines PTHP as a
PTAC that utilizes reverse cycle refrigeration as its prime heat source
and has a supplemental heat source available, including hot water,
steam, or electric resistant heat. Id.

B. Proposed Organization of the PTAC/HP Test Procedure

The current DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs appear at 10
CFR 431.96(g). The current test procedure for cooling mode incorporates
by reference AHRI 310/380-2014, with the following sections applicable
to the DOE test procedure: sections 3, 4.1, 4.2, 4.3, and 4.4; ANSI/
ASHRAE 16-1983 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. 10 CFR 431.96(g)(1). The
current test procedure for heating mode testing incorporates by
reference AHRI 310/380-2014, with the following sections applicable to
the DOE test procedure: sections 3, 4.1, 4.2 (except sections
4.2.1.2(b)), 4.3, and 4.4; and

[[Page 30840]]

ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986. 10 CFR 431.96(g)(2).
The current test procedures also include additional provisions in
paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96. Paragraph (c) of 10 CFR 431.96
specifies provisions for an optional compressor break-in period, and
paragraph (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 details what information sources can be
used for unit set-up and provides specific set-up instructions for
refrigerant parameters (e.g., superheat) and air flow rate.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ The amendatory instructions in the June 2015 TP final rule
for PTACs and PTHPs includes the reference to AHRI Standard 310/380-
2014 in paragraphs (c) and (e), indicating that the requirements do
apply to this equipment, even though the current CFR does not
include this reference. 80 FR 37136, 37149 (June 30, 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

DOE is proposing to relocate and centralize the current test
procedure for PTACs and PTHPs from 10 CFR 431.96(g) to a new appendix
H. As proposed, appendix H would not amend the current test procedure.
DOE's current test procedure incorporates by reference AHRI 310/380-
2014, but the most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019, recognizes AHRI 310/380-2017 as the test procedure
for PTACs and PTHPs. AHRI 310/380-2017 differs from AHRI 310/380-2014
only in that it includes the additional test provisions that DOE has
already prescribed at 10 CFR 431.96(c), (e) and (g). Therefore, the
current DOE test procedures for PTAC/HPs are already consistent with
AHRI 310/380-2017. However, to improve readability, DOE is proposing to
update the incorporate by reference from AHRI 310/380-2014 to AHRI 310/
380-2017 and to remove the redundant test provision references to 10
CFR 431.96(c), (e) and (g).
The test procedure as proposed for appendix H would be updated to
reference AHRI 310/380-2017 and provide instructions for determining
EER and COP. Consistent with the existing test procedure, DOE is
proposing to continue to reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983, ANSI/ASHRAE 58-
1986 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in the proposed appendix H. As proposed,
DOE would require that PTACs and PTHPs be tested according to appendix
H until the compliance date of any future amended energy conservation
standards for PTACs and PTHPs.
DOE also is proposing in parallel an amended test procedure for
PTACs and PTHPs in a new appendix H1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431.
Appendix H1 would include test instructions for determining the new
seasonal cooling and heating metrics, SCP and SHP, respectively, and
provide test instructions for making representations of
dehumidification energy use in terms of the dehumidification metric,
DE. As proposed, DOE would not require that PTACs or PTHPs be tested
according to the test procedure in proposed appendix H1 until the
compliance date of any future amended energy conservation standards for
PTACs and PTHPs.

C. Updates to Industry Standards

1. AHRI 310/380-2017
As noted previously, DOE's current test procedure for PTACs and
PTHPs is codified at 10 CFR 431.96 and incorporates by reference AHRI
310/380-2014, with additional test provisions at 10 CFR 431.96(c), (e)
and (g). The most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ASHRAE
Standard 90.1-2019, recognizes AHRI 310/380-2017 as the test procedure
for PTACs and PTHPs.
In response to the May 2021 RFI, AHRI expressed their view that
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 and AHRI Standard 310/380-2017 are reasonably
designed to measure energy use during a representative use cycle and
that the design of PTACs and PTHPs and their usage patterns have not
changed significantly since the last DOE rulemaking. (AHRI, No. 14 at
p. 2) AHRI commented that AHRI 310/380-2017 was incorporated by
reference into the 2019 edition of ASHRAE 90.1, and that DOE must now
act to incorporate AHRI Standard 310/380-2017 by reference without any
modifications. Id. AHRI noted that the Secretary has discretion to
consider modifications to the test procedure cited in ASHRAE, but
similar to energy conservation standards, for ``ASHRAE products'' any
deviation from the industry test procedure must be, ``supported by
clear and convincing evidence'' that the industry procedure was (a) not
reasonably designed to produce test results which reflect energy
efficiency; or (b) unduly burdensome to conduct. Id. AHRI asserted that
AHRI 310/380-2017 met neither of these criteria since no manufacturer
has submitted a waiver to DOE for use of a modified version of the
current test procedure, which indicates that the results of the
existing test procedure remain representative of actual energy use or
efficiency; and all products defined as PTACs and PTHPs are able to be
tested in accordance with AHRI 310/380. Id.
DOE notes that the only difference between AHRI 310/380-2014 and
AHRI 310/380-2017 is that AHRI 310/380-2017 includes the same
additional test provisions that DOE has already prescribed at 10 CFR
431.96(c), (e) and (g). Therefore, the current DOE test procedure,
which incorporates by reference AHRI 310/380-2014 and includes these
additional provisions, is consistent with AHRI 310/380-2017. However,
as discussed in section III.B of this proposed rule, to improve
readability, DOE is proposing to update the existing incorporation by
reference provisions in 10 CFR 431.95 to reference AHRI 310/380-2017
and to remove the applicability of the redundant test provisions at 10
CFR 431.96(c), (e) and (g). Appendix H would reference AHRI 310/380-
2017 and provide instructions for determining EER and COP that are
consistent with the existing DOE test procedure.
As mentioned previously, DOE is undertaking this rulemaking to
satisfy the seven-year review requirement for test procedures in 42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A). Under this process, if DOE determines that an
amended test procedure would more fully or accurately comply with the
requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3), DOE shall prescribe an
amended test procedure. Further, as PTACs are subject to the provisions
in EPCA for ASHRAE equipment, DOE's determination must be supported by
clear and convincing evidence.
Based on an evaluation of the current test methodology and products
on the market, DOE has tentatively determined that an amended test
procedure may produce test results that more fully or accurately
reflect energy efficiency and energy use of PTAC/HPs during a
representative average use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome to
conduct. In particular, DOE notes that AHRI 310/380-2017 does not
include test provisions to measure the potential benefit of designs
that can operate at part load (i.e., variable speed products). As
discussed in more detail in section III.E of this notice, DOE is aware
of several variable-speed PTAC/HP models on the market that can provide
efficiency benefits at part-load conditions which are not captured by
the test conditions in AHRI 310/380-2017. AHRI 310/380-2017 also does
not provide a measure of seasonal cooling and heating efficiency, but
instead relies on the single-point ratings of EER and COP--at 95 [deg]F
outdoor temperature for EER and at 47 [deg]F outdoor temperature for
COP. As PTACs and PTHPs in the field operate year round in cooling or
heating mode, seasonal performance, which considers more than one
outdoor temperature and the potential for part-load operation when the
building load is low at moderate outdoor temperatures, would be more

[[Page 30841]]

representative of average use as compared to a single-point rating.
However, AHRI 310/380-2017 does not include test conditions or
provisions to capture either of these factors, which would affect
seasonal cooling or heating efficiency. Finally, AHRI 310/380-2017 does
not address PTAC/HPs that provide ``make-up air,'' i.e., outside air
brought in to provide ventilation, or provide test instructions to
determine the dehumidification energy use associated with these units.
While DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference certain sections
of AHRI 310/380-2017 into appendix H1 (sections 3, 4 and 5), DOE has
additionally tentatively determined that there is clear and convincing
evidence to propose deviations from AHRI 310/380-2017 and to establish
amended test procedures at appendix H1.
2. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
As mentioned, the current test procedure for cooling mode
incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983 and the current test
procedure for heating mode incorporates ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986. On October
31, 2016, ASHRAE published ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016, ``Method of Testing for
Rating Room Air Conditioners, Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners, and
Packaged Terminal Heat Pumps for Cooling and Heating Capacity'' (`ANSI/
ASHRAE 16-2016''). ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 is substantively the same as
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 16-1983 but also incorporates the method of test
for obtaining heating capacity for rating room air-conditioners and
PTAC/HP heating capacity as prescribed in ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 58-1986.
For appendix H, DOE is proposing to maintain the reference to ANSI/
ASHRAE 16-1983 and ANSI/ASHRAE 58-1986. For appendix H1, DOE is
proposing to incorporate by reference the updated ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016
for both the cooling and heating test procedures.

D. Definitions

DOE currently defines PTAC as a wall sleeve and a separate un-
encased combination of heating and cooling assemblies intended for
mounting through the wall. 10 CFR 431.92. It includes a prime source of
refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and
heating availability by builder's choice of hot water, steam, or
electricity. Id.
DOE defines PTHP as a PTAC that utilizes reverse cycle
refrigeration as its prime heat source and has a supplemental heat
source available, including hot water, steam, or electric resistant
heat. Id.
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested comment on the definitions of
PTACs and PTHPs and whether any of the terms should be amended, and if
so, how. 86 FR 28005, 28007. In particular, DOE requested comment on
whether the terms are sufficient to identify which equipment is subject
to the test procedure and whether any test procedure amendments are
required to ensure that all such equipment can be appropriately tested
in accordance with the test procedure. Id.
In response, AHRI stated that they have no recommended changes to
the definitions of PTACs and PTHPs. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4) NEEA
recommended that DOE amend the definition of PTACs and PTHPs to include
`dual-ducted' units, which the commenter explained are units that use
two through-the-wall ducts in place of an outdoor mounted section. NEAA
further noted that these products are marketed as replacements for
PTAC/HPs and are similarly permanently installed through-the-wall air
conditioners or heat pumps. NEEA provided product literature for two
such units. (NEAA, No. 17 at p. 1-2)
DOE reviewed the product literature provided by NEEA and
tentatively concludes that these products do not meet the PTAC and PTHP
definitions because they do not have a separate un-encased assembly of
heating/cooling, do not have a wall sleeve and have no separable
outdoor louvers. See 10 CFR 431.92. While the two unit ducts go
`through the wall', the unit itself is mounted on the inside of the
conditioned space. Additionally, DOE considers that broadening the PTAC
and PTHP definitions to include these products is not appropriate since
the product literature for these two units indicates that these are
covered under other air conditioning product categories. Therefore, DOE
is not proposing to include the units identified by NEEA within the
definitions of PTAC and PTHP.

E. Operation at Part Load Conditions and Integrated Metrics

As stated, EPCA requires that the test procedures for PTACs and
PTHPs be the generally accepted industry testing procedures developed
or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1.
(42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) EPCA also requires that test procedures
prescribed by DOE be reasonably designed to produce test results which
reflect energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle,
and must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2))
DOE's current test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs do not have
provisions to measure the potential benefit of designs that can operate
at part load, nor does the test address unit cooling performance at
part-load outdoor temperature conditions that represent many of the
hours of the cooling season. Additionally, the current DOE test
procedures do not have provisions to measure performance at low-ambient
outdoor temperature conditions for the heating season. For PTACs and
PTHPs, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 specifies minimum efficiency levels
expressed in terms of the full-load metrics of EER and COP. ``Full-
load'' refers to testing at a single test condition, under which the
compressor operates continuously at 100 percent of its full capacity.
Under DOE's current test procedure, full load efficiency is measured at
the standard rating conditions as prescribed in AHRI 310/380-2014. In
contrast, for cooling, ``part-load'' refers to testing at a reduced-
temperature test condition in which the cooling load of the space would
generally be less than the full cooling capacity of the compressor. Any
temperatures below the standard rating condition could potentially be
considered part-load cooling conditions. For heating, ``part-load''
refers to testing at a temperature test condition in which the heating
load of the space is less than the full heating capacity of the
compressor. Any temperatures which do not require the full heating
capacity could potentially be considered part-load heating conditions.
1. Market Size of PTACs and PTHPs With Part-Load Operation Capability
DOE is aware of several variable-speed PTAC and PTHP models on the
market that can provide an efficiency benefit at part-load conditions.
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested information on the market
availability and market size for PTACs and PTHPs that incorporate two-
stage, multi-stage, or fully variable-speed compressors that enable
more efficient part-load operation. 86 FR 28005, 28009-28010.
AHRI commented that it surveyed its members to determine the
relative market share of PTACs and PTHPs that incorporate two-stage,
multi-stage, or fully variable-speed compressors and that their data,
which constituted a representative sample of the PTAC and PTHP market,
indicated that 0.7 percent of PTAC and PTHP shipments incorporate these
enhanced compressors. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7)

[[Page 30842]]

The CA IOUs commented there has been an increase in variable-speed
compressor technology across a whole host of commercial and residential
air conditioner products and PTACs and PTHPs are no exception to the
growth of variable-speed compressor technology. (CA IOUs, No. 15 at p.
2) The CA IOUs noted that at least five manufacturers already sell
variable speed products, and that number is likely to grow. Id.
Additionally, they stated that the hotel industry has also published
articles speaking to the benefits of new PTAC/HPs that incorporate
variable-speed compressors. Id.
The Joint Advocates asserted that PTACs and PTHPs are rarely
required to operate at full load and an amended test procedure that
captures part-load performance would thus be more representative and
would also capture the potential efficiency gains associated with
variable-speed compressors. (Joint Advocates, No. 16 at p. 1) The Joint
Advocates encouraged DOE to adopt efficiency metrics that reflect
annual energy consumption including part-load operation. Id.
DOE notes that while the shipments data provided by AHRI suggests
that only a small fraction of PTACs and PTHPs incorporate variable
speed compressor technology currently, DOE's review of its compliance
certification management system (``CCMS'') \5\ database and current
product literature indicates that these products are already present in
the market and may continue to increase in market share. As a result,
inclusion of part-load performance in the test procedure may provide a
more representative measure of unit performance over the cooling or
heating season. The next section discusses potential part-load cooling
and heating efficiency metrics for PTACs and PTHPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ DOE's Compliance Certification Management System Database is
available at <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms">www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Potential Part-Load Efficiency Metrics
For measurement of part-load performance for PTACs and PTHPs, the
proposed DOE test procedure at appendix H1 would require a part-load or
seasonal efficiency metric. Several categories of air conditioning and
heating equipment are already rated under DOE test procedures using
metrics that account for cooling part-load or seasonal performance. For
example, commercial unitary air conditioners (``CUACs'') are rated
using the part-load metric integrated energy efficiency ratio
(``IEER'') (see appendix A to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431); and
central air conditioners (``CACs'') and heat pumps(``CHPs'')
(``collectively CAC/HPs'') are rated using the seasonal energy
efficiency ratio (``SEER2'') (see appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR
part 430 (``appendix MI'')). Room air conditioners (``RACs'') are rated
using the combined energy efficiency ratio (``CEER'').\6\ While the
CEER metric is not a part-load or seasonal metric, amendments to the
DOE test procedure provide for the application of a performance
adjustment factor to a variable-speed model's CEER rating (i.e.,
``performance-adjusted CEER'') that reflects seasonal efficiency
benefits (see appendix F to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430).\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ CEER is an energy efficiency metric for room air
conditioners that integrates standby/inactive and off mode energy
use with the active mode energy use. 10 CFR 430.23(f)(3); appendix F
to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 sections 2 and 5.2.2.
\7\ DOE published a final rule on March 29, 2021, amending the
test procedure for room air conditioners to establish test
provisions for measuring the energy use of variable-speed units
during a representative average use cycle. 86 FR 16446.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Similar to the EER cooling metric, the COP heating metric for PTHPs
measures heating efficiency only at full load operation. For the
reasons described previously with regard to cooling efficiency, using a
heating efficiency metric that accounts for only full-load operation
does not measure the part-load operation in PTHPs that may be enabled
by the incorporation of two-stage, multi-stage, or variable-speed
compressors. Heating Season Performance Factor (``HSPF2'') is a metric
that serves as a counterpart to SEER2 and accounts for seasonal
performance in the heating season for residential central heat pumps.
It reflects seasonal performance by averaging test results from
multiple load points, depending on system configuration (single-speed,
two-capacity, or variable-speed), with varying outdoor conditions and
staging levels to represent the product's average efficiency throughout
the heating season (see appendix M1).
In the May 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on how to best
measure part-load cooling performance for PTACs and PTHPs, specifically
the number of tests that are appropriate to represent the part-load
capabilities of the unit; the outdoor ambient conditions that best
represent real world performance; the averaging weights that should be
applied to each condition; whether a cyclic test component should be
incorporated and whether an optional test for multi-capacity rating
should be incorporated. 86 FR 28005, 28010. DOE also requested feedback
on the appropriateness and potential applicability of the IEER, SEER
\8\ and performance-adjusted CEER as appropriate metrics for PTACs and
PTHPs and whether a test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs that uses any of
these would produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency of
that equipment during a representative average use cycle. Id. DOE also
requested information on the costs that would be associated with a test
procedure that uses any of these metrics. Id. Additionally, DOE
requested comment on whether any other seasonal efficiency metrics that
incorporate part-load performance would produce test results that
reflect the energy efficiency of PTACs and PTHPs during a
representative average use cycle, and if so, which outdoor temperature
rating conditions would be appropriate for testing PTACs and PTHPs. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ In the May 2021 RFI, DOE referred to SEER instead of SEER2.
SEER2 has the same definition as SEER but reflects the amendments
made to the test procedure in appendix M1, which change the measured
efficiency values compared to appendix M to subpart B of 10 CFR part
430.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For the heating metric, DOE requested comment on how to best
measure part-load and seasonal heating performance for PTHPs,
specifically the number of tests that are appropriate to represent the
part-load capabilities of the unit; the outdoor ambient conditions that
best represent real world performance; the averaging weights that
should be applied to each condition; whether a cyclic test component
should be incorporated; whether an optional test for multi-capacity
rating should be incorporated; and whether a test to evaluate the PTHP
in defrost cycles is required 86 FR 28005, 28011. DOE also requested
information on whether HSPF \9\ would be an appropriate metric for
PTHPs, or if any other seasonal heating efficiency metrics that would
produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency of PTHPs during
a representative average use cycle would be appropriate, and if so,
which outdoor temperature rating conditions would be appropriate for
testing PTHPs. Id. DOE also requested comment on the costs that would
be associated with the use of any such seasonal heating efficiency
metric to rate PTHP performance. Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ In the May 2021 RFI, DOE referred to HSPF instead of HSPF2.
HSPF2 has the same definition as HSPF but reflects the amendments
made to the test procedure in appendix M1, which change the measured
efficiency values compared to appendix M.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Joint Advocates encouraged DOE to adopt cooling and heating
efficiency metrics that attempt to reflect the annual energy
consumption of PTACs

[[Page 30843]]

and PTHPs in typical applications and to adopt an amended test
procedure that tests all PTACs and PTHPs the same way, regardless of
whether a unit is single-speed, two-stage, multi-stage or variable
speed as this will provide comparable efficiency ratings. (Joint
Advocates, No. 16 at p. 1)
NEEA suggested that DOE adopt part-load metrics aligned with the
AHRI Standard 210/240 as referenced in appendix M1. (NEEA, No. 17 at p.
2) NEAA stated that aligning with appendix M1 is the best course of
action in the current rulemaking as PTACs and PTHPs are most likely to
be substitutes for smaller residential products of similar capacities.
Id. NEEA further stated that multiple manufacturers are already making
representations of SEER and HSPF for PTAC/HPs, showing the market
demand for a residential part-load metric. Id. NEEA noted that a part-
load metric would allow for the benefits of inverter driven, variable
speed PTACs and PTHPs to be more accurately represented and that there
were several variable speed products on the market from at least six
manufacturers. (NEEA, No. 17 at p. 3) NEEA asserted that the fact that
these variable speed products have emerged in the absence of a part-
load test procedure shows strong market demand for these products and
shifting to a part-load metric would allow for these products to fairly
compete with single speed products and would likely lead to the
introduction of more variable speed products. Id.
The CA IOUs also recommended that DOE utilize appendix M1 to
measure the cooling and heating efficiencies of PTACs and PTHPs. The CA
IOUs asserted that consumers often compare PTAC/HPs with CAC/HPs when
choosing a method to cool or heat and cool a single space such as
multifamily housing or lodging facilities because there are models with
similar capacities in both product types and that these products are
typically selected in the construction design process to provide
conditioning year-round. (CA IOUs, No. 15 at p. 2) The CA IOUs stated
that manufacturers recognize the similarity of these products and
provide ``SEER equivalent'' performance information for their PTAC and
PTHPs. Id. The CA IOUs highlighted that a survey of more than 160
buildings in Manhattan found that in new buildings more PTAC and PTHPs
were installed compared to RACs, and that PTAC and PTHPs were more
likely to be designed into the building rather than part of a retrofit
to address a need for cooling--which is similar to the selection and
installation of CAC/HPs and indicates that PTAC/HPs and RACs are less
likely to be substituted for each other. Id. The CA IOUs stated that
they therefore believe it is most important to be able to compare PTAC/
HPs with CAC/HPs. Id. Additionally, the CA IOUs commented that the test
procedures for CUACs and RACs only measure cooling capacity and
efficiency, but PTHPs need a test procedure for both cooling and
heating, noting that appendix M1 provides both the SEER2 metric for
cooling and HSPF2 for heating, as well as part-load conditions. Id.
LG also recommended the DOE adopt AHRI Standard 210/240 as
referenced in appendix M1, but recommended using this test procedure
only for part-load cooling performance and not for heating performance,
because PTACs and PTHPs contain electric heat. (LG, No. 18 at p. 1) LG
stated that while DOE categorized PTACs and PTHPs as commercial
products, these products are usually installed in hotel rooms and
people consider the hotel room as a vacation home--therefore their
usage was close to the residential air conditioner. Id.
NEAA recommended that DOE adopt a load-based test procedure for all
heat pumps and air conditioners including PTHPs and PTACs, stating that
while a part-load test procedure aligned with appendix M1 will be a
step towards better accounting for the performance of PTHPs and PTACs,
it will not account for the effectiveness of the unit's controls or
fully reflect how these units are likely to perform in the real world.
(NEEA, No.17 at p.4). The Joint Advocates also encouraged DOE to
investigate a load-based test procedure, which they stated would
provide a realistic representation of how all units perform in the
field, including capturing the importance of control strategies. (Joint
Advocates, No. 16 at p. 2).
In response to NEEA, the CA IOUs and LG's suggestion regarding the
use of appendix M1 for PTACs and PTHPs, DOE's notes that there are
differences between PTAC/HPs and CAC/HPs that suggest that the direct
use of appendix M1 as the test procedure for PTAC/HPs is inappropriate.
The primary application for CAC/HPs is residential single-family homes
which may have multiple zones, whereas the primary application for
PTAC/HPs is lodging, typically serving single zones (i.e., each
individual hotel room). This difference in the use cases results in
substantially different cooling and heating building load lines for
these two air-conditioning and heating categories. As such, the test
conditions and weighting factors in appendix M1 are not suitable to
capture PTAC and PTHP operation. DOE agrees that SEER2 and HSPF2 are
comprehensive metrics that provide efficiency ratings representative of
an entire season, and the publication of `SEER-equivalent' and `HSPF-
equivalent' ratings for PTAC/HPs suggest a desire for similar seasonal
ratings for PTAC/HPs. However, DOE has provisionally determined that
seasonal cooling and heating metrics for PTACs and PTHPs, even if
similar to the SEER2 and HSPF2 metrics, respectively, should reflect
the different average use operation for PTAC/HP applications. This is
further discussed in sections III.F and III.G of this document.
In response to NEEA and the Joint Advocates' suggestions that DOE
investigate a load-based test procedure, DOE notes that it is unaware
of a comprehensive evaluation of load-based testing of PTACs or similar
equipment that satisfactorily demonstrates repeatability and
reproducibility. DOE is aware of ongoing work addressing questions
about whether the current DOE and industry test procedures for several
air conditioning and heat pump equipment are fully representative of
field operation and would be better served by a load-based test
procedure.\10\ These efforts have been largely focused on residential
CAC/HPs, where the market presence of variable-speed units has
considerably more history and greater market share, and therefore a
load-based test procedure may hold potential value. In comparison, the
increased test burden resulting from a load-based test procedure would
not be appropriate for PTAC/HPs, given the modest share of variable-
speed PTAC/HPs in the market. As such, on the basis of insufficient
test procedure development leading to repeatability and reproducibility
concerns, and the increased test burden associated with a load-based
test procedure, DOE has provisionally determined that introducing a
load-based test procedure for PTAC/HPs would not be appropriate at this
time. However, DOE will continue to investigate load-based

[[Page 30844]]

testing and monitor future efforts related to this topic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ A dynamic load-based test method differs from the steady-
state test method currently used in DOE test procedures for air
conditioning and heat pump equipment. In a steady-state test method,
the indoor room is maintained at a constant temperature throughout
the test. In this type of test, any variable-speed or variable-
position components of air conditioners and heat pumps are set in a
fixed position, which is typically specified by the manufacturer. In
contrast, a dynamic load-based test has the conditioning load
applied to the indoor room using a load profile that approximates
how the load varies for units installed in the field. In this type
of test, an air conditioning system or heat pump is allowed to
automatically determine and vary its control settings in response to
the imposed conditioning loads, rather than relying on manufacturer-
specified settings.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AHRI noted that it was unreasonable for DOE to expect stakeholders
to develop a procedure in 30 days through a response to the RFI and
were unable to any provide information on how to measure part-load
performance of PTACs and PTHPs. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7) AHRI urged DOE
to join the ASHRAE Standard 16 committee and engage in the consensus-
standards development process for the method of test for PTACs and
PTHPs. Id. AHRI noted that all cooling metrics suggested in the May
2021 RFI would carry with them a significant increase in the test
burden when compared to the full load EER metric of AHRI Standard 310/
380. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 8) AHRI attached a table comparing the
required tests for each metric. Id. AHRI also stated that the
residential metrics, SEER for CAC/HPs and performance-adjusted CEER for
RACs, present the potential to cause confusion if applied to commercial
products and that perhaps the best option would be to develop an
entirely new part-load metric suited to PTAC/HPs, through a consensus
standards process. Id. AHRI agreed that variable speed products may
benefit from a part load metric, but stated that the additional test
burden required by a part load metric for single stage products is
unwarranted. Id. AHRI asserted that the PTAC and PTHP market is
overwhelmingly single stage, where a full load rating is most
appropriate. Id. AHRI noted that full load metrics have not been
eliminated in ASHRAE Standard 90.1 as new part load metrics, such as
IEER, have been introduced and federally regulated. Instead, through
building standards, states have regulated both full and part-load
metrics for a single product for those in which both metrics have been
published in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. Id. AHRI also stated that a part-
load metric for any piece of equipment should be specific to the unit's
average use operation for the most common applications and that no
cooling metric DOE suggested in May 2021 RFI is primarily for use in
hotels--the application where the majority of PTACs and PTHPs are used.
AHRI commented that some metrics, including SEER and performance-
adjusted CEER, are for residential applications and that PTACs and
PTHPs are commercial products and have vastly different operating hours
and use patterns than residential equipment. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 9).
For the heating metric, AHRI did not provide a response on the
appropriateness of HSPF or any other seasonal metric. (AHRI, No. 14 at
p. 10) AHRI stated that it was not possible to quantify the cost
implications for a new test procedure prior to the test procedure being
developed. Id.
In response to AHRI's statement that the PTAC and PTHP market is
overwhelmingly single stage where a full-load rating is most
appropriate and that the additional test burden required by a part load
metric for single stage products is unwarranted, DOE notes that EPCA
requires DOE to amend a test procedure if DOE determines that the
amended test procedure would more fully or accurately reflect energy
use during a representative average use cycle and not be unduly
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) Comments received on
the May 2021 RFI suggest that the current full-load cooling and heating
metrics (EER and COP) may not effectively capture the energy efficiency
during a representative average use cycle, regardless of whether a
PTAC/HP is single-stage, multi-stage or variable capacity, because
PTAC/HPs often operate at part-load and at several different
temperature conditions during the cooling or heating season. Therefore,
a full-load standard rating condition may not fully capture the
performance of a PTAC/HP. However, DOE also recognizes that EPCA
requires that test procedures must not be unduly burdensome to conduct
and DOE understands that a new test procedure incorporating multiple
test conditions will introduce more test burden when compared to the
full load single condition EER or COP metric of AHRI Standard 310/380.
As described in section III.K of this NOPR, DOE has tentatively
determined that the increase in test procedure costs will not be unduly
burdensome to manufacturers, especially given the flexibility to
utilize alternate efficiency determination methods (``AEDMs'') to rate
models. DOE agrees with AHRI that the part-load metric for any piece of
equipment should be specific to the unit's average use operation for
the most common applications. Accordingly, DOE initially determines
that the best option would be to develop an entirely new part-load
metric for PTACs and PTHPs, which would be specific to the use cases
for PTAC/HPs and would include consideration of different load levels
and outdoor temperature conditions.
In summary, DOE is proposing cooling and heating metrics which
incorporate part-load seasonal performance and are appropriate based on
the use case for PTACs and PTHPs. Sections III.F and III.G of this NOPR
detail DOE's proposed cooling and heating metrics, respectively.
3. Low-Ambient Heating
Heat pumps generally perform less efficiently at low ambient
outdoor temperatures than they do at moderate ambient outdoor
temperatures. DOE is aware of residential CAC/HP models that are
optimized for operation in cold climates and can operate at
temperatures as low as -20 degrees Fahrenheit (``[deg]F''). DOE
understands that there has been interest in cold-climate PTHPs. For
example, the New York State Clean Heat Program (``NYS Clean Heat'')
requires a manufacturer-reported COP greater than 1.75 at 5 [deg]F \11\
and the Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnership (``NEEP'') recently
included a PTAC/HP cold climate specification requiring a COP of 1.5 at
5 [deg]F.\12\ DOE is aware of at least one PTHP model that is optimized
for cold climates and can operate at temperatures as low as -5 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ See: <a href="https://ma-eeac.org/wp-content/uploads/NYS-Clean-Heat-Manual-NEGPA.pdf">https://ma-eeac.org/wp-content/uploads/NYS-Clean-Heat-Manual-NEGPA.pdf</a>.
\12\ See: <a href="https://neep.org/sites/default/files/media-files/ccpthp_spvhp_specification_v1.pdf">https://neep.org/sites/default/files/media-files/ccpthp_spvhp_specification_v1.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A conventional PTHP model switches its heat source from reverse-
cycle vapor compression heating to electric resistance heating, which
is less efficient than vapor compression heating, at an outdoor ambient
temperature of around 32 [deg]F. A PTHP design that is optimized for
operation in cold climates could provide energy savings compared to
conventional PTHP models by enabling the use of the more efficient
vapor compression heating, rather than electric resistance heating, at
lower ambient temperatures. However, DOE's current COP test metric for
heating efficiency requires testing only at the standard rating
condition of 47 [deg]F dry bulb for the outdoor side. Thus, DOE's COP
metric does not account for the efficiency improvement that could
result from using reverse-cycle heating at low ambient temperatures.
In the May 2021 RFI, DOE requested information on several issues
related to low-ambient heating, specifically information on the
comparison of the seasonal heating load and seasonal cooling load for a
typical PTAC/PTHP installation; information on the range of low-
temperature cutout for compressor operation of PTHPs, including the
percentage of PTHPs that continue to operate the compressor at outdoor
temperatures below 32 [deg]F, below 20 [deg]F, and below 10 [deg]F;
information on the design changes necessary for a typical PTHP (that
has a 32 [deg]F low-temperature cutout) to be converted for
satisfactory field performance operation at a 17 [deg]F

[[Page 30845]]

outdoor test condition and whether the design optimization of PTHPs for
cold-climate operation impacts the COP as measured under the DOE test
procedure; and feedback on any other test methods that would produce
test results that reflect the energy efficiency of these units during a
representative average use cycle, as well as information on the test
burden associated with such test methods. 86 FR 28005, 28011.
AHRI commented that it is aware of units operating down to 25
[deg]F, and other manufacturers have published the low-temperature
cutout for compressor operation of PTHPs at 42 [deg]F, 38 [deg]F, and
32 [deg]F. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11-12) Regarding the design changes
necessary for a PTHP to be converted to operate at a 17 [deg]F
condition, AHRI stated that the PTHP standard wall sleeve size limits
component sizing such as a heat exchanger and fan, but one possibility
would to be to install variable speed compressors and to further
optimize by installing electronic expansions valves (``EEV'') in place
of capillary tubes. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 12) They stated that additional
changes would include the addition of an inverter board, enclosure for
new board, wire harness, software, compressor, and possibly additional
thermistors. Id. AHRI commented that these design changes have not been
demonstrated as a valid methodology at this writing to their knowledge.
Id. AHRI also stated that if the test procedure were to be amended to
require testing at the 17 [deg]F test condition it would negatively
impact COP for single speed units as the capillary tubes can only be
optimized for a single set point--however, variable speed units with
electronic expansion valves would be able to be optimized for multiple
outdoor conditions. Id. AHRI stated that heating testing at very low
temperatures can become quite costly. Based on their analysis conducted
to review the costs associated with Natural Resources Canada's proposal
to make the H4<INF>2</INF> (5 [deg]F heating mode) test in appendix M1
for residential heat pumps mandatory as part of evaluating HSPF2, AHRI
found that the cost to upgrade a laboratory to test to the new
condition will require significant investment and imposes new testing
costs to manufacturers. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 12) AHRI stated that
currently laboratories do not have the capacity to test equipment to
the proposed test condition of 5 [deg]F and estimated that the cost to
upgrade one laboratory could reach $75,000 USD and needs to be repeated
across each laboratory intending on testing to 5 [deg]F heating mode
test condition. Id. They further noted that the total costs to upgrade
labs necessary to test equipment to this new condition in a timely
manner is between $7.5 to $13.1M USD. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 10-11)
The CA IOUs, Joint Advocates and NEEA encouraged DOE to capture
performance at lower ambient temperatures. The CA IOUs noted that
results from their market research aligned with DOE's assessment that,
while there are products that operate below freezing, it is a small
subset of the market. (CA IOUs, No. 15 at p. 3). The CA IOUs
highlighted three products that operate in vapor compression mode below
freezing, two of which switch to an electric resistant heater at 25
[deg]F while the other is able to operate in vapor compression mode
down to -5 [deg]F. Id. The CA IOUs reiterated their suggestion that
PTHPs be tested per appendix M1 which requires single-speed and
variable-speed products to be tested at 47 [deg]F, 35 [deg]F, and 17
[deg]F to calculate HSPF2. Id. The CA IOUs recommended that units that
cannot be tested at the lower temperatures use a default COP of 1.0,
the efficiency of electric resistant heat, for the lower temperatures
to calculate HSPF2. Id. They stated that requiring testing and
reporting of performance at these three additional temperatures would
also allow designers to know the temperature at which the PTHP will
switch over to electric resistance heat, especially if the PTHP is also
providing makeup air to the room. Id. NEEA recommended a part-load test
aligned with appendix M1 at an outdoor test condition of 17 [deg]F.
(NEEA, No. 17 at p. 3) Additionally, NEEA suggested that DOE account
for energy used in defrost and energy used in electric resistance boost
functionality, which the commenter described as a feature which turns
on the electric resistance at outdoor temperatures where the heat pump
can provide adequate heating, thus resulting in unnecessary energy use.
Id. The Joint Advocates also encouraged DOE to capture defrost
performance, which they said would differentiate the performance of
different defrost strategies. (Joint Advocates, No. 16 at p. 2).
In response to AHRI's comment that design changes to operate below
a 17 [deg]F condition have not been demonstrated as a valid methodology
for PTHPs, as noted earlier in this section, DOE is aware of at least
one commercialized PTHP that can operate at temperatures as low as -5
[deg]F. Additionally, while the required design changes to operate at
low ambient conditions may not yet be widely present in PTHPs, other
categories of heat pumps (such as central HPs) have demonstrated that
these design changes are possible. Regarding AHRI's comment that
heating testing at very low temperatures can become quite costly and
that currently laboratories do not have the capacity to test equipment
to the proposed test condition of 5 [deg]F, DOE notes that several CAC/
HP manufacturers already conduct testing at this temperature for the
H4<INF>2</INF> test in appendix M1 and provide ratings in the CCMS.
Additionally, DOE notes that commercial equipment, which includes PTACs
and PTHPs, can benefit from AEDMs to rate their equipment and therefore
do not need to physically test more than 2 units per basic model.
However, DOE understands the significant increase in burden associated
with mandating tests at low temperatures.
Based on the comments received, DOE tentatively concludes that
while there are PTAC/HPs that can operate below freezing (32 [deg]F),
they represent only a small subset of the market and most of these cut-
off heat pump operation around 25 [deg]F. If contemporary PTAC/HPs
would be required to operate at conditions below freezing, for example
at 17 [deg]F, they would require significant design changes or complete
re-design. Therefore, testing at low ambient heating conditions may not
be appropriate as a requirement for all PTHPs. However, DOE also
understands that for those PTHPs that are designed for cold climate
operation (as noted, DOE is aware of at least one such PTHP), it may be
beneficial to provide a means within the test procedure to make
representations of operational performance at low-ambient conditions,
similar to the approach currently used for low-temperature operation
for central heat pumps. Section III.G details DOE's heating test
procedure incorporating optional low-ambient heating and an adjustment
to account for defrost performance degradation.

F. Proposed Cooling Metric and Test Procedure

As noted, several categories of air conditioning and heating
equipment are already rated under DOE test procedures using metrics
that account for part-load or seasonal performance. As discussed in
section III.E.2 of this document, several commenters suggested that DOE
adopt appendix M1, and subsequently the SEER2 metric for PTAC/HPs. In
the May 2021 RFI, DOE noted that PTACs and PTHPs may be considered as
an alternative to CAC/HPs and products and equipment rated with SEER2
are generally used in residential or small commercial applications,
often with smaller internal loads that require minimal or no cooling at
low ambient

[[Page 30846]]

outdoor air temperatures. 86 FR 28005, 28010. SEER2 reflects seasonal
performance by averaging test results from up to five different load
points, depending on system configuration (single-speed, two-capacity,
or variable-speed), with varying outdoor conditions and staging levels
to represent the product's average efficiency throughout the cooling
season (see appendix M1). The test procedure also includes optional
cyclic testing to evaluate cycling losses. Based on comments received
by stakeholders that manufacturers are interested in making `SEER-
equivalent' representations, DOE has initially determined that a
cooling metric that incorporates seasonal performance similar to the
SEER2 metric is appropriate for PTAC/HPs.
However, DOE considers that the test conditions, cooling building
load line, hours of cooling, methods of calculations, cycling losses
and other aspects of the test procedure will differ for PTAC/HPs as
compared to CAC/HPs and are better informed by use cases specific to
PTAC/HPs. Additionally, test burden associated with CAC/HP testing per
appendix M1 may be higher than appropriate for the relatively lower
national energy use associated with PTAC/HPs as compared to CAC/HPs.
DOE is therefore proposing to define a new seasonal cooling metric for
PTAC/HPs, seasonal cooling performance (``SCP''), which presents a
better match of PTAC/HP performance rather than CAC/HP and reduces test
burden as compared to CAC/HP testing. The proposed definition of this
new metric, which would be included in 10 CFR 431.92, reads as follows:
Seasonal cooling performance (SCP) means the total heat removed
from the conditioned space during the cooling season, expressed in
Btu's, divided by the total electrical energy consumed by the package
terminal air conditioner or heat pump during the same season, expressed
in watt-hours. SCP is determined in accordance with appendix H1 to this
subpart.
The following sections detail the key differences for the SCP
metric as compared to the SEER2 metric.
1. Test Conditions
As discussed previously, DOE recognizes that throughout the cooling
season, PTACs and PTHPs operate under various outdoor temperature
conditions. DOE also understands that these varying outdoor conditions
present a range of reduced cooling loads in the conditioned space. To
effectively capture performance at these varying outdoor conditions and
associated loads, DOE proposes a test procedure with three test
conditions at dry-bulb outdoor temperatures of 95 [deg]F, 82 [deg]F and
75 [deg]F. These are denoted as the ``A'', ``B'' and ``C'' conditions,
respectively. DOE notes that these additional temperatures were
informed by weather analysis conducted for 16 cities representing
ASHRAE climate zones 1 through 7. For each condition, DOE established a
temperature range and then evaluated a representative temperature
within that range. This representative temperature was evaluated as a
weighted average by multiplying the mean temperature in the respective
temperature range for each city, by the prevalence of the commercial
buildings energy consumption survey (``CBECS'') small hotel prototype
in that city, which is the primary application for PTAC/HPs.
Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its proposed A (95 [deg]F), B (82
[deg]F) and C (75 [deg]F) test conditions to represent reduced cooling
conditions experienced by PTACs and PTHPs in the field.
These conditions are paired with three compressor speeds to denote
the different cooling capacities at which the unit will run to modulate
to the required cooling load: full, intermediate, and low. For example,
a B<INF>low</INF> test would mean a test conducted at the ``B'
condition (82 [deg]F) and set to a low compressor speed.
For tests run at the full compressor speed, the test will require
the room thermostat to be set at a lower temperature than the indoor
condition i.e., 75 [deg]F. DOE understands that for setting the low and
intermediate compressor speeds, special control override instructions
will be required from manufacturers. Therefore, because maintaining
fixed compressor speeds is critical to the repeatability of the PTAC/HP
cooling test procedure, DOE may, in a separate rulemaking addressing
certification, require manufacturers to provide in each certification
report for a two-speed or variable-speed system basic model, all
necessary instructions to maintain the low and intermediate compressor
speeds required for each test condition when testing that basic model.
This approach is similar to the DOE requirements for RACs and CAC/HPs
when testing with reduced compressor speeds. However, DOE is not
addressing certification in this rulemaking and may address this issue
in a separate future rulemaking.
Issue 2: DOE requests comment on whether setting the unit
thermostat down to 75 [deg]F (i.e., a 5 [deg]F differential to the
indoor condition of 80 [deg]F) is sufficient to ensure that the
compressor runs at full speed. DOE requests comment on whether
manufacturers will be able to provide override instructions to ensure
operation at the low and intermediate compressor speeds.
DOE's review of several PTAC/HP models suggests that PTAC/HPs offer
at least two user-selectable indoor fan speeds: high and low, and two
user-selectable modes: cycling (or auto) fan and constant fan modes. In
the cycling fan mode, the indoor fan cycles with the compressor while
in the constant fan mode, the indoor fan runs continuously regardless
of the compressor operation. DOE is proposing to require that all tests
be done with the fan control selections that set the fan speed to high
and the indoor fan to cycle with the compressor. However, DOE
understands that fan staging may also vary based on compressor staging
for two-stage and variable speed PTAC/HPs, and may need to be fixed.
Issue 3: DOE requests comment on whether fan speed may vary with
staging and whether it may have to be ``fixed'' at the right speed.
2. Cooling Tests
DOE understands that the PTAC/HP market has a mixed presence of
single-speed, two-speed, or variable-speed systems, with most units
employing a single-speed compressor. Therefore, DOE is proposing that
each of these systems be tested with a different subset of conditions
to effectively measure performance. DOE is using appendix M1 as the
basis for the required cooling tests for each system type, but with
necessary modifications to reduce test burden as appropriate. For
example, as discussed in section III.F.3 of this document, DOE is not
proposing cyclic tests but instead requiring the use of a default
degradation coefficient.
To prevent confusion between two-speed and variable-speed systems,
DOE is proposing to define variable speed PTAC/HP as follows:
Variable speed PTAC/HP means a packaged terminal air-conditioner or
heat pump with a compressor that uses a variable-speed drive to vary
the compressor speed to achieve variable capacities or three or more
capacities for any operating condition for which the compressor would
be running.
For units having a single-speed compressor, and consequently one
compressor speed, DOE is proposing to require two full-speed tests
conducted at the A and C conditions, with the compressor running at its
nominal, full speed. Table III.1 sets out the test condition for
systems employing single-speed compressors. DOE considers that the A
and C conditions would be sufficient to develop a performance curve for
the purpose of interpolation.

[[Page 30847]]

In order to reduce test burden, DOE is not proposing to require testing
at the B condition.

Table III.1--Cooling Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Single-Speed Compressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering indoor unit Air entering outdoor unit
temperature ([deg]F) temperature ([deg]F)
Test description ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afull Test--required........................... 80 67 95 75 Full.
Cfull Test--required........................... 80 67 75 60 Full.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For units having a two-speed compressor or a variable-speed
compressor that operate at two speed levels at any given outdoor
temperature, DOE is proposing to require two full-speed tests conducted
at the A and B conditions, and two low-speed tests conducted at the B
and C conditions. These pairings of test conditions and speeds are
intended to be representative of actual field operation. Table III.2
sets out the test condition for systems employing two-speed compressors
or a variable-speed compressor that operate at two speed levels at any
given outdoor temperature.

Table III.2--Cooling Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Speed Compressor *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering indoor unit Air entering outdoor unit
temperature ( [deg]F) temperature ( [deg]F)
Test description ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afull Test--required........................... 80 67 95 75 Full.
Bfull Test--required........................... 80 67 82 65 Full.
Blow Test--required............................ 80 67 82 65 Low.
Clow Test--required............................ 80 67 75 60 Low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This includes units with compressors that achieve no more than two capacity levels using variable speed technology for any one of the test conditions
used for the tests.

For units having variable-speed compressors with three or more
speed levels at any given outdoor temperature, the same tests as set
for the two-speed systems will apply--but with an additional optional
intermediate speed test at the B condition i.e., the B<INF>int</INF>
test. This optional intermediate test is included to provide an
opportunity for a variable-speed unit to test improved performance as
compared to the performance interpolated between the low speed and the
high speed at the B condition. Table III.3 sets out the test condition
for systems employing variable-speed compressors with three or more
speed levels at any given outdoor temperature.

Table III.3--Cooling Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor With Three or More Speed Levels at any given Outdoor Temperature
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering indoor unit Air entering outdoor unit
temperature ( [deg]F) temperature ( [deg]F)
Test description ---------------------------------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Afull Test--required........................... 80 67 95 75 Full.
Bfull Test--required........................... 80 67 82 65 Full.
Blow Test--required............................ 80 67 82 65 Low.
Bint Test--optional............................ 80 67 82 65 Intermediate.
Clow Test--required............................ 80 67 75 60 Low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposed cooling tests for
single-speed, two-speed and variable-speed compressor systems.
3. Cyclic Losses
Under part-load operation, in which the cooling load of the space
is less than the full cooling capacity of the compressor and the
compressor cannot modulate compressor speed to match capacity to the
required load, the compressor cycles on and off (for single-speed
systems) or operates between different compressor speeds (for two-stage
or variable speed systems). This cycling behavior introduces
inefficiencies, i.e., ``cycling losses.'' In appendix M1 and AHRI
Standard 210/240-2023, ``Performance Rating of Unitary Air-conditioning
& Air-source Heat Pump Equipment'' (``AHRI 210/240-2023''), the
inefficiencies associated with cycling losses in CAC/HPs are
represented by a degradation coefficient (C<INF>D</INF>). The cooling
degradation coefficient is denoted by C<INF>D</INF>\c\ and heating
degradation coefficient is denoted as C<INF>D</INF>\H\. In appendix M1
and AHRI 210/240-2023, this degradation coefficient can be optionally
evaluated

[[Page 30848]]

via cyclic testing, or a default degradation coefficient can be
used.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Previous versions of AHRI Standard 210/240, including the
version referenced in Appendix M1, AHRI 210/240-2008, also address
the degradation coefficient in the same manner.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

As ASHRAE Standard 16-2016 does not include test provisions to
conduct cyclic tests, DOE is not proposing to include cyclic tests as
part of the new test procedure at appendix H1. To represent the cycling
losses of a PTAC/HP, a degradation coefficient is required. CAC/HP
systems are differently configured as compared to PTAC/HPs and
therefore, the use of the default degradation coefficients from
appendix M1 and AHRI 210/240-2023 may not be appropriate for PTAC/HPs.
To investigate cycling losses and evaluate a default degradation
coefficient particular to PTAC/HPs, DOE conducted testing with several
single-speed PTHPs and one variable-speed PTHP under different cooling
conditions at reduced loads. DOE installed each PTHP in a calorimetric
test chamber, set the unit thermostat just below 80 [deg]F, and applied
a range of fixed cooling loads to the indoor chamber.14 15
The calorimeter chamber was configured so that the indoor chamber
temperature could vary but averaged out at the standard indoor
condition of 80 [deg]F/67 [deg]F (dry-bulb/wet-bulb), thereby allowing
the test unit to maintain the target indoor chamber temperature by
adjusting its cooling operation in response to the changing temperature
of the indoor chamber. Figure III-1 shows the efficiency losses for
each unit at varying cooling loads at an outdoor condition of 82
[deg]F/65 [deg]F, relative to the performance of each unit as tested at
the full-load condition at 82 [deg]F/65 [deg]F.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\14\ A cooling load is ``applied'' by adjusting and fixing the
rate of heat added to the indoor test chamber to a level at or below
that of the nominal cooling capacity of the test unit.
\15\ This approach aims to represent a consumer installation in
which the amount of heat added to a room may be less than the rated
cooling capacity of the room AC (e.g., electronics or lighting
turned off, people or pets leaving the room, and external factors
such as heat transfer through walls and windows reducing with
outdoor temperature).
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY23.000

In Figure III-1, the distance of each data point from the x-axis
represents the change in efficiency relative to the full-load
efficiency for each unit at an outdoor condition of 82 [deg]F/65
[deg]F. The single-speed PTHP efficiency decreases in correlation with
a reduction in cooling load, reflecting cycling losses that become
relatively larger as the cooling load decreases. In contrast, the
efficiency of the variable-speed PTHP remains steady as the cooling
load decreases, reflecting the lack of cycling losses associated with
lower compressor speeds.
Based on this data, DOE evaluated the cooling degradation
coefficient for each single-speed PTHP unit as defined in Appendix
M1,\16\ and then obtained an average, as shown in Table III.4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ See section 3.5.3--Cooling-Mode Cyclic-Degradation
Coefficient Calculation.

Table III.4--Cooling Degradation Coefficients for Different Single-Speed
Units
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cooling
degradation
Unit identifier coefficient
(CD\C\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
PTHP 1.................................................. 0.12
PTHP 2.................................................. 0.47
PTHP 3.................................................. 0.35
PTHP 4.................................................. 0.26
Average................................................. 0.30
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30849]]

Based on the observed data, the average value of the cooling
degradation coefficients is different from the default value (0.2)
assigned in appendix M1 and AHRI 210/240-2023 for single-speed systems.
DOE did not conduct similar testing for heating mode, but considers
that a similar degradation in performance would be observed. Therefore,
DOE is proposing that the default cooling and heating degradation
coefficient for the PTAC/HP test procedure be 0.30, as calculated based
on DOE's testing.
Issue 5: DOE requests comment on its proposed value of the cooling
and heating degradation coefficients.
4. SCP Calculation
As mentioned, DOE's proposed cooling metric, SCP, represents a
measure of cooling efficiency across the entire season, as opposed to a
single test condition. The SCP metric involves the evaluation and
summation of the total cooling provided and the power consumed using a
binned analysis similar to the one used for the SEER2 metric for CACs.
These quantities are calculated for each individual temperature bin
using the appropriate calculation methods depending on the operating
characteristics of the type of system i.e., single-speed, two-speed or
variable-speed. Bin temperatures and bin hours are discussed in section
III.F.5 of this document.
Similar to appendix M1, DOE is also proposing a relationship to
represent the cooling building load line for PTAC/HPs, which enables
the calculation of the quantities mentioned previously. The PTAC/HP
cooling building load line is specific to the use cases for PTAC/HPs,
primarily small hotels and midrise apartments, and represents the
averaged cooling load at different temperatures evaluated as a national
average. For this analysis, DOE considered an equal weighting of the
small hotel and the midrise apartment use cases. Similar to the cooling
building load line in appendix M1, the building load line for PTAC/HPs
includes a 10 percent assumption for oversizing.
Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its proposed approach to calculate
SCP using a similar binned analysis as that of SEER2. DOE also requests
comment on the proposed cooling building load line; specifically,
whether an equal weighting of the small hotel and midrise apartment use
cases is appropriate.
5. Cooling Temperature Bins and Weights
As mentioned, the values of the total cooling provided and the
power consumed are evaluated for each individual temperature bin. Table
III.5 shows DOE's proposed temperature bins and associated weighting
factors to represent the number of cooling hours per year spent at each
bin. These temperature bins and fractional hours are based on DOE's
analysis of building energy use associated with PTAC/HP use cases,
primarily the small hotel and the midrise apartment prototypes and are
a national average.

Table III.5--Distribution of Fractional Hours Within Cooling Season Temperature Bins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Fraction of total
Bin number, j Bin temperature temperature for temperature bin
range [deg]F bin [deg]F hours, nj/N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................... 65-69 67 0.229
2...................................................... 70-74 72 0.238
3...................................................... 75-79 77 0.220
4...................................................... 80-84 82 0.150
5...................................................... 85-89 87 0.094
6...................................................... 90-94 92 0.047
7...................................................... 95-99 97 0.014
8...................................................... 100-104 102 0.007
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposed temperature bins and
associated fractional bin hours for cooling.

G. Proposed Heating Metric and Test Procedure

Similar to the cooling metric discussed in section III.F, DOE has
initially determined that a heating metric that incorporates seasonal
heating performance (similar to the HSPF2 metric) for CAC/HPs is
appropriate for PTAC/HPs. HSPF2 reflects seasonal performance by
averaging test results from different load points, depending on system
configuration (single-speed, two-capacity, or variable-speed), with
varying outdoor conditions and staging levels to represent the
product's average efficiency throughout the heating season (see
appendix M1).
However as noted earlier, DOE considers that the direct adoption of
HSPF2 as detailed in appendix M1 is not suitable for PTAC/HPs, as there
are differences in the use cases for PTAC/HPs and the test burden
associated with CAC/HP testing per appendix M1 may be much higher than
appropriate to gauge heating performance of PTAC/HPs. DOE is proposing
to define a new heating metric for PTAC/HPs called seasonal heating
performance (SHP) as follows:
Seasonal Heating Performance (SHP) means the total heat added to
the conditioned space during the heating season, expressed in Btu's,
divided by the total electrical energy consumed by the package terminal
heat pump during the same season, expressed in watt-hours. SHP is
determined in accordance with appendix H1 to this subpart.
1. Test Conditions
Similar to the cooling season, PTACs and PTHPs operate under
various outdoor temperature conditions and load points in the heating
season. To effectively capture performance at these varying outdoor
conditions and associated loads, DOE proposes a test procedure with
three heating test conditions at dry-bulb temperatures of 47 [deg]F, 17
[deg]F and 5 [deg]F. These are denoted as the ``H<INF>1</INF>'',
``H<INF>3</INF>'' and ``H<INF>4</INF>'' conditions, respectively. As
discussed in section III.E.3 of this document, DOE understands that
very few PTHPs are able to operate in heat pump mode at temperatures
below freezing, and therefore could not be tested at the
``H<INF>3</INF>'' and ``H<INF>4</INF>'' conditions. Therefore, DOE is
proposing that (1) tests at the H<INF>4</INF> condition be optional and
(2) for those units that are unable to test at the ``H<INF>3</INF>''
condition, a substitute test, denoted as ``H<INF>L</INF>'' be utilized.
The H<INF>L</INF> test is conducted at a target dry-bulb temperature
equal to the average of the

[[Page 30850]]

cut-out \17\ and cut-in \18\ temperatures for a particular PTHP unit.
The corresponding wet-bulb temperature is chosen such that it
corresponds to a maximum of 60 percent relative humidity (``RH'')
level. DOE considers that a maximum 60 percent RH level would be low
enough to prevent significant frost build up, but high enough that it
would not be unduly burdensome for test labs to achieve. Details on
evaluating the cut-in and cut-out temperatures is presented in section
III.G.3 of this document. Tolerances as set in Table 2B of ANSI/ASHRAE
37-2009 apply to these test conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Cut-out temperature refers to the temperature at which the
unit compressor stops i.e., `cuts out' operation to prevent
compressor damage.
\18\ Cut-in temperature refers to the temperature at which the
unit compressor restarts i.e., `cuts in' operation after it has
reached a cut-out event.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Depending on compressor capacity control attributes, the three test
conditions (H<INF>1</INF>, H<INF>3</INF> or H<INF>L</INF> and
H<INF>4</INF>) are paired with up to three compressor speeds to denote
the different heating capacities that the unit will run at to modulate
to the required heating load: full, intermediate, and low. For example,
a H<INF>1,low</INF> test would denote a test conducted at the
``H<INF>1</INF>' condition (47 [deg]F) and set to a low compressor
speed for variable-speed and two-capacity compressor systems.
The full compressor speed for the heating mode tests would be
evaluated by setting the room thermostat at a higher temperature than
the required indoor condition i.e., at 75 [deg]F. Manufacturers will
need to provide special control override instructions to set the low
and intermediate compressor speeds for heating. Similar to the cooling
tests, DOE is proposing to require that all heating tests be done with
the fan control selections that set the fan speed to high and the
indoor fan to cycle with the compressor.
Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its proposed H1 (47 [deg]F), H3
(17 [deg]F) or HL and H4 (5 [deg]F) test conditions to represent
different heating outdoor conditions experienced by PTACs and PTHPs in
the field.
Issue 9: DOE requests comment on whether setting the unit
thermostat up to 75 [deg]F (i.e., a 5 [deg]F differential to the indoor
condition of 70 [deg]F) is sufficient to ensure that the compressor
runs at full speed for heating mode.
2. Heating Tests
Similar to the cooling tests in section III.F.2 of this document,
DOE is using appendix M1 as the basis for the required heating tests
for each system type--single-speed, two-speed, variable-speed, but with
necessary modifications to reduce test burden as appropriate. Firstly,
as discussed in more detail in section III.G.4 of this document, DOE is
not including tests in the temperature range which presents a potential
for heavy frost accumulation--for example, at 35 [deg]F. Additionally,
while Appendix M1 includes heating tests at lower ambient conditions
(17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F), these conditions can either be substituted
i.e. using the H<INF>L</INF> test instead of testing at 17 [deg]F, or
are optional (5 [deg]F).
For units having a single-speed compressor, and consequently one
compressor speed, DOE is proposing to require two full-speed tests
conducted at the H<INF>1</INF> and H<INF>3</INF> (or H<INF>L</INF>)
conditions, with the compressor running at its nominal, full speed.
Table III.6 sets out the test condition for systems employing single-
speed compressors.

Table III.6--Heating Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Single-Speed Compressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering indoor unit temperature Air entering outdoor unit temperature ([deg]F)
([deg]F) --------------------------------------------------
Test description ----------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H1, full Test--required............. 70 60 max................. 47..................... 43..................... Full.
H3, full Test--required............. 70 60 max................. 17..................... 15..................... Full.
HL, full Test \1\................... 70 60 max................. See note 2............. See note 3............. Full.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be conducted only if the unit is unable to test at H3 conditions.
\2\ Use the average of the cut-in and cut-out temperatures.
\3\ Use a wet-bulb temperature corresponding to a maximum 60% RH level.

For units having a two-speed compressor or a variable-speed
compressor that operate at two speed levels at any given outdoor
temperature, DOE is proposing three full-speed tests conducted at the
H<INF>1</INF>, H<INF>3</INF> (or H<INF>L</INF>) and H<INF>3</INF>
conditions, with the H<INF>3</INF> condition test optional. DOE is also
proposing to require two low-speed tests conducted at the H<INF>1</INF>
and H<INF>3</INF> (or H<INF>L</INF>) conditions. Table III.7 sets out
the test condition for systems employing two-speed compressors.

Table III.7--Heating Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Two-Capacity Compressor *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering indoor unit temperature Air entering outdoor unit temperature ([deg]F)
([deg]F) --------------------------------------------------
Test description ----------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H1,full Test--required.............. 70 60 max................. 47..................... 43..................... Full.
H3, full Test--required............. 70 60 max................. 17..................... 15..................... Full.
HL, full Test \1\................... 70 60 max................. See note 2............. See note 3............. Full.
H4, full Test--optional............. 70 60 max................. 5...................... 4...................... Full.
H1,low Test--required............... 70 60 max................. 47..................... 43..................... Low.
H3, low Test--required.............. 70 60 max................. 17 \1\................. 15 \2\................. Low.

[[Page 30851]]

HL, low Test \1\.................... 70 60 max................. See note 2............. See note 3............. Low.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* This includes units with compressors that achieve no more than two capacity levels using variable speed technology for any one of the test conditions
used for the tests.
\1\ To be conducted only if the unit is unable to test at H3 conditions.
\2\ Use the average of the cut-in and cut-out temperatures.
\3\ Use a wet-bulb that corresponds to a maximum 60% RH level.

Table III.8--Heating Mode Test Conditions for Units Having a Variable-Speed Compressor
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering indoor unit temperature Air entering outdoor unit temperature
([deg]F) ([deg]F)
Test description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Compressor speed
Dry bulb Wet bulb Dry bulb Wet bulb
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
H1,full Test--required............. 70 60 max................. 47.................... 43.................... Full.
H3, full Test--required............ 70 60 max................. 17.................... 15.................... Full.
HL, full Test \1\.................. 70 60 max................. See note 2............ See note 3............ Full.
H4, full Test--optional............ 70 60 max................. 5..................... 4..................... Full.
H1,low Test--required.............. 70 60 max................. 47.................... 43.................... Low.
H3, low Test--required............. 70 60 max................. 17.................... 15.................... Low.
HL, low Test \1\................... 70 60 max................. See note 2............ See note 3............ Low.
H3,int Test--optional.............. 70 60 max................. 17.................... 15.................... Intermediate.
HL, int Test--optional \1\......... 70 60 max................. See note 2............ See note 3............ Intermediate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To be conducted only if the unit is unable to test at H3 conditions.
\2\ IUse the average of the cut-in and cut-out temperatures.
\3\ Use a wet-bulb that corresponds to a maximum 60% RH level.

Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its proposed heating tests for
single-speed, two-speed and variable-speed compressor systems.
3. Evaluating Cut-In and Cut-Out Temperatures
As mentioned in section III.G.2 of this document, for those units
that are unable to test at the H<INF>3</INF> condition, the
H<INF>L</INF> test would be required. The H<INF>L</INF> test is
conducted at a target dry-bulb temperature equal to the average of the
cut-in and cut-out temperatures for a particular PTHP unit and the wet-
bulb temperature is chosen such that it corresponds to a maximum 60
percent RH level.
To evaluate the cut-out and cut-in temperatures, DOE is proposing
to utilize the verification test procedure used in the residential
cold-climate heat pump technology challenge \19\ (``CCHP Challenge'').
DOE's proposal requires that the unit be set to operate in heating mode
with the thermostat set at 75 [deg]F and the conditioned space at the
standard heating-mode test temperature of 70 [deg]F. The outdoor
chamber temperature is then reduced to a level that is 3 [deg]F warmer
than the expected cut-out temperature \20\ and paused for 3 minutes to
allow conditions to stabilize. The outdoor chamber temperature is
reduced in steps or continuously at an average rate of 1 [deg]F every 5
minutes. The average outdoor coil air inlet temperature when the HP
operation stops is noted as the cut-out temperature. The outdoor
temperature is held constant for 5 minutes where the cut-out occurred
to allow for any compressor short cycle timer to expire--then the
outdoor chamber temperature is increased by 1 [deg]F every 5 minutes.
The temperature ramp is continued until 5 minutes after the HP
operation restarts. The average outdoor coil air inlet temperature when
the HP operation restarts is noted as the cut-in temperature.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Available at: <a href="http://www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/bto-cchp-tech-challenge-spec-102521.pdf">www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/bto-cchp-tech-challenge-spec-102521.pdf</a>.
\20\ This information is often indicated in the unit
installation manual or product brochure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

For this evaluation of the cut-out and cut-in temperatures, the
outdoor chamber would need to be sufficiently dried out to prevent
frost collection. A remotely controlled circulating fan would also be
required to provide the temperature ramp after the cut-out occurs.
Issue 11: DOE requests comment on its proposed method to evaluate
cut-out and cut-in temperatures.
4. Defrost Degradation
DOE's proposed heating test procedure does not include tests in the
temperature range which presents a potential for heavy frost
accumulation i.e., (``frost zone''). Tests in the frost zone need to
account for performance impact of frost accumulation and address unit
energy use to operate a defrost cycle. When a PTHP unit operates a
defrost cycle, it reverses the heating cycle i.e., it operates in
cooling mode, removing heat from the indoor space to supply to the
outdoor coils and remove frost. This operation impacts the unit's
efficiency because the effective heating capacity is reduced.
When testing CHPs, appendix M1 requires that one test be conducted
at a frost zone temperature. Specifically, appendix M1 calls for
testing at an

[[Page 30852]]

outdoor condition of 35 [deg]F DB temperature and 33 [deg]F WB
temperature. When operating at this condition, the frost accumulation
is sufficiently rapid that performance can be affected noticeably
before a full 30-minute test can be completed. In addition, capturing
the full impact of frost on performance requires conducting a test that
includes a full cycle of both heating with frost accumulation and
defrost. As noted, such a test is specified in appendix M1 as the
``transient'' test, which follows the test method described for the `T'
test in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE understands that there is additional
test burden associated with running a transient test as compared to a
steady-state test and this burden may not be appropriate for PTHPs due
to their relatively lower energy use as compared to CHPs. For these
reasons, DOE is proposing not to include transient heating tests.
However, DOE understands that PTHPs in the field do operate in the
frost zone and consequently, are impacted by frost. To ensure that the
heating test procedure is reasonably designed to produce test results
which reflect energy efficiency during a representative average use
cycle, DOE has provisionally determined that it would be more
appropriate to apply a representative defrost degradation to the
seasonal heating efficiency metric than to require testing to determine
the impact. Specifically, DOE is proposing to adjust the calculated
capacity and power for the representative temperature bins associated
with frost accumulation, i.e., 17 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F. This will be
achieved by applying defrost coefficients to the capacity and power
obtained from the H<INF>1</INF> and H<INF>3</INF> (or H<INF>L</INF>)
tests.
DOE does not currently have defrost data for PTHPs. Thus, DOE is
proposing to use an approach for defrost degradation based on the
capacity and power adjustments from appendix M1 for CAC/HPs for
determination of full-capacity performance of variable-speed CHPs in 35
[deg]F conditions. Specifically, section 3.6.4.c of appendix M1 calls
for calculation of full-speed performance at 35 [deg]F by calculating
capacity and power using the interpolation from the 17 [deg]F and 47
[deg]F tests, and then adjusting the evaluated heating capacity and
power by 10 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively. Similarly, for
PTHPs, DOE is proposing that the heating capacity and power at 35
[deg]F be evaluated from the interpolation of H<INF>1</INF> (47 [deg]F)
and H<INF>3</INF> (17 [deg]F), or H<INF>L</INF> tests, with the same
adjustments applied to capacity (10%) and power (1.5%). The evaluation
of heating capacity and power at temperature bins associated with frost
accumulation i.e., 17 [deg]F to 40 [deg]F, would then be interpolated
using the performance at 35 [deg]F.
Issue 12: DOE requests comment on its proposed defrost adjustment
coefficients; specifically, DOE requests feedback on its approach to
use appendix M1 to inform the adjustment values for performance at 35
[deg]F. DOE requests data on defrost degradation particular to PTHPs.
5. SHP Calculation
DOE's proposed heating metric, SHP, represents a measure of heating
efficiency across the entire season, as opposed to a single test
condition. The SHP metric involves the evaluation and summation of the
total heating provided and the power consumed using a binned analysis
similar to the one used for the HSPF2 metric. Similar to HSPF2, the SHP
calculation determines energy use for each bin based on the heating
load for the bin, whether the PTHP would be operating in heat pump
mode, using electric resistance heat, or both--and the heat pump
capacity, power input, and degradation (if applicable). These
quantities are calculated for each individual temperature bin using the
appropriate formula for each bin depending on the operating
characteristics of the type of system i.e., single-speed, two-speed or
variable-speed. For each bin, it is assumed that the total heating
provided would exactly match the building load. Bin temperatures and
bin hours are discussed in section III.G.6 of this document.
DOE understands that some units would use the H<INF>L</INF> test
instead of testing at the H<INF>3</INF> condition (17 [deg]F).
Additionally, different units would undergo the H<INF>L</INF> test at
different temperatures, depending on their respective cut-in and cut-
out temperatures. This may appear to present a concern of a non-
standardized test condition impacting the SHP calculation. However, DOE
notes that since the H<INF>3</INF> or H<INF>L</INF> tests would be used
in addition to the other test conditions to interpolate performance in
the various bins, and electric heat would supplement unit capacity to
ensure total heating matches the building load in all bins, the
evaluated SHP values would still allow for a meaningful comparison
between units. Specifically, for a unit that tests using the
H<INF>L</INF> test, heat pump performance would be determined down to
the cutoff temperature using the performance at the ``L'' temperature,
and all heating below the cut-out temperature would be calculated based
on its being provided by electric resistance heating. This results in
consistent comparison of PTHPs using the H<INF>L</INF> test and other
PTHPs using the H<INF>3</INF> test, because for all calculations the
total delivered heating would match the building load, and energy input
for bins below the cut-out temperature would be calculated assuming
provision using electric resistance heat.
DOE is also proposing a relationship to represent the heating
building load line for PTAC/HPs. Similar to the cooling building load
line, the PTAC/HP heating building load line represents the averaged
heating load at different temperatures evaluated as a national average
and utilizes an equal weighting of the small hotel and the midrise
apartment prototypes.
Issue 13: DOE requests comment on its proposed approach to
calculate SHP using a similar binned analysis as that of HSPF2. DOE
also requests comment on the proposed heating building load line;
specifically, whether an equal weighting of the small hotel and midrise
apartment use cases is appropriate.
6. Heating Temperature Bins and Weights
The values of the total heating provided and the power consumed are
evaluated for each individual temperature bin. Table III.9 shows DOE's
proposed temperature bins and associated weighting factors to represent
the number of hours per year spent at each bin for heating. These
temperature bins and fractional hours are based on DOE's analysis of
building energy use associated with PTAC/HP use cases, primarily the
small hotel and midrise apartment prototypes, and are a national
average.

[[Page 30853]]

Table III.9--Distribution of Fractional Hours Within Heating Season Temperature Bins
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Fraction of total
Bin number, j Bin temperature temperature for temperature bin
range [deg]F bin [deg]F hours, nj/N
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1...................................................... 39-35 37 0.337
2...................................................... 34-30 32 0.298
3...................................................... 29-25 27 0.192
4...................................................... 24-20 22 0.108
5...................................................... 19-15 17 0.051
6...................................................... 14-10 12 0.008
7...................................................... 9-5 7 0.006
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 14: DOE requests comment on its proposed temperature bins and
associated fractional bin hours for heating.

H. Dehumidification of Fresh Air

In typical hotel installations, the PTAC or PTHP unit provides
cooling and heating to individual rooms or suites within the hotel and
the hotel hallways and common areas are usually serviced by a separate
air conditioning system. In older building designs, fresh air
ventilation is supplied to hotel rooms via the corridors to which the
rooms are connected. In these designs, air is exhausted from each hotel
room by a bathroom exhaust fan and is replaced by ``make-up'' air
supplied via the corridor and conditioned by the heating, ventilation,
and air conditioning (``HVAC'') system that serves the corridor. Make-
up air from the corridor enters the hotel rooms by passing through an
undercut or grill in the hotel room door.
Building designs that supply make-up air via corridors generally
are no longer permissible under the building codes adopted in most U.S.
states. Chapter 10, Section 1018.5 of the 2009 International Building
Code (``IBC'') states that, with some exceptions, ``corridors shall not
serve as supply, return, exhaust, relief or ventilation air ducts.''
\21\ The International Code Council (``ICC'') tracks the adoption of
the IBC by state. The ICC reports that, as of July 2022, only seven
states had not fully adopted the 2009 version or a more recent version
of the IBC.\22\ These IBC code requirements have precipitated the
introduction of PTAC and PTHP models that are designed to draw outdoor
air into the unit, dehumidify the outdoor air, and introduce the
dehumidified air into the conditioned space. These models are commonly
referred to as ``make-up air PTACs'' or ``make-up air PTHPs.'' The
following paragraphs discuss issues regarding the market size and
energy consumption of make-up air PTACs and PTHPs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ International Code Council. 2009 International Building
Code. Available at: <a href="https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/4641/">https://codes.iccsafe.org/content/chapter/4641/</a>.
\22\ International Code Council (2022). ``International Codes--
Adoption by State.'' Available at: <a href="http://www.mitek-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Master-I-Code-Adoption-Chart.pdf">www.mitek-us.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Master-I-Code-Adoption-Chart.pdf</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Market Size of Make-Up Air PTACs and PTHPs
DOE has identified two different designs of make-up air PTAC and
PTHP units on the market. In the first design, the PTAC or PTHP
includes a dehumidifier module situated in the outdoor portion of the
unit between the unit's outdoor heat exchanger and the panel that
divides the indoor and outdoor portions of the unit. The dehumidifier
module contains a compressor and refrigerant loop that are separate
from the main refrigerant loop that the PTAC or PTHP uses to provide
cooling to the conditioned space. In this design, outdoor air flows
through the dehumidifier module, which removes moisture from the air,
and into the conditioned space.
In the second identified design, the make-up air PTAC or PTHP does
not include a dehumidifier module. Instead, the unit incorporates a
variable-speed compressor that can operate at speeds less than full
speed. In this design, outdoor air is drawn through the unit and across
the unit's primary evaporator coil; dehumidification is provided by the
unit's main refrigerant loop, and the unit's variable-speed compressor
adjusts its capacity to provide humidity control by matching compressor
operation to the required load of sensible \23\ or latent \24\ cooling,
such that the unit removes moisture from the air without cooling the
air to a temperature well below the setpoint.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ ``Sensible cooling'' refers to cooling that reduces air
temperature without removing moisture from the air.
\24\ ``Latent cooling'' refers to cooling that only removes
moisture from the air.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the May 2021 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on how ``make-up air
PTAC'' and a ``make-up air PTHP'' could be defined, and what
characteristics could be used to distinguish make-up air PTACs and
PTHPs from other PTACs and PTHPs. 86 FR 28005, 28008. DOE also
requested comment on the market size each of the PTAC and PTHP design
options it has identified that provide dehumidification of fresh air
and whether there were any other design pathways by which a PTAC or
PTHP can provide dehumidification of outdoor air and, if alternative
designs exist, the market size of these alternative designs. Id. DOE
also requested data on the relative market share of make-up air PTACs/
PTHPs within the three PTAC and PTHP capacity ranges: <7,000 Btu/h;
>=7,000 Btu/h and <=15,000 Btu/h; and >15,000 Btu/h. 86 FR 28005,
28009.
AHRI stated that the market for PTACs and PTHPs introducing
conditioned outside air is very small. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4) AHRI
commented that based on the survey they conducted to determine the
market size for units providing dehumidification of outdoor air, AHRI
estimates between 2.9 and 8.6 percent of PTAC/HPs sold include
conditioned outdoor air capabilities across the PTAC and PTHP entire
market, irrespective of equipment capacity and of these, an even
smaller percentage include dehumidification capabilities. Id. AHRI
stated that their survey did not have enough data to aggregate the
proportion among the capacity bins, but it constituted a representative
sample of the PTAC and PTHP market and indicated 3.8 percent of PTAC
and PTHP shipments include make-up air for all equipment capacities.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 7) They stated that this small market share is not
expected to increase significantly, and it was their belief that DOE's
analysis of this issue relying solely on building codes fails to
appropriately account for alternate methods of providing makeup air
based on the shipment numbers that are likely dominant in the market.
Id.

[[Page 30854]]

Regarding definitions for make-up air PTACs and PTHPs, AHRI commented
that they disagree that revisions are necessary, but offered
information regarding different technologies that introduce makeup air
through a PTAC or PTHP. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 4-5) AHRI noted that the
primary technologies for introducing outside air through a PTAC or PTHP
are based on a separate module that includes a dehumidification coil--
with air either being forced into the room or a vent damper introducing
ventilation air into the unit through induction (i.e., standard PTAC
with open damper). Id. AHRI further noted that forced air introduction
and induced air via a vent damper may or may not condition the outside
air and may have a simple vent opening in its bulkhead which allows
outside air to be drawn in by the negative pressure of the room caused
by running the bathroom's exhaust fan. Id. AHRI commented that in the
case of a dehumidification module, outdoor air is introduced through a
module with its own compressor, fan, and dehumidification coils, with
air being pushed through a module with a small fan(s) and an automated
damper door will open and close to prevent draft while not in use. Id.
AHRI further commented that most PTACs and their internal make-up air
modules are equipped to accept signals from an occupancy detection
system and that units with dehumidification modules are sometimes also
referred to as ``two-stage systems.'' Id.
NEAA commented that PTAC/HPs with make-up air capabilities are
already available from at least four manufacturers and are likely to
become more prevalent as the new construction and retrofit markets
shift to meet this code requirement. (NEAA, No. 17 at p. 2) NEEA stated
that there are also products on the market that are not specifically
marketed for their ventilation capabilities, but which do allow for the
introduction of outside air when the unit is operating. Id. NEAA noted
that the distinguishing characteristic of these products is the
introduction and conditioning of outside air. Id.
In response to AHRI, DOE notes that while the market for make-up
air PTACs and PTHPs may be small currently, new IBC code requirements
and increased focus on ventilation, may lead to increased demand for
these units. While there are other alternate methods of providing make
up air, such as through a dedicated outdoor air system, DOE understands
that implementing these alternate methods may require significant
changes to existing buildings. As such, using make up air PTAC/HPs may
be the preferred option to comply with new building codes. Therefore,
DOE has initially determined that a test procedure to account for the
dehumidification function of this equipment is appropriate.
2. Dehumidification Energy Use
As previously mentioned, neither the current DOE test procedure nor
the industry test procedures, AHRI Standard 310/380-2014 or AHRI
Standard 310/380-2017, account for any additional energy associated
with the dehumidification of make-up air traversing the unit. When a
unit is operating in cooling mode, the dehumidification function may
add heat to the room, thus increasing the cooling load on the unit. In
addition, introducing make-up air to the room while the unit is
operating in heating mode could increase a unit's energy consumption if
the unit uses electric resistance heating to heat the make-up air. The
amount of energy consumed by a dehumidification function depends on a
variety of factors, including the airflow rate, the amount of time the
dehumidification function is engaged, how the dehumidification function
is controlled, and the ambient air temperature, among others.
In the May 2021 TP RFI, DOE sought comment on the impacts on the
energy consumption of PTACs and PTHPs that dehumidify incoming outdoor
air for units that include a dehumidification module, a variable-speed
compressor, or any other design that dehumidifies outdoor air and
introduces it to the conditioned space, in both cooling and heating
mode. 86 FR 28005, 28009. DOE also requested comment on how to quantify
the energy consumption associated with the dehumidification function of
make-up air PTACs/PTHPs for an average use cycle and what indoor and
outdoor temperature and humidity conditions might be appropriate for
this characterization. Id.
NEAA commented that the introduction of outside air will generally
increase energy use and the conditioning of this air should be captured
by the test procedure. (NEAA, No. 17 at p. 2) NEEA stated that it is
important to include this energy use because designers may be comparing
makeup air PTACs with other ventilation options and that if this energy
use is not captured by the test procedure, it would lead to an unfair
comparison between PTAC or PTHPs and other ventilation options by not
fully reflecting the energy used by these units. Id. The Joint
Advocates also encouraged DOE to incorporate the additional energy use
associated with make-up air PTACs and PTHPs so that the test procedure
is representative for these units (Joint Advocates, No. 16 at p. 1)
AHRI stated that there is no standard test procedure for measuring
the energy component of a PTAC associated with the introduction and
dehumidification of outdoor air. (AHRI, No. 14 at p. 5) They identified
many factors to consider including, ambient environmental conditions,
the quantity and the relative humidity of the outdoor air being
supplied to the room, and the set of conditions that must be satisfied
first before a dehumidification process is initiated. Id. AHRI stated
that it was unreasonable to request stakeholders to essentially develop
a test procedure through the notice and comment process for any
product, much less an ``ASHRAE product'', and that these test
procedures should be developed by a technical committee through
consensus-process with relevant experts, including manufacturers,
testing laboratory staff, and other experts present to discuss issues.
Id.
DOE agrees with NEAA and Joint Advocates that the introduction of
outside air will generally increase energy use and the conditioning of
this air should be considered as part of the test procedure. However,
DOE also recognizes the challenges identified by AHRI regarding the
evaluation of the make-up air operation via a test procedure. DOE notes
that it participates in the AHRI Standard 310/380 committee and has
worked with stakeholders to develop industry test procedures for PTAC/
HPs in the past and is willing to do so in the future, including for
operation in dehumidification mode.
The next section presents DOE's proposed test procedure for
measuring the dehumidification energy use of make-up air PTAC/HPs.
3. Proposed Test Procedure
To ensure that the test procedures prescribed by DOE are reasonably
designed to produce test results which reflect energy efficiency during
a representative average use cycle for PTAC or PTHP employing the make-
up air function, DOE is proposing a test procedure for manufacturers to
make representations of dehumidification energy use for make-up PTACs
and PTHPs.
a. Definitions
Comments received in response to the May 2021 RFI suggest that the
key feature of a make-up air PTAC or PTHP is the ability to introduce
and condition outside air. While PTACs and PTHPs

[[Page 30855]]

which do not have dehumidification capabilities also have provisions to
bring in outside air through the unit bulkhead,\25\ they do not
condition the outdoor air before the outdoor air enters the conditioned
space. Therefore, DOE considers that the conditioning of outside air is
the defining aspect to distinguish make-up air PTAC/HPs from non make-
up air PTAC/HPs. DOE is proposing to define make-up air PTACs and make-
up PTHPs as follows:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ DOE's research indicates that this bulkhead opening is
often sealed during installation to prevent moisture ingress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make-up Air PTAC means a PTAC for which a portion of the total
airflow is drawn in from outside the conditioned space and in which
this outside air passes through a dehumidifying or cooling coil, either
before or after mixing with the air drawn into the unit from the
conditioned space, but before being discharged from the unit.
Make-up Air PTHP means a PTHP for which a portion of the total
airflow is drawn in from outside the conditioned space and in which
this outside air passes through a dehumidifying or cooling coil, either
before or after mixing with the air drawn into the unit from inside the
conditioned space, but before being discharged from the unit.
As discussed in section III.H.1 of this document, DOE has
identified two designs of make-up air units--the first design employs a
separate dehumidifier module, i.e., an ``add-on dehumidifier'' to
provide dehumidification, while the second design relies on the main
refrigeration circuit to provide dehumidification, i.e., it utilizes an
``integrated dehumidifier''. DOE is proposing to define and include
these terms in appendix H1 as follows:
Add-on Dehumidifier means a dehumidification system of a make-up
air PTAC or PTHP that has its own complete dehumidification system and
does not use the main PTAC/HP system indoor coil for any portion of the
outdoor air dehumidification.
Integrated Dehumidifier means a dehumidification system of a make-
up air PTAC or PTHP for which some of the dehumidification of the
outdoor air is provided by the main PTAC/HP system indoor coil.
Issue 15: DOE requests comment on its proposed definitions for
make-up air PTAC, make-up air PTHP, add-on dehumidifier and integrated
dehumidifier.
b. Make-Up Air Setup
To help DOE evaluate a test procedure for make-up air operation,
DOE requested information and data in the May 2021 TP RFI regarding
various aspects of the make-up air function, including: the typical
range of make-up air volume flowing through a make-up air PTAC/PTHP and
whether this airflow varies while the dehumidification function is
engaged; how make-up air flowing through the unit is heated while the
unit is operating in heating mode; how make-up air dehumidification is
controlled for units with a dehumidifier module and units without a
dehumidifier module, specifically, what conditions trigger the unit to
engage make-up air dehumidification and how do make-up air PTACs/PTHPs
interact with variables like occupancy or exhaust fan controls; the
typical amount of time that make-up air PTAC/HPs engage the
dehumidification function; how the cooling and dehumidification modes
are coordinated for make-up air PTACs/PTHPs, whether dehumidification
and cooling are typically performed simultaneously or separately, and
the impact that any such coordination has on energy consumption; and
the range of dehumidification capacities (in pints of water/day) for
make-up air PTACs/PTHPs in the market and the test conditions used to
rate dehumidification capacity. 85 FR 28005, 28009. DOE also requested
comment on what instructions the test procedures should provide
regarding how to prepare and setup a PTAC or PTHP makeup air unit for
testing under the current DOE test procedure, which does not test the
makeup air function of the unit. Id.
AHRI stated that dehumidification modules typically introduce 25 to
50 cubic feet per min (``CFM'') of outdoor air, but airflow rates may
vary depending on the design of the make-up air feature. (AHRI, No. 14
at p. 6) Regarding the time that the dehumidification mode is engaged,
ARHI commented that there are different control strategies to control
make-up air introduction and could be based on outdoor air conditions,
room occupation, or other means and without some level of research, it
is not possible to empirically determine what is ``typical''. Id. AHRI
stated that they were unable to comment on dehumidification capacities
(in pints of water/day) as there is currently no consensus method to
measure dehumidification capacities for make-up air PTACs/PTHPs in the
market. Id. DOE did not receive any further comments on other aspects
of the make-up air function.
DOE's review of product literature suggests typical publicized
dehumidification rates of 4-5 pints per day, although as AHRI noted
there is currently no consensus method to measure dehumidification
capacities for make-up air PTACs/PTHPs in the market. DOE also found
that some make-up air PTACs or PTHPs use control schemes based on
outdoor air temperature and relative humidity to decide when to engage
the dehumidification function.
DOE notes that the 2022 edition of the ASHRAE ventilation standard,
ASHRAE 62.1, ``Ventilation and Acceptable Indoor Quality'' (``ASHRAE
62.1-2022'') prescribes minimum ventilation rates in Table 6-1 of the
standard. The minimum ventilation rates include an occupancy-based
outdoor air rate based on expected number of people in the space and/or
an outdoor air rate based on floor area. For hotels, the occupancy-
based outdoor air rate is 5 CFM per person and the floorspace based
outdoor air rate is 0.06 CFM per square foot. Based on a typical hotel
room occupancy of 2 persons and a floor area of 300 square feet, the
total required ventilation airflow would amount to 28 CFM. DOE
conducted a review of product literature marketing PTACs and PTHPs with
make-up air capabilities and concluded that all such units are capable
of introducing at least 30 CFM of air, with airflow ranges from 30 to
75 CFM. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that 30 CFM is the
appropriate representative airflow to use in the development of the
test procedure.
DOE understands that a key challenge associated with the testing of
make-up air PTAC/HPs is the introduction and measurement of the make-up
air. Some make-up PTAC/HPs have fans to provide the make-up air, while
others rely on a negative pressure differential within the room. To
standardize the rate and means of make-up air intake, DOE's proposed
test procedure requires the use of a makeup air inlet duct assembly to
draw air into the make-up air intake for the PTAC/HP unit. The inlet
duct assembly would include a nozzle airflow measuring apparatus and an
inlet plenum, with interconnecting duct sections. The air flow
measuring apparatus would be used to measure and feed air into the
plenum. Figure III-2 details the setup of the inlet duct

[[Page 30856]]

assembly and the nozzle airflow measuring apparatus.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP12MY23.001

DOE's proposal requires that the inlet plenum have interior
dimensions of at least 12 inches high and at least 12 inches wide in
the plane perpendicular to the air flow, and an interior dimension of
at least 24 inches between the edges of the inlet and outlet ducts that
are closest to each other. The inlet plenum would be insulated to
prevent variance in the air temperature in the plenum as compared to
the make-up air inlet. Nozzle airflow measuring apparatus as described
in section 6.2 of ASHRAE 37-2009 in addition to an adjustable fan,
would be used to adjust the inlet plenum pressure. The nozzle airflow
measuring apparatus would take in outdoor room air and move it into the
unit under test in a blow-through arrangement. Additionally, a transfer
fan would transfer makeup air from the indoor room back to the outdoor
room. The transfer fan would be adjustable to allow setting of the
needed pressure differential when the target makeup air is passing
through the test unit. Setting up of the 30 CFM make-up air flow rate
would require adjustments of both the inlet plenum pressure and the
transfer fan.
To measure the pressure differential between the outdoor room and
the inlet air plenum, static pressure taps shall be placed at four
locations around the inlet air plenum as shown in Figure III-2, and
consistent with section 6.5 of ASHRAE 37-2009. The pressure taps would
be manifolded together as indicated in section 6.5.3 of ASHRAE 37-2009.
Temperature measurements of the outdoor inlet dry bulb and wet bulb
temperatures would be made at the inlet of the nozzle airflow
measurement apparatus, consistent with ASHRAE 16-2016.
Issue 16: DOE requests comment on the required make-up airflow rate
of 30 CFM and the proposed test setup for the make-up inlet assembly.
c. Test Conditions and Measurements
DOE did not receive any comments regarding the test conditions for
a dehumidification test. In the absence of any information, DOE
considers that the standard test conditions used for DOE's current test
procedure--80 [deg]F/67 [deg]F (dry-bulb/wet-bulb) in the conditioned
space and 95 [deg]F/6 [deg]F (dry-bulb/dew point) for the outdoor
entering air, are appropriate. These conditions ensure that the outdoor
air would have a higher humidity ratio than the indoor air and would
present the need for dehumidification. Table III.10 and Table III.11
set out the test conditions and tolerances.

Table III.10--Dehumidification Test Conditions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering makeup air inlet temperatures Air entering indoor side of unit temperature
([deg]F) ([deg]F) Make-up air flow
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- (scfm)
Dry bulb Dew Point Dry bulb Wet bulb
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
95 67 80 67 30
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 30857]]

TableIII.11--Dehumidification Test Tolerances
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Variation of
arithmetic Maximum observed
average from range of
Reading specified readings (test
conditions (test operating
condition tolerance)
tolerance)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air entering makeup air inlet dry 0.3 1.2
bulb ([deg]F)....................
Dew point ([deg])................. 0.5 1.5
Add-on dehumidification system
test:
Air entering indoor side dry 3 5
bulb ([deg]).................
Wet bulb ([deg]).............. 3 5
Integrated dehumidification system
test:
Air entering indoor side dry 0.3 1.5
bulb ([deg]).................
Wet bulb ([deg]).............. 0.3 1.0
Makeup airflow (scfm)............. 1 .................
Makeup airflow Nozzle pressure ................. 5
drop (%).........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------

The evaluation of dehumidification energy use requires the
measurement of condensate removed by the make-up air unit and the power
consumed during the operation i.e., the liters of water removed per
watt-hours (``Wh''). Moisture removal is part of the associated latent
capacity of a PTAC/HP unit, and units which do not have make-up air
capabilities also collect condensate. For most PTAC/HPs, the collected
condensate is `slung' back onto the condenser coils to provide an
evaporative benefit and improve efficiency. Therefore, to collect and
measure condensate that is strictly associated with the
dehumidification portion of the make-up air unit, this slinging
operation needs to be either bypassed or taken into account.
The two separate designs of make-up air PTAC/HPs discussed in
section III.H.1 of this document necessitate different methodologies to
measure dehumidification energy use. For systems that use an add-on
dehumidifier, DOE's proposed test procedure requires isolating the add-
on dehumidifier of the unit under test from the main refrigeration
circuit, thereby also avoiding the slinging operation. This can be
achieved by setting the unit thermostat to a high temperature setting,
and if necessary, moving the sensor such that it is in sufficiently
cool air to prevent main system start. A preliminary power measurement
would be made with the PTAC/HP in fan-only mode or with the thermostat
and fan controls set such that the indoor fan is energized, but the
compressor and outdoor fan are not--this measurement would establish
the background power to be subtracted from the test measurement
including the dehumidifier operating. The unit is then operated at the
test conditions mentioned previously and the thermostatic drain plug is
removed to allow the collection and measurement of condensate--with
measurements at intervals of no more than 10 minutes. Equilibrium test
conditions would be maintained within tolerances shown in Table III.11
for not less than one hour before recording data for the test. The
dehumidification test would then be conducted over a 1-hour period,
with no parameter exceeding the allowable tolerances specified in Table
III.11 of this document. Measurements of test conditions, input power
and energy, and airflow are taken at least every 60 seconds and logged.
The condensate is collected in a bucket placed on a scale with a mass
measurement resolution of 1 gram. The collection bucket is covered to
limit re-evaporation. This test will yield the value of collected
condensate, w<INF>d,add</INF>.
For systems that use an integrated dehumidifier, the measurement of
dehumidification effciency would be based on a comparison of condensate
collected and power consumed in a preliminary `non-makeup air' test
(i.e., test without make-up air intake) and a `make-up air' test (i.e.,
test without make-up air intake).
For the `non make-up air' test--the make-up airflow passage would
be blocked, and to prevent use of the condensate for condenser cooling,
the condensate will need to be drained before it reaches a level high
enough for the slinger to spray it onto the condenser coil. Since this
will affect performance by preventing the enhancement of condenser
cooling, this test will be done at reduced outdoor air temperature
conditions to compensate for the slinger de-activation. This would
require measuring the average coil temperature during the
A<INF>full</INF> cooling test, using the temperature measuring setup in
Figure III-2 of this document. For the `non-make up air' test, the
outdoor room dry bulb temperature will be reduced to a level for which
the outdoor coil return bend temperature is within 0.5 [deg]F of the
temperature measured during the A<INF>full</INF> test. The sensible and
latent capacity would be measured as described in ASHRAE 16-2016, with
condensate measurements at intervals of 10 minutes. When conditions
have stabilized after a duration of 60 minutes, the performance test is
conducted for a 60 minute test period. The test is considered valid
when the energy balance requirements described in section 7 of ASHRAE
16-2016 have been met and the latent capacity calculated based on the
condensate measurement is within 6 percent of the latent capacity
measurement based on the psychrometric or calorimetric test method,
whichever is used. This test will yield the value of collected
condensate, w<INF>d,pre.</INF>.
For the `make-up air' test--the make-up airflow passage would be
unblocked and will utilize the same reduced outdoor air temperature
conditions, but to ensure a consistent comparison with other make-up
systems (make-up air systems with add-on dehumidifiers), the incoming
make-up air would need to be re-heated back to 95 [deg]F. Part (or all)
of this re-heating may be provided by the heat generated from the push-
through code tester fan as depicted in Figure III-2 of this document.
Supplemental re-heating may be required to provide the remaining re-
heat. Similar to the `non-make-up air test', a 60 minute stability
period will be followed by a test duration of 60 minutes. The test is
considered valid when the energy balance requirements are met. This
test will yield the value of collected condensate, w<INF>d,int</INF>.
The difference between the collected condensate for both tests:
w<INF>d,int.</INF> and

[[Page 30858]]

w<INF>d,pre.</INF> and the difference between the power consumed in the
two tests, will be evaluated to provide a measure of dehumidification
efficiency for make-up air units with an integrated dehumidifier.
Issue 17: DOE requests comment on the proposed test conditions for
the make-up air dehumidification test; specifically, whether the indoor
air entering conditions, outdoor air entering conditions are
appropriate.
Issue 18: DOE requests comment on its proposed test measurements
and instructions for both make-up air system designs.
d. Metric
DOE is proposing that the dehumidification energy use for both
designs of make-up air systems be measured using a separate metric,
dehumidification efficiency (DE). DE is measured in liters per kWh, and
is evaluated as a ratio of the collected condensate to energy consumed
in dehumidification, as measured in section III.H.3.c of this document.
DOE is proposing to define dehumidification efficiency of PTACs and
PTHPs as follows:
Dehumidification Efficiency, or DE, means the quantity of water
removed from the air divided by the energy consumed, measured in liters
per kilowatt-hour (L/kWh).
DOE may as an alternative choose to integrate the dehumidification
energy use of a make-up air unit with the cooling performance, by
incorporating the liters per Wh into the SCP metric. DOE could
implement such an integration by incorporating the capacity and power
input impacts measured for the dehumidification test into the SCP. For
each bin involved in the SCP calculation for which national-average
humidity associated with the bin's dry bulb temperature represents more
moisture than typical indoor humidity conditions, e.g., associated with
75 [deg]F dry-bulb temperature and 50 percent relative humidity
conditions, the system would be assumed to be providing
dehumidification at the capacity measured in the dehumidification test,
with power input also as measured in the test. The additional thermal
load associated with the dehumidification system's power input, less
the latent capacity equivalent of the dehumidification, would be added
to the cooling load for the bin to determine additional PTAC/HP primary
cooling system energy use for the bin. Also, the measured
dehumidification system's power input would be added to the PTAC/HP
power input for the bin. The latent capacity associated with the
measured dehumidification would also be added to the delivered cooling
for the bin. Both delivered cooling and power input of these
contributions would multiply by the bin hours, thus providing the
integrated cooling and energy for the bin--by summing bin contributions
for the cooling season, the calculations would in this way integrate
the contributions to cooling and energy of the dehumidification system.
Issue 19: DOE requests comment on its proposed metric to evaluate
dehumidification energy use.
Issue 20: DOE requests feedback on whether a separate metric is
appropriate for evaluating dehumidification energy use, or whether
dehumidification energy use should be integrated into the cooling
metric. If integrated into the cooling metric, DOE requests comment on
the approach outlined above to represent the dehumidification energy
use.

I. Fan-Only Mode

The current DOE test procedures for PTACs and PTHPs do not address
energy consumption during ``fan-only'' mode. In the May 2021 TP RFI,
DOE described ``fan-only'' mode as a mode in which the fan is operating
and providing ventilation or air circulation without active cooling or
heating. 86 FR 28005, 28011.
In the May 2021 TP RFI DOE requested data and information related
to the power consumption of PTAC and PTHP units during ``fan-only''
mode, specifically, whether the indoor and outdoor fans are powered by
the same motor; whether the default fan control scheme dictates that
the indoor fan cycles with the compressor or stays on; and whether the
fan operates at a lower power if the fan remains on when the compressor
cycles off. Id. DOE also requested data and information on the annual
number of hours PTAC and PTHP units operate in ``fan-only'' mode. Id.
AHRI explained that power can be supplied to the indoor and outdoor
fans using two different motors and both fans can be variable speed and
operate at different set points given mode of operation and model type.
(AHRI, No. 14 at p. 11) Alternately, AHRI noted that power can be
supplied using a single motor operating both indoor and outdoor fans.
Id. AHRI further explained that the indoor ``fan-only'' mode has two
user-selectable speeds: high and low, and that the default settings for
the indoor fan are to run continuously for cooling and to cycle for
heating. Id. AHRI stated that there is no change in power consumption
of the fan itself when running continuously compared to cycling with
the compressor and there is no difference in fan speed during cooling,
heating or ventilation operations. Id. AHRI did not provide any data
regarding ``fan-only'' mode operating hours, but noted that it would be
highly individualized to the individual staying in the hotel room. Id.
They stated that the compressor is the dominant energy using component
of a PTAC or PTHP and that many PTACs and PTHPs use brushless DC
motors, which have comparatively low energy consumption. Id.
The Joint Advocates and NEEA encouraged DOE to capture energy use
in fan-only mode. (Joint Advocates, No. 16 at p. 2 ; NEEA, No. 17 at p.
3) NEEA stated that product literature indicated that at least some
PTACs and PTHPs utilize continuous fan operation in their primary mode
i.e., these units operate the fan any time the unit is on, regardless
of whether the compressor is running. (NEEA, No. 17 at p. 3) NEEA
stated that the number of fan hours spent in this mode have the
potential to be significant, and this energy use should be captured by
the test procedure. NEEA recommended that DOE conduct further research
to determine the number of hours spent in fan-only mode and to include
this energy use in the test procedure. Id.
To investigate the energy used during `fan-only' mode, DOE reviewed
literature for several PTAC/HPs and performed investigative testing on
2 single-speed PTHPs, running full-load and part-load cooling tests to
evaluate the differences between running a unit with the indoor fan
running continuously (``constant fan'' test) and running the indoor fan
cycling with the compressor (``cycling fan'' test). The two tests were
run at the same conditions and loads to provide a comparison. DOE's
literature review agrees with AHRI's provided information that most
PTAC/HPs have two user-selectable speeds: high and low, and that the
default settings for the indoor fan is usually to run continuously for
cooling and to cycle for heating. However, while DOE agrees with AHRI
that there is no change in power consumption of the fan itself when
running continuously compared to cycling with the compressor, DOE's
investigative testing, which incorporated part-load cyclic tests, was
able to conclude that the average total power consumed over several
cycles was higher for the indoor fan when running in ``constant fan''
mode, as compared to when it was running on ``cycling fan'' mode.
Consequently, the cooling efficiency (EER) observed for the constant
fan tests were lower.

[[Page 30859]]

These test results suggest that PTAC/HPs may consume more energy
when they are operating with the fan in continuous operation. However,
DOE does not have enough information regarding the prevalence of use
when only the fan is in operation, i.e., number of annual hours spent
in fan-only mode, as this is highly dependent on user preference and
other factors. Further, DOE did not receive any comments that provided
this information. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to measure energy use
during fan-only mode. However, the evaluation of cooling and heating
default degradation coefficients in section III.F.3 of this document
are evaluated based on the cyclic testing data associated with the
constant fan mode, as this presents the worst case for cycling losses.

J. Use of Psychrometric Testing

The current DOE test procedure for PTAC/HPs allow for cooling mode
testing to be performed either in a calorimeter room per ASHRAE 16-1983
or by employing the indoor air enthalpy method per ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009.
The heating mode testing must be performed using ASHRAE 58-1986, which
utilizes a psychrometric measurement.
In response to the May 2021 RFI, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE
require testing in a calorimeter room for both cooling and heating
mode. (CA IOUs, No. 15 at p. 3-4) The CA IOUs cited DOE's conclusion in
the RAC rulemaking that testing done using the ANSI/ASHRAE 37 procedure
for RACs did not provide repeatable data when compared to the
calorimeter method and that, unlike the calorimeter, the air-enthalpy
method did not accurately account for heat transfer within and through
the unit chassis. Id. (See 86 FR 16446, 16461) The CA IOUs recommended
that DOE either perform similar testing for PTAC/HPs or use the results
from the RAC testing to only allow testing under ANSI/ASHRAE 16. Id.
DOE has in the past considered requiring calorimetric testing for
all PTAC/HPs. In the test procedure NOPR published on March 13, 2014
(``March 2014 NOPR''), DOE proposed requiring that tests be conducted
using the calorimetric method of ASHRAE 16, based on testing conducted
using both methods which showed better performance using ASHRAE 16 than
when using ASHRAE 37. 79 FR 14186, 14190-14191. However, DOE did not
finalize such a requirement in the June 2015 TP final rule. DOE based
this decision on feedback from commenters suggested that there would be
additional burden if DOE were to require all testing to be performed
calorimetrically, and data received from a commenter based on a more
extensive series of tests that showed that the calorimetric and
psychrometric test methods were comparable, contrary to DOE's test
results. 80 FR 37136, 37141. Consequently, DOE did not eliminate the
optional use of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 to determine cooling capacity. Id.
DOE notes that ASHRAE 16-2016 now allows for both calorimetric and
psychrometric testing, indicating consensus of participants in the
development of the updated test standard that the calorimeter and the
psychrometric chamber provide comparable results. DOE more recently
performed testing of a PTHP unit in cooling mode in both a calorimeter
using methods in ASHRAE 16-1983, and in a psychrometric chamber using
ASHRAE 37-2009, and found the results to be comparable. Regarding DOE's
determination in the RAC rulemaking, it is not clear that the potential
test inconsistency in that case would necessarily be an issue for PTAC/
HPs, as it was specific to RACs. DOE notes that there are geometric
differences and size differences between RACs and PTACs which can make
recirculation of air from air discharge outlets to air inlets more
likely for RACs than PTACs. This recirculation can occur on both the
room side and the outdoor side. Such recirculation, which generally
reduces a unit's performance, is blocked on the indoor side by use of
ASHRAE 37-2009, due to ducting of the discharge air, but not when using
the calorimetric method. Thus, DOE provisionally concludes that this
issue would have a larger impact in the psychrometric testing of RACs
as compared PTAC/HPs.
DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ASHRAE 16-2016, which
allows calorimetric and psychrometric testing for both heating and
cooling mode tests. However, DOE welcomes additional data regarding the
consistency of psychrometric and calorimetric tests for PTAC/HPs.
Issue 21: DOE requests data regarding the agreement of test results
when testing PTAC/HPs using psychrometric test methods as opposed to
calorimetric test methods.

K. Test Procedure Costs and Impact

In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for
PTACs and PTHPs by incorporating seasonal cooling and heating
performance and establishing new cooling and heating metrices, SCP and
SHP. DOE also proposes to include provisions to measure
dehumidification energy use of make-up air PTAC/HPs.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in this
NOPR would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and
reproducibility of the test results and would not be unduly burdensome
for manufacturers to conduct. Because the current DOE test procedure
for PTAC/HPs would be relocated to appendix H without change, the
proposed test procedure in appendix H for measuring EER and COP would
result in no change in testing practices and thus result in no new
burden or costs.
Should DOE adopt standards in a future energy conservation
standards rulemaking in terms of the new metrics (SCP and SHP), the
proposed test procedure in appendix H1 would be required. DOE has
tentatively concluded that the proposed test procedure in appendix H1
for measuring SCP and SHP, would increase third-party lab testing costs
per unit relative to the current DOE test procedure. DOE estimates the
expected cost increase for physical testing to range from $5,100 to
$15,300 per unit for the complete test, depending on the system
configuration of the PTAC/HP unit (single-speed, two-speed or variable-
speed). In addition to the increased costs due to required testing to
determine SCP and SHP, make-up air PTAC/HPs may incur an additional
cost of $3,000 if manufacturers chose to make dehumidification
representations.
However, in accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, PTAC/HP manufacturers
may elect to use AEDMs to rate models, which significantly reduces
costs to industry. DOE estimates the per-manufacturer cost to develop
and validate an AEDM for PTAC/HPs to be $25,200. DOE estimates a cost
of approximately $50 \26\ per basic model for determining energy
efficiency using the validated AEDM. Both of these estimates reflect
the costs for AEDM development based on the proposed appendix H1
procedure. Because DOE is not proposing any changes to appendix H that
would affect current testing practices, there are no incremental costs

[[Page 30860]]

expected due to the proposed amendments to appendix H.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\26\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Issue 22: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact
of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically DOE's
estimates of the costs associated with testing using appendix H1 of
this document.

L. Compliance Date

EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, 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)) Representations related to energy
consumption of PTACs and PTHPs must be made in accordance with the
appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., appendix H or appendix H1)
when determining compliance with the relevant standard. DOE would not
require that PTAC/HPs be tested according to the test procedure in the
proposed appendix H1 until the compliance date of any future amended
energy conservation standard that relies on the SCP and SHP metrics,
should DOE adopt such standards. However, beginning 360 days after
publication of a test procedure final rule finalizing appendix H1, any
representations of dehumidification capacity and efficiency of make-up
air PTAC/HPs must be made using the dehumidification test procedures in
appendix H1.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563, and 14094

Executive Order (``E.O.'')12866, ``Regulatory Planning and
Review,'' as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ``Improving
Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and E.O.
14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023),
requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or
adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits
justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are
difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least
burden on society, consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives,
taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable,
the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net
benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health
and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than
specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities
must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to
direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage
the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or
providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (``OIRA'') in the Office
of Management and Budget (``OMB'') has emphasized that such techniques
may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might
result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action
is consistent with these principles.
Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866.
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under
E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (``IRFA'')
for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless
the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As required by 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>.
1. Description of Why Action Is Being Considered
DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for
PTACs and PTHPs in satisfaction of the 7-year review requirement
specified in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(i)).
2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
EPCA 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 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95-619, Title IV,
Sec. 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain
Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed
to improve energy efficiency. (42 U.S.C. 6311-6317) This equipment
includes PTACs and PTHPs, the subjects of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(J))
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 evaluate
test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including PTACs and
PTHPs, 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. 6146314(a)(1)(A))
3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated
For manufacturers of PTACs and PTHPs, the Small Business
Administration (``SBA'') has set a size threshold, which defines those
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the
rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The equipment covered by this rule are
classified under North American Industry Classification System
(``NAICS'') code 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and

[[Page 30861]]

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. DOE identified
twelve original equipment manufacturers (``OEMs'') of equipment covered
by this rulemaking. DOE screened out companies that do not meet the
definition of a ``small business'' or are foreign-owned and operated.
Of the twelve OEMs, DOE identified one small, domestic OEM for
consideration. DOE used subscription-based business information tools
to determine headcount and revenue of the small business.
DOE relied on the CCMS Compliance Certification Database \27\ to
create a list of companies that manufacture equipment covered by this
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ U.S. Department of Energy Compliance Certification
Database, available at: <a href="http://www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html">www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/products.html</a>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
In the test procedure notice, DOE proposes to relocate the current
DOE test procedure for PTACs and PTHPs to appendix H without change.
This reorganization to the test procedure for measuring EER and COP
would result in no change in testing practices and no cost to
manufacturers.
Additionally, DOE is proposing to establish a new appendix H1 to
subpart F of part 431. Appendix H1 would establish a new seasonal
cooling performance metric (SCP) and a new seasonal heating performance
metric (SHP) and the test procedure requirements for SCP and SHP. DOE
also proposes to include provisions to measure dehumidification energy
use of make-up air PTAC and PTHPs. Use of the proposed appendix H1 is
not required and would not be required until the compliance date of
amended energy conservation standards based on SCP and SHP, should DOE
adopt such standards.
Should DOE adopt standards in a future energy conservation
standards rulemaking in terms of the new metrics (SCP and SHP), the
proposed test procedure in appendix H1 would be required. DOE has
tentatively concluded that the proposed test procedure in appendix H1
for measuring SCP and SHP, would increase third-party lab testing costs
per unit relative to the current DOE test procedure. DOE estimates the
expected cost increase for physical testing to range from $5,100 to
$15,300, depending on the system configuration of the PTAC/HP unit
(single-speed, two-speed or variable-speed). In addition to the
increased costs due to required testing to determine SCP and SHP, make-
up air PTAC/HPs may incur an additional cost of $3,000 if manufacturers
chose to make representations for dehumidification in terms of the DE
metric. However, in accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, PTAC/HP
manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs to rate models, which
significantly reduces costs to industry. DOE estimates the per-
manufacturer cost to develop and validate an AEDM for PTAC/HPs to be
$25,200. DOE estimates a cost of approximately $50 per basic model for
determining energy efficiency using the validated AEDM.
DOE estimates that developing an AEDM and re-rating all 219 basic
models to new metrics would cost the identified small manufacturer
approximately $40,000. DOE has tentatively determined that this amount
would not constitute a significant economic impact on this small
manufacturer. However, because these costs would only be incurred if
DOE were to adopt a future energy conservation based on SCP and SHP
metrics, the small manufacturer would incur no additional compliance
costs as a direct result of this test procedure rulemaking. On this
basis, DOE tentatively concludes that the proposed rule would not have
a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments in this
NOPR would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and
reproducibility of the test results and would not be unduly burdensome
for manufacturers to conduct.
Issue 23: DOE requests comment on the number of small OEMs
identified. DOE also seeks comment the estimated costs the small
manufacturer may incur.
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 today.
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 an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of PTAC
and PTHP models. Without AEDMs, DOE estimates the cost to physically
test all PTAC and PTHP basic models for the identified small
manufacturer to be approximately $2 million.
Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other
means. EPCA provides that a manufacturer whose annual gross revenue
from all of its operations does not exceed $8 million may apply for an
exemption from all or part of an energy conservation standard for a
period not longer than 24 months after the effective date of a final
rule establishing the standard. (42 U.S.C. 6295(t)) Additionally,
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 430, subpart
E, and 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Manufacturers of PTAC/HPs 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 PTAC/HPs. (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.
DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting
requirements for PTAC/HPs in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider
proposals to amend the certification requirements and reporting for
PTAC/HPs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment
certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910-1400
at that time, as necessary.

[[Page 30862]]

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

In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it
expects will be used to develop and implement future energy
conservation standards for PTAC/HPs. DOE has determined that this rule
falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from
review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C.
4321 et seq.) and DOE's implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021.
Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for
measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial
equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021,
appendix A to subpart D, A5 and A6. Accordingly, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (Aug. 4, 1999)
imposes certain requirements on 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 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

[[Page 30863]]

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 PTAC/HPs 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 modifications to the test procedure for PTAC/HPs would
incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the
following commercial standards: AHRI 310/380-2017 and ASHRAE 16-2016.
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
following test standards:
AHRI 310/380-2017 is an industry-accepted test standard for
measuring the performance of PTAC/HPs, and is an update of AHRI 310/
380-2014. AHRI 310/380-2017 is available from AHRI at <a href="http://www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx">www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx</a>.
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 is an industry-accepted test procedure that
provides a calorimetric method for rating the cooling and heating
capacity of room air conditioners and PTAC/HPs, and is an update of
ANSI/ASHRAE 16-1983. ANSI/ASHRAE 16-2016 is available on ANSI's website
at <a href="http://webstore.ansi.org/standards/ashrae/ansiashraestandard16201

[…truncated; see source link]

View on FederalRegister.gov →Plain-text source

Indexed from Federal Register on May 12, 2023.

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.