Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small, Large, and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, 79655-79671 [2015-31906]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
79655
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 246
Wednesday, December 23, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of
new books are listed in the first FEDERAL
REGISTER issue of each week.
Domestic Quarantine Notices
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
7 CFR Part 301
[FR Doc. 2015–32219 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
CFR Correction
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 300 to 399, revised as
of January 1, 2015, on page 129, in
§ 301.86–5, in paragraph (b), remove the
term ‘‘potato’’ wherever it appears and
add ‘‘pale’’ in its place.
■
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 275
[FR Doc. 2015–32214 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
Performance Reporting System
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
CFR Correction
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 210 to 299, revised as
of January 1, 2015, on page 944, in
§ 275.11, in paragraph (g), remove the
fourth sentence which reads ‘‘However,
all results of reviews of active and
negative demonstration project/SSA
processed cases shall be excluded from
the determination of State agencies’
active and negative case error rates,
payment error rates, and underissuance
error rates as described in § 275.23(c).’’
■
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
Food and Nutrition Service
7 CFR Part 278
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 210 to 299, revised as
of January 1, 2015, on page 1031, in
§ 278.6, in the introductory text of
paragraph (h), after the word ‘‘bond’’,
add the words ‘‘or irrevocable letter of
credit’’.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
■
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
7 CFR Part 400
[FR Doc. 2015–32201 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
General Administrative Regulations
BILLING CODE 1505–01–P
CFR Correction
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 400 to 699, revised as
■
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
RIN 1904–AD54
Energy Conservation Program: Test
Procedures for Small, Large, and Very
Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package
Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment
SUMMARY:
[FR Doc. 2015–32217 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Docket No. EERE–2015–BT–TP–0015]
CFR Correction
CFR Correction
BILLING CODE 1505–01–D
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
Foreign Quarantine Notices
7 CFR Part 319
Participation of Retail Food Stores,
Wholesale Food Concerns and Insured
Financial Institutions
[FR Doc. 2015–32200 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 am]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
In Title 7 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Parts 300 to 399, revised as
of January 1, 2015, make the following
corrections:
■ 1. On page 231, in § 319.8–24, in
paragraph (c), after the first occurrence
of the word ‘‘his’’, add the words ‘‘or
her’’;
■ 2. On page 312, in § 319.55–6, in
paragraph (b)(1), in the first sentence,
after the second occurrence of the word
‘‘treatment’’, add the phrase ‘‘in
accordance with part 305 of this
chapter’’; and
■ 3. On page 342, in § 319.56–28, in
paragraph (g)(1), at the end of the first
sentence, add the phrase ‘‘of Morocco’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
of January 1, 2015, on page 28, in
§ 400.169, in paragraph (c), the second
to last sentence is reinstated to read:
‘‘The determinations of the Deputy
Administrator will be final and binding
on the company.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
AGENCY:
In this final rule, the U.S.
Department of Energy (DOE) reaffirms
that the currently prescribed test
procedure, with certain amendments
adopted in this rulemaking, must be
used when measuring the energy
efficiency of certain categories of small,
large, and very large air-cooled
commercial package air conditioners
and heating equipment. The final rule,
in addition to satisfying the agency’s
obligation to periodically review its test
procedures for covered equipment, also
clarifies specific certification,
compliance, and enforcement
provisions related to this equipment.
The final rule limits the incorporation
by reference of the industry test
procedure ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/
360–2007, ‘‘2007 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment,’’ to certain
sections and addenda; clarifies indoor
airflow tolerance and adjustment
specifications when meeting other
rating conditions; clarifies requirements
for condenser head pressure controls;
clarifies units of measurement for
airflow; establishes a tolerance on partload rating points and specifies the
ambient temperatures used for the partload rating points; and defines the term,
‘‘integrated energy efficiency ratio.’’
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
79656
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
The effective date of this rule is
January 22, 2016. The final rule changes
will be mandatory for testing starting
December 19, 2016. The incorporation
by reference of certain material listed in
this rule is approved by the Director of
the Federal Register as of January 22,
2016.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the regulations.gov index. However,
some documents listed in the index,
such as those containing information
that is exempt from public disclosure,
may not be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-TP0015-0001. This Web page will contain
a link to the docket for this notice on the
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov
Web page will contain simple
instructions on how to access all
documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to
review the docket, contact Ms. Brenda
Edwards at (202) 586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE–2J, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9590, or email
Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov.
For legal issues, please contact Mr.
Michael Kido, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8145. Email:
Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE
intends to incorporate by reference the
following industry standard into part
429 and appendix A to subpart F of part
431: ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360–
2007, (‘‘AHRI 340/360–2007’’), ‘‘2007
Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,’’ with Addenda 1 and 2,
approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011.
This industry standard provides
guidance regarding a variety of different
elements related to the testing of
commercial and industrial unitary airconditioning and heat pump equipment,
including definitions, classifications, as
well as testing, rating, data, and
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
DATES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
operating requirements. ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360–2007 is readily
available from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington,
VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or go to:
https://www.ahrinet.org.
DOE intends to incorporate by
reference the following industry
standard into appendix A to subpart F
of part 431: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
37–2009, (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37’’),
‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,’’ approved by ASHRAE on
June 20, 2009. This testing standard
details test methods for the equipment
addressed by this rulemaking. Copies of
this testing standard are readily
available from the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and AirConditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, (800)
527–4723, or through its Web site at
https://www.ashrae.org.
These standards are described further
in section IV.M.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Clarifications to the Current DOE Test
Procedure
1. Sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007
Incorporated by Reference
2. Indoor Airflow Adjustment and
Reporting
3. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
4. Unit of Measurement for Airflow
5. Tolerance on Percent Load for IEER PartLoad Tests
6. Definition of IEER
7. Additional Test Procedure Provisions
B. Certification and Enforcement Issues
and Compliance Dates
1. Measuring Cooling Capacity for
Purposes of Certification, Assessment,
and Enforcement
2. Compliance Dates of the Certification,
Reporting, and Test Procedure
Amendments
C. Future Test Procedure Rulemakings
D. Regulatory Text Language
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility
Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates
Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General
Government Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
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
N. Congressional Notification
O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act of 1975 (42 U.S.C.
6291, et seq.; ‘‘EPCA’’ or, ‘‘the Act’’) sets
forth a variety of provisions designed to
improve energy efficiency. (All
references to EPCA in this document
refer to the statute as amended through
the Energy Efficiency Improvement Act
of 2015, Public Law 114–11 (April 30,
2015).) Part C of Title III, which for
editorial reasons was redesignated as
Part A–1 upon incorporation into the
U.S. Code (42 U.S.C. 6311–6317, as
codified), establishes the Energy
Conservation Program for Certain
Commercial and Industrial Equipment.
Among the equipment covered under
this statutory framework are small,
large, and very large air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment—which are
referred to in this notice as commercial
unitary air conditioners (CUACs) and
commercial unitary heat pumps
(CUHPs). These equipment are the
subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(B)–(D))
Under EPCA, the energy conservation
program consists essentially of four
parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal
energy conservation standards, and (4)
certification and enforcement
procedures. The 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 under EPCA, and (2)
making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment. Similarly,
DOE must use these test procedures to
determine whether the equipment
complies with any relevant standards
promulgated under EPCA.
DOE’s test procedure for CUACs and
CUHPs is codified at Title 10 of the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
§ 431.96. The current regulations require
that manufacturers use ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2007, ‘‘2007 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment’’ (ANSI/AHRI
340/360–2007), when measuring the
efficiency of a given CUAC or CUHP
and certifying that equipment as
compliant with the applicable
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
standard.1 77 FR 28928, 28990 (May 16,
2012) (final rule specifying applicable
energy conservation standards and test
procedures for various commercial and
industrial equipment, including CUACs
and CUHPs).
On February 1, 2013, DOE published
a request for information and notice of
document availability regarding the
potential amendment of the energy
conservation standards for CUACs and
CUHPs. 78 FR 7296. DOE solicited
information from the public to help
determine whether national standards
more stringent than the current ones
would result in a significant amount of
additional energy savings and whether
those national standards would be
technologically feasible and
economically justified. DOE also sought
information from the public on the
merits of adopting the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy
efficiency descriptor for small, large,
and very large air-cooled commercial air
conditioners and heat pumps, and
which includes provisions to measure
equipment performance under partial-
load operating conditions. Currently,
manufacturers must measure the energy
efficiency of their equipment using the
energy efficiency ratio (EER), which
measures the full-load efficiency of a
given unit. The procedure to follow
when measuring and calculating that
value, like the proposed IEER metric, is
found in ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360–2007.
See ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360–2007, sec.
6. Comments received on the topic of
IEER are discussed in a related notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) published
September 30, 2014, which sought to
amend the CUAC and CUHP energy
conservation standards. 79 FR 58948.
Subsequently, on April 1, 2015, DOE
issued a notice of intent to establish the
Commercial Package Air Conditioners
and Heat Pumps and Commercial Warm
Air Furnaces Working Group to
negotiate potential amendments to the
energy conservation standards for this
equipment. 80 FR 17363. This Working
Group was established under the
Appliance Standards and Rulemaking
Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC)
in accordance with the Federal
Advisory Committee Act and the
Negotiated Rulemaking Act. See 5
U.S.C. Appendix—Federal Advisory
Committee Act and 5 U.S.C. 561–570a.
The Working Group, which consisted of
17 members, including one member
from ASRAC and one DOE
representative, met six times (five times
in person and once by teleconference).
The meetings were held on April 28,
May 11–12, May 20–21, June 1–2, June
9–10, and June 15, 2015. The Working
Group successfully reached consensus
on energy conservation standards for
CUACs, CUHPs, and commercial warm
air furnaces, which the Working Group
provided as recommendations as part of
a Term Sheet for submission to ASRAC.
The group also chose to provide test
procedure and metric-related
recommendations to the ASRAC.
ASRAC voted unanimously to approve
the Working Group’s recommendations
on June 17, 2015. Participants in the
Working Group consisted of the
following entities aside from DOE:
Organization
Acronym,
Abbreviation
Air Conditioning Contractors of America ..........................
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ......
American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy ........
Appliance Standards Awareness Project .........................
Emerson Climate Technologies ........................................
Goodman Manufacturing ..................................................
Lennox International .........................................................
Mitsubishi Electric .............................................................
Natural Resources Defense Council ................................
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ...............................
Pacific Gas & Electric Company, San Diego Gas & Electric Company, Southern California Edison, and Southern California Gas Company.
Rheem Manufacturing Company ......................................
Sheet Metal and Air Conditioning Contractors National
Association, Inc..
Trane/Ingersoll Rand ........................................................
United Technologies Corporation (Carrier) .......................
Underwriters Laboratories ................................................
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
79657
ACCA .................................
AHRI ...................................
ACEEE ...............................
ASAP ..................................
Emerson .............................
Goodman ............................
Lennox ................................
Mitsubishi ...........................
NRDC .................................
NEEA ..................................
Cal. IOUs ............................
Contractor/Installer Group.
HVAC Manufacturers Group.
Energy Efficiency Advocacy Group.
Energy Efficiency Advocacy Group.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Energy Efficiency Advocacy Group.
Energy Efficiency Advocacy Group.
Investor-Owned Utilities.
Rheem ................................
SMACCNA .........................
Manufacturer.
Contractor/Installer Group.
Trane ..................................
Carrier ................................
UL .......................................
Manufacturer.
Manufacturer.
Test Lab.
DOE initiated a rulemaking to amend
the test procedure and associated
certification requirements for CUACs
and CUHPs to implement certain of the
Working Group’s recommendations
regarding the metric and test procedure.
On August 6, 2015, DOE published a
NOPR (August 2015 NOPR), 80 FR
46870, in which DOE proposed to
clarify aspects of the CUAC and CUHP
test procedure. These clarifications
include, among other things, limiting
the incorporation by reference of ANSI/
AHRI 340/360–2007 to certain sections
Affiliation
and addenda, specifying requirements
for indoor airflow adjustment and
reporting, clarifying requirements for
condenser head pressure controls,
clarifying the unit of measurement for
airflow, establishing a tolerance on
percent load for IEER part-load tests,
and defining the term IEER. In this final
rule, DOE responds to comments
received from stakeholders in response
to the NOPR.
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking
Process
EPCA sets forth the general criteria
and procedures DOE must follow when
prescribing or amending test procedures
for covered equipment. See generally 42
U.S.C. 6314. EPCA provides in relevant
part that any test procedures prescribed
or amended under this section must be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that measure the energy
efficiency, energy use or estimated
annual operating cost of a covered
1 DOE notes that for purposes of this notice, all
references to ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360–2007 include
Addenda 1 and 2 to this industry-based standard.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
79658
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
product during a representative average
use cycle or period of use, and must not
be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42
U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In addition, if DOE
determines that a test procedure
amendment is warranted, it must
publish proposed test procedures and
offer an opportunity for the public to
present oral and written comments. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b))
EPCA also requires DOE to evaluate
its test procedures at least once every 7
years for each class of covered
equipment (including CUACs and
CUHPs) to determine if an amended test
procedure would more accurately or
fully comply with the requirement to be
reasonably designed to produce test
results that reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, and operating costs during
a representative average use cycle. DOE
must either prescribe amended test
procedures or publish a notice in the
Federal Register regarding its
determination not to amend test
procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-(2))
DOE considers the activity associated
with this rulemaking sufficient to satisfy
this review requirement.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
This final rule clarifies aspects of
DOE’s test procedure for CUACs and
CUHPs to improve the consistency and
accuracy of the results generated when
using that procedure. The rule clarifies
how to test for compliance with the
current energy conservation standards
along with those standards that DOE
anticipates adopting consistent with the
Working Group’s Term Sheet. The rule
also amends certain certification,
compliance, and enforcement
provisions. DOE has determined that
this final rule will not change the
measured energy efficiency of CUACs
and CUHPs when compared to the
current test procedure.
III. Discussion
This final rule amends the test
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs in
appendix A to subpart F of part 431 and
adds new equipment-specific
certification and enforcement provisions
in 10 CFR 429.43 and 429.134. With
respect to the latter of these changes, a
new § 429.134(g) would be added to the
pre-existing provisions already
contained in § 429.134(a)–(f). The rule
also amends certain definitions found in
10 CFR 431.92 and updates certain
materials incorporated by reference in
10 CFR 431.95.
In response to the August 2015 NOPR,
six interested parties submitted written
comments: Air-Conditioning, Heating
and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI);
United Technologies Corporation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
(Carrier), Ingersoll Rand, the California
Investor-Owned Utilities (Cal. IOUs),
Goodman Manufacturing Company
(Goodman), and Lennox International
Inc. (Lennox). Interested parties
commented on a range of issues,
including those DOE identified in the
August 2015 NOPR, as well as several
other pertinent issues related to DOE’s
proposal. Commenters also offered
thoughts on further opportunities to
improve the clarity of the test
procedure. These issues, as well as
DOE’s responses to them and the
resulting changes to DOE’s proposal, are
discussed in the subsequent sections.
A. Clarifications to the Current DOE
Test Procedure
In response to the August 2015 NOPR,
DOE received input on a variety of test
procedure issues, including: (1) sections
of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007
incorporated by reference; (2) indoor
airflow adjustment and reporting; (3)
condenser head pressure controls; (4)
the unit of measurement for airflow; (5)
the tolerance on percent load for IEER
part-load tests; (6) the definition of
IEER; and (7) additional provisions in
the current test procedure. DOE’s
treatment of these issues is addressed
below.
1. Sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007
Incorporated by Reference
As noted previously, DOE intends to
incorporate by reference ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360–2007, (‘‘AHRI 340/
360–2007’’), ‘‘2007 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment,’’ which was
approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011,
and updated by addendum 1 in
December 2010 and addendum 2 in June
2011. This industry standard provides
guidance regarding a variety of different
elements related to the testing of
commercial and industrial unitary airconditioning and heat pump equipment,
including definitions, classifications, as
well as testing, rating, data, and
operating requirements. (ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360–2007 is readily
available from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington,
VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or go to:
https://www.ahrinet.org.)
In its August 2015 NOPR, DOE
proposed to specify that when testing
CUACs and CUHPs for the EER,
coefficient of performance (COP), and
IEER metrics, only certain sections of
ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 would be
required—specifically, sections 3, 4, and
6 (omitting section 6.3)—rather than
applying the entirety of ANSI/AHRI
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
340/360–2007. DOE also proposed not
to incorporate section 5 of that testing
standard, and to incorporate by
reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009,
which was previously incorporated by
reference through section 5 of ANSI/
AHRI 340/360–2007. 80 FR at 46873.
Responding to this aspect of DOE’s
proposal, AHRI, Carrier, Ingersoll Rand,
Goodman, and Lennox commented that
DOE should reference ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360–2015 after its final
version is released. (AHRI, No. 8 at p.
1; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand,
No. 9 at p. 13; Goodman, No. 14 at p.
2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 2, 6) They
commented that this revised testing
standard addresses the issues that DOE
raised in the NOPR and additional items
identified by industry to improve the
test procedure. In addition, Lennox
noted that EPCA requires DOE to use
those test procedures that are generally
accepted by industry. (Lennox No. 13 at
pp. 2, 6) See also 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)
(indicating that the test procedures for
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment shall be those
‘‘generally accepted industry testing
procedures or rating procedures’’
developed or recognized by AHRI or
ASHRAE ‘‘as referenced in ASHRAE/
IES Standard 90.1 and in effect on June
30, 1992’’). Additionally, AHRI
commented that sections 6.5 and 6.6 of
the soon-to-be-released version of AHRI
340/360–2015, which address
verification testing uncertainty and
uncertainty allowances, respectively,
should be referenced as well. AHRI
commented that doing so will help the
user of the standard more fully
understand the causes of why measured
capacity and efficiency may vary,
which, in its view, will be helpful to
laboratories performing tests to
complete the uncertainty analyses
required by ISO 17025.2
AHRI agreed with DOE’s proposal to
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) AHRI
noted that ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2015
has updated the reference to ANSI/
ASHRAE 37–2009, and that section 5 of
ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2015 addresses
items related to unit setup and operating
conditions that are not currently
covered by ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009.
Carrier commented that ANSI/AHRI
340/360–2015 requires that corrections
be made for the impact of atmospheric
pressure changes and resulting air
density changes. Carrier requested that
DOE adopt Appendix D of ANSI/AHRI
2 ISO 17025 is a test facility standard that
provides general requirements for standard
operating procedures for accuracy of laboratory
measurements and tests.
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
340/360–2015 to better account for
changes in atmospheric pressure and
altitude changes of test laboratories.
(Carrier No. 11 at p. 3)
AHRI and Carrier commented that
DOE uses a confidence level of 95
percent in the sampling requirements
given in 10 CFR 429.43, whereas section
6.4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2015 uses a
confidence level of 90 percent. (AHRI,
No. 8 at p. 2; Carrier No. 11 at p. 2)
AHRI and Carrier noted that commercial
equipment has as much, if not more,
uncertainty and variability in testing
than residential equipment, and that 90
percent is an appropriate confidence
level.
After reviewing the comments from
the August 2015 NOPR, DOE agrees that
many of the raised issues are addressed
in the draft version of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2015. However, DOE is still
investigating whether certain provisions
in the draft ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2015
will change measured efficiency.
Furthermore, a final version of the new
standard was not available during the
preparation of this final rule. For these
reasons, DOE declines to adopt ANSI/
AHRI 340/360–2015 in whole or in part
at this time. In this final rule, DOE
amends its test procedure to reference
sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section
6.3) of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007. DOE
may, however, consider incorporating
the final version of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2015, or additional provisions
within it, in a future test procedure
rulemaking, as discussed in section
III.C. With respect to ANSI/ASHRAE
37–2009, DOE already incorporates by
reference this testing standard in part
431.
In the NOPR, DOE did not make any
proposals regarding the confidence level
in its certification and enforcement
provisions. Accordingly, DOE declines
to adopt provisions on this issue
without holding further public
comment. While DOE is open to
considering changes to its confidence
level in the future, manufacturers or
other parties with access to relevant
data should provide data regarding the
variability of units in production and
testing to enable DOE to facilitate its
efforts to make any necessary
adjustments in an appropriate future
rulemaking proceeding.
2. Indoor Airflow Adjustment and
Reporting
In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE
proposed that equipment must be tested
using the motor and drive assembly and
settings specified in the certification
report (supplemental testing instruction
PDF), and that the external static
pressure (ESP) during testing remain
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
within the tolerances set forth in
Section 6.1.3.2 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–
2007 with the indoor airflow rate
staying within +/¥5 percent of the
manufacturer-rated full-load indoor
airflow rate. DOE proposed that the unit
and/or test facility be adjusted to set up
the unit such that both the airflow and
ESP are within the required tolerances.
See 80 FR at 46873 (noting situations in
which a test facility’s equipment may
need adjusting to maintain the proposed
tolerances).
ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007, section
6.1.3.2.e, specifies that the full-load
cooling airflow rate (in SCFM) must be
employed, irrespective of resulting ESP,
for all situations other than full-load
cooling in which full-load airflow is
used (e.g., full-load heating). DOE
proposed that the +/¥5 percent
tolerance for airflow rate must be
applied for these other conditions as
well. DOE also indicated that it
interpreted this section to mean that a
test facility adjustment can be made to
obtain the proper airflow (i.e. to
maintain airflow within the proposed
tolerance), but that the unit under test
itself cannot be adjusted, and that there
is no ESP requirement for this part of
the test. 80 FR at 46873.
In addition, DOE proposed that in
cases where a unit is designed to
operate with a different indoor airflow
rate for cooling and heating modes,
manufacturers would report the
individual indoor airflow rates in
cooling and heating modes. DOE also
proposed that a manufacturer must
include in its certification report the
adjusted indoor airflow at each partload condition. 80 FR at 46873.
Responding to the NOPR, AHRI and
Carrier agreed that the tester must use
the same motor and drive kit that was
used to determine the certified rating, as
specified in the manufacturer’s
certification information. (AHRI, No. 8
at p. 5; Carrier No. 11 at p. 4) AHRI,
Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox agreed
that a tolerance for indoor airflow is
needed to ensure that it closely
approximates the manufacturer’s rated
full-load indoor airflow rate. (AHRI, No.
8 at p. 5; Carrier No. 11 at p. 4;
Goodman, No. 14 at p. 1; Lennox, No.
13 at p. 4) However, these commenters
indicated that a 5 percent tolerance
would result in too much variation in
EER and cooling capacity. The
commenters recommended that the
airflow should be allowed to vary by
+/¥3 percent of the rated full-load
indoor airflow rate to reduce test
uncertainty and to ensure the variations
in EER and cooling capacity are at
acceptable levels. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5;
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79659
Carrier No. 11 at p. 4; Goodman, No. 14
at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4)
In contrast, AHRI commented that no
adjustments should be made to the
airflow or the ESP during the heating
test after it is set during the cooling test.
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5). Goodman
generally agreed with this view.
(Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2) DOE’s
proposal would require adjustments to
the test facility’s equipment (but not the
tested unit’s fan settings) to maintain
the full-load airflow rate when
switching from the cooling test to the
heating test, without regard to the
resulting ESP. The method AHRI
described is inconsistent with DOE’s
proposed method, because it would
prohibit making adjustments to the ESP
when switching from the cooling test to
the heating test, whereas the proposal
would allow the ESP to change between
the cooling and heating tests as long as
the full-load airflow rate is maintained.
Lennox agreed with DOE’s proposed
approach to maintain the full-load
airflow rate when switching from the
cooling test to the heating test by
making adjustments to the test facility’s
equipment—and not to the tested unit’s
fan settings—without regard to the
resulting ESP. Lennox suggested that a
+/¥3 percent tolerance should apply to
the full-load indoor airflow rate during
the heating test. (Lennox, No. 13 at p.
5) Carrier also supported making
adjustments to the test facility’s
equipment, but not to the unit’s fan
settings, to maintain proper airflow.
Carrier also commented that the
proposed ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2015
includes a requirement to manually
adjust fan speed during the heating
cycle if the unit is equipped with
automatic controls that control the fan
speed in heating mode. (Carrier No. 11
at pp. 4–5)
AHRI, Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox
agreed with DOE that indoor airflow
should be reported in both cooling and
heating mode if they are different.
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 11 at
p. 5; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox,
No. 13 at p. 5) AHRI and Carrier are not
aware of any equipment that has a
different airflow for heating and cooling
but believe that it could be an option in
the future.
After reviewing the comments on the
NOPR, DOE agrees that a 5-percent
tolerance on the rated full-load indoor
airflow rate would allow more variation
than desired in the EER and cooling
capacity. Test results provided by
manufacturers regarding the range of
potential variation are greater than the
estimates DOE initially made, which
supported the 5 percent proposal. Based
on the additional information provided
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
79660
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
by manufacturers, DOE is revising its
proposed tolerance level on the rated
full-load indoor airflow rate from 5
percent to 3 percent. Additionally, given
the generally positive feedback received
in response to its proposed approach,
DOE is also adopting its proposal that
full-load airflow rate be maintained
when switching from cooling mode to
heating mode by adjusting the test
facility (but not the unit under test)
without regard to the resulting ESP. In
addition, DOE is adopting its proposed
certification and reporting requirements
with minor clarifications. Specifically, a
manufacturer must include in its
certification report the adjusted indoor
airflow at each part-load condition for
both cooling and heating modes. In
cases where a model is designed to
operate with the same indoor airflow
rate for cooling and heating modes, the
reported numbers may be the same for
each mode.
3. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE
proposed to specify that condenser head
pressure controls, if included with the
unit, must be active during testing. DOE
proposed that if a unit with condenser
head pressure controls cannot achieve
steady-state operation with the controls
active, and thus cannot be tested, the
manufacturer would have to request a
waiver. DOE also requested comment on
whether there are any units on the
market with condenser head pressure
controls that would prevent the unit
from achieving steady-state under the
test conditions, and if so, how should
DOE address these kinds of units for
testing purposes. 80 FR at 46873–46874.
In response, AHRI, Carrier, Ingersoll
Rand, Goodman, and Lennox agreed
with DOE’s proposal to keep the head
pressure controls active in automatic
mode if present. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6;
Carrier, No. 11 at p. 5; Ingersoll Rand,
No. 9 at p. 31; Goodman, No. 14 at p.
2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 5) AHRI, Carrier,
Goodman, and Lennox also commented
that the current draft of ANSI/AHRI
340/360–2015 clarifies the requirements
for running the head pressure control in
automatic mode and also provides a
new test procedure to determine the
rating performance when head pressure
control results in unstable operation.
After reviewing the comments, DOE is
clarifying the current test procedure to
specify that condenser head pressure
controls, if included with the unit, must
be active during testing, as proposed in
the NOPR. As noted previously, AHRI
340/360–2015 is still a draft document,
and DOE is not incorporating it by
reference in this rule. In addition, DOE
declines at this time to adopt a test
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
method like that in AHRI 340/360–2015
regarding rating performance when head
pressure control results in unstable
operation. DOE will continue to review
this industry testing standard and may
consider adopting a method to address
this issue in the future after a full public
comment process.
4. Unit of Measurement for Airflow
DOE also proposed that all instances
of CFM as a unit of airflow must be
interpreted to mean SCFM where they
appear in the sections of ANSI/AHRI
340/360–2007, incorporated by
reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart F.
80 FR at 46874.
In response, AHRI, Carrier and
Ingersoll Rand agreed with this
approach. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4; Carrier
No. 11 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand No. 9 at
p. 14) Each of these commenters
recommended adopting ANSI/AHRI
340/360–2015, which would provide
clear instructions to ensure that airflow
is measured in SCFM for testing. AHRI
noted that this issue is already
addressed in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007
through the reference to ASHRAE 37–
2009, which defines the unit of airflow
as standard CFM.
As noted in section III.A.1, DOE
declines to reference ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2015 at this time. Further, although
section 7.7.2.3 of ASHRAE 37–2009 may
be interpreted as an indication that
airflow rate is to be expressed in terms
of standard air in all test standards that
incorporate it by reference, this
interpretation may not be sufficiently
clear from the relevant text of the
current test procedure, which refers to
both CFM and SCFM in various
locations. Hence, DOE is clarifying the
test procedure to indicate that all
instances of CFM as a unit of airflow
must be interpreted to mean SCFM
where they appear in the sections of
ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 incorporated
by reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart
F.
5. Tolerance on Percent Load for IEER
Part-Load Tests
DOE proposed applying a +/¥3percent tolerance to each part-load test
point in the IEER calculation, and
formally requested comment on the
appropriateness of establishing such a
tolerance level. See 80 FR at 46878–
46879 (request for comment) and 80 FR
at 46874 (discussing DOE’s +/¥3percent tolerance proposal).
Specifically, if the measured load
fraction is within 3 percent of the target
load fraction, the measured EER would
not have to be adjusted using
interpolation or application of the
degradation factor for cyclic operation.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Responding to this aspect of the
proposal, AHRI, Goodman, and Lennox
agreed in principle with setting a
tolerance on the part-load percent load
when the unit cannot run at precisely
75-percent, 50-percent, and 25-percent
part-load capacities. The commenters
also agreed with DOE’s tolerance level
of 3 percent. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6;
Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No.
13 at p. 6)
However, AHRI and Carrier
commented that implementing the 3percent tolerance without also adopting
some other provisions of ANSI/AHRI
340/360–2015 would vary IEER results
by as much as 5 percent, a magnitude
they considered inappropriate. (AHRI,
No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier No. 11 at p. 3)
AHRI stated that this variation could be
reduced significantly by changing the
condenser air inlet temperature used for
each given part-load point. Specifically,
AHRI 340/360–2007 relies on condenser
air inlet temperatures as a function of
percent load, while AHRI 340/360–2015
specifies condenser air inlet
temperatures that are fixed for each
rating point percent load. (AHRI, No. 9
at p. 6) The relationship between
condenser air inlet temperature and
percent load is provided in section 6.2.2
of AHRI 340/360–2007. AHRI stated that
adopting the proposed 3-percent
tolerance for part-load tests with the
current approach would result in an
IEER variation of ¥4.6 percent to +4.8
percent. However, if the condenser air
entering temperature is fixed to the
target percent load, then IEER variations
would be reduced to 1.5 or 1.6 percent.
(AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No.
15 at p. 33–36) AHRI and Carrier, as
well as Goodman and Lennox, proposed
that DOE reference ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2015 (section 6.2) which includes
the +/¥ 3-percent load fraction
tolerance along with the other revisions
to the IEER testing procedures. (AHRI,
No. 8 at pp. 6–7; Carrier, No. 11 at p.
3; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No.
13 at p. 6)
After reviewing the comments on the
appropriateness of establishing a 3percent tolerance on each part-load test
point, as proposed in the NOPR, DOE is
adopting the 3-percent part-load test
point tolerance, and is also adopting the
suggestion from several commenters for
setting the condenser inlet air
temperature for the test, which
commenters viewed as being linked to
the revised 3-percent tolerance level.
DOE is adopting this suggestion in
response to stakeholders’ comments that
a 3-percent tolerance on part-load
testing would not be appropriate unless
the condenser air entering temperature
is fixed at the temperature for the target
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
part-load point. Adopting this suggested
approach will help reduce the
variability in test results for variations
in percent load within 3-percent of the
target part-load point. AHRI supported
this approach with data demonstrating
how implementing this requirement for
setting the condenser air entering
temperature would reduce the
variability in test results. (AHRI, No. 7
at p. 18) In addition, this change has the
potential to significantly reduce test
burden, since the current test procedure
requirement, by specifying condenser
inlet air temperature as a function of the
measured load fraction, can lead to
multiple repetitions of the test if the
measured load fraction is different than
the load fraction used to calculate the
air temperature used for the test. Also,
the suggested approach from the
commenters is more consistent with the
way a unit would actually operate in the
field. Specifically, when a unit cycles
between operating levels to satisfy an
average load represented by the target
load fraction, the ambient temperature
remains constant. DOE investigated
potential changes in measurement
associated with this test procedure
change and found that it would not
change the measurement unless the
interpolation method is used to
determine one or more of the part-load
EER levels and for which one of the
measurements used for the
interpolation(s) has a measured percent
load less than 44.4 percent. Also, for
typical units that fit this description, the
change in the measurement is less than
one percent. With respect to IEER, DOE
concludes this is a de minimis change,
the extent of which would not impact a
model’s ability to comply with a given
IEER standard or alter the measured
energy efficiency of the covered
equipment.
DOE has elected to implement the
additional change regarding condenser
air inlet temperature by noting this
difference with respect to AHRI 340/
360–2007 within the regulatory
language in the CFR rather than
incorporating by reference the 2015
version of the standard—DOE’s decision
not to incorporation AHRI 340/360–
2015 by reference is discussed in
section III.A.1.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
6. Definition of IEER
DOE proposed to define IEER (i.e.
integrated energy efficiency ratio) as
meaning ‘‘a single number part-load
efficiency based on weighting of EER at
various load capacities, as measured in
appendix A to subpart F of part 431,
expressed in Btu/watt-hour.’’ (80 FR at
46880)
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
In response to this proposed
definition, AHRI and Carrier agreed that
the definition of IEER must be improved
and clarified. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4;
Carrier, No. 11 at pp. 3–4) However,
AHRI and Carrier commented that
DOE’s definition does not account for
the operating conditions and rating
conditions required to accurately rate
IEER. They commented that this is a
significant aspect of the IEER metric and
it should be mentioned in the definition
to avoid any misrepresentation. AHRI
and Carrier further commented that the
DOE definition also proposes to
reference the new DOE appendix A,
which does not directly address the
requirements for IEER and refers back to
AHRI 340/360. AHRI and Carrier
suggested as an alternative that DOE use
the IEER definition in ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2015. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4; Carrier,
No. 11 at pp. 3–4)
The draft version of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360–2015 section 3.11 defines IEER as
‘‘a weighted calculation of mechanical
cooling EERs at full-load and part-load
Standard Rating Conditions, defined in
Section 6.2, expressed in Btu/Wh.’’
Ingersoll Rand suggested a different
definition for IEER: ‘‘Integrated energy
efficiency ratio, or IEER, means the
cooling energy efficiency descriptor for
packaged air-conditioning and heating
equipment (air-cooled with a rated
cooling capacity ≥65,000 Btu/h),
determined as a single number part-load
efficiency based on weighting of EER at
various load capacities, as measured in
appendix A to subpart F of part 431,
expressed in Btu/watt-hour.’’ (Ingersoll
Rand, No. 9 at p. 2) Ingersoll Rand made
this suggestion to clarify that: (1) IEER
is the only cooling efficiency descriptor
for CUAC and CUHP and (2) IEER is
specific to CUAC and CUHP and does
not apply to other commercial package
air-conditioning and heating equipment.
(Id.)
DOE agrees that the rating conditions
for IEER could be acknowledged in the
definition. However, DOE declines to
reference AHRI 340/360 directly, as all
representations of IEER must be made
based on DOE’s test procedure, which
contains additional provisions beyond
those in the referenced industry
standard. Therefore, DOE is adopting a
modified definition for IEER that
references rating conditions rather than
load capacities, but still specifies that
measurements be made in accordance
with appendix A. DOE also declines to
include equipment references at this
time. In the future, DOE may adopt
energy conservation standards based on
IEER for equipment other than CUAC
and CUHP. Hence, DOE declines to
specify or otherwise limit what
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79661
equipment uses this metric. DOE
addresses Ingersoll Rand’s concern
regarding the efficiency descriptor in
section III.D.
DOE does agree that the IEER is
intended to measure cooling provided
by the refrigeration system, i.e.
‘‘mechanical cooling’’, and does not
address other modes of cooling that the
equipment might provide. As an
example, CUAC and CUHP equipment
may provide economizer cooling, which
involves use of cool outdoor air during
cool weather to cool the interior of a
building without the use of refrigeration
system operation.
For these reasons, DOE is adopting
the following definition for IEER:
Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or
IEER, means a weighted average
calculation of mechanical cooling EERs
determined for four load levels and
corresponding rating conditions, as
measured in appendix A to subpart F of
part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
7. Additional Test Procedure Provisions
Current DOE regulations include
provisions for refrigerant charging and
airflow rate relevant to multiple
equipment categories, including CUACs
and CUHPs. (10 CFR 431.96(e)) DOE
proposed adding these provisions to the
proposed appendix A, section (5) for
CUACs and CUHPs, while maintaining
the original provision in 431.96(e) for
the other relevant equipment categories.
80 FR at 46881. These provisions
require that if a manufacturer specifies
a range (rather than a specific rating
value) of superheat, sub-cooling, and/or
refrigerant charge pressure in its
installation and operation manual, any
value within that range may be used to
determine refrigerant charge or mass of
refrigerant.
In response to the NOPR, Goodman
stated that manufacturers typically
specify a broader range of superheat or
subcooling for field charging than
would be accepted in the laboratory
(because field measurement equipment
is not as accurate as laboratory
measurement equipment). Goodman
further added that the AHRI
certification program has a policy of
adjusting charge to the middle of the
range, which makes the test more
accurate. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
DOE notes that the refrigerant charge,
superheat, and subcooling values are
interrelated such that DOE does not
believe Goodman’s suggestion of hitting
the midpoint of all of the ranges can be
achieved in all cases. Consequently,
DOE is not requiring that the test be
performed at the midpoint of each of the
ranges. Instead, DOE is clarifying that
test labs should only be adjusting charge
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
79662
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
once for both the cooling and heating
test and a test lab should aim for the
middle of the subheat or subcool range.
However, DOE emphasizes that any
point in the range is still acceptable at
this point in time. Should industry
believe additional specificity regarding
these provisions would improve
repeatability or reproducibility, DOE
may consider further amendments in a
future rulemaking. For consistency in
testing, DOE will follow the approach of
attempting to achieve the midpoint of
one of the values, which it considers to
be a best practice.
In regards to airflow, DOE currently
requires that the airflow rate used for
testing must be in the installation and
operations manual shipped with the
basic model and clearly identified as the
value used to generate DOE performance
ratings; otherwise, a value of 400 SCFM
per ton is used. See 10 CFR 431.96(e).
Responding to DOE’s proposal to
include this set of requirements as part
of appendix A, Goodman noted that
manufacturers who certify through
AHRI have the full-load cooling
capacity shown in the AHRI Directory of
Certified Product Performance, and that
the value in that directory should be
used as opposed to using 400 SCFM per
ton. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
DOE notes that for commercial
package air conditioning and heating
equipment, manufacturers are currently
required to certify rated airflow in
SCFM for each fan coil. See 10 CFR
429.43(b)(4)(i)–(ii) (specifying
certification report contents for
commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment). As noted
earlier, DOE is clarifying this
requirement as described in section
III.A.2. DOE expects the certified airflow
values to be consistent with those in the
installation manual and reported to
AHRI, because the airflow used in tests
(whether for certifying performance to
DOE or as used by AHRI) should be the
same airflow that installers would use
when setting up the unit based on the
installation instructions. However, in
the event a manufacturer fails to report
airflow to DOE, the specified value of
400 SCFM per ton prescribed by 10 CFR
431.96(e) will continue to apply.
B. Certification and Enforcement Issues
and Compliance Dates
In addition to addressing various
aspects related to the testing of CUACs
and CUHPs, DOE also proposed various
certification and enforcement-related
provisions with respect to this
equipment. Additionally, DOE proposed
including provisions related to the
reporting of IEER values for certification
and compliance purposes once the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
compliance dates for the standards
recommended by the Working Group
are reached. These issues are addressed
in the following sections.
1. Measuring Cooling Capacity for
Purposes of Certification, Assessment,
and Enforcement
DOE proposed that the cooling
capacity represented and subsequently
certified to DOE for a given basic model
must be the average of the capacities
measured for the sample of units tested
to certify that basic model, rounded
according to the multiples in Table 4 in
ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007. DOE also
proposed that when conducting
assessment and enforcement testing, it
would measure the total cooling
capacity pursuant to the test
requirements of 10 CFR 431.96 for each
unit tested, and the results of the
measurement(s) would be compared to
the value of cooling capacity certified by
the manufacturer. The manufacturercertified cooling capacity will be
considered valid if the cooling capacity
determined through DOE testing is
within 5 percent of the certified cooling
capacity. (80 FR at 46874)
With respect to the certification
requirements, Lennox disagreed with
DOE’s proposal to require that the
certified cooling capacity be the average
of the capacities measured for the
sample of units tested. (Lennox, No. 13
at p. 3) Lennox stated that conservative
capacity ratings subject equipment to
more stringent efficiency standards.
Lennox further commented that if
forced to reclassify equipment into
higher-capacity classes, manufacturers
could face unduly burdensome
administrative and procedural
obligations without any benefit to
energy efficiency. Lennox also stated
that if conservatively-rated equipment is
categorized into a larger equipment
class, it can change the test conditions
(i.e. ESP), resulting in a further change
from the designed capacity and IEER
level of the product. Lennox added that
in the past, DOE has allowed
manufacturers to conservatively rate
products, such as in the final rule
establishing AEDMs for commercial airconditioning and refrigeration
equipment and walk-in coolers and
freezers. (Lennox, No. 13 at pp. 3–4)
Ingersoll Rand commented that, while
DOE’s certification regulations typically
require manufacturers to report
capacity, DOE does not specify that
manufacturers determine capacity
through testing specified by DOE, and
that DOE has not found that capacity is
a measure of energy consumption as
defined by EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6291(8).
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 13) Ingersoll
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Rand also noted that DOE had not
demonstrated why such a proposal is
necessary. (Id.)
With respect to the enforcement
testing provisions, AHRI, Ingersoll
Rand, and Goodman commented that a
tolerance of 5 percent should not be
applied to capacity because there are
many factors that can affect measured
capacity and performance, including
variance in airflow, refrigerant charge
levels, ambient conditions, test labs, and
test setup. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 3; Ingersoll
Rand, No. 9 at p. 14; Goodman, No. 14
at p. 3) Goodman commented that a 5percent tolerance is too low because,
due to a number of variables, the true
uncertainty of the test is probably at
least 8 percent. (Goodman, No. 14 at p.
3)
AHRI commented that in the event
that a verification test for its
certification program shows that the
cooling capacity is less than 95 percent
of its rated value, the manufacturer fails
the test and is then subject to stiff
penalties, which are, in its view, strong
incentives to discourage manufacturers
from over-rating cooling capacity and
energy efficiency. AHRI recommended
that DOE base the equipment
classification on the rated capacity only.
However, in the event that DOE feels
compelled to move forward with its
proposal, AHRI requested that the
proposed requirement apply only when
the tested cooling capacity is less than
95 percent of the certified value, and not
when the tested cooling capacity is
greater than 105 percent of the certified
value. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) Carrier
agreed that any tolerance should be a
one-sided tolerance, allowing
manufacturers to choose to rate
products conservatively. (Carrier, No. 11
at p.3)
Trane commented that, in common
practice, a tolerance on capacity
becomes an issue at 240,000 Btu/h,
which is a break between equipment
classes as well as a nominal equipment
tonnage. However, manufacturers do not
always hit this design point, which puts
them on one side or the other of the
equipment class dividing line. For this
reason, they tend to rate conservatively
to avoid risk. (Trane, NOPR public
meeting transcript, No. 15 at pp. 54–55)
Carrier added that the need to
conservatively rate will increase with
the change in refrigerants, and that the
current AHRI statistics show that they
exceed 105 percent on many tests.
(Carrier, NOPR public meeting
transcript, No. 15 at pp. 55–56)
DOE notes that the August 2015
NOPR proposed to add a provision that
the represented value of cooling
capacity must be the average of the
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
capacities measured for the units in the
sample selected for testing or the output
of the AEDM when simulating results
rounded according to the multiples in
Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007.
DOE further proposed to add
enforcement provisions for verifying the
rated cooling capacity, as the rated
cooling capacity determines both the
equipment class and which testing
conditions apply. See 80 FR at 46874
(discussing proposed clarification) and
46879 (presenting detailed regulatory
text). Without reporting and
enforcement provisions for cooling
capacity, manufacturers may choose to
over- or under-rate cooling capacity
intentionally in order to achieve more
favorable testing conditions or less
stringent efficiency standards. DOE does
not believe industry intended to suggest
a regulatory approach where a
manufacturer would self-declare its
rating conditions and standards, as that
approach could cause unintended
consequences such as inequitable
ratings due to differences in selfdeclarations. Many in industry,
including commenters who participate
in the AHRI Certification Program, saw
the importance of including provisions
surrounding cooling capacity since
there is a verification tolerance reflected
in that program, as AHRI noted.
Consequently, in DOE’s view,
provisions regarding the determination
of represented cooling capacity along
the lines of the August 2015 proposal
are needed.
While DOE acknowledges that
multiple factors may affect the
measurement of cooling capacity, DOE
maintains that capacity-related
provisions are necessary to ensure the
reliability and consistency of the
reported ratings because, as commenters
pointed out, DOE expects there to be
variation in the capacity measurement
from different units being tested at
different laboratories. Consequently,
DOE is modifying its proposal for
determining represented cooling
capacity based on the comments
received to allow for conservative rating
declared according to the multiples in
Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007
but is not less than 95% of the mean
values of the two or more units in the
sample for certification testing or the
output from the AEDM. DOE believes
this is consistent with that currently
used in the industry, including the
certified ratings program approach
developed by AHRI. In the industry
program, this tolerance serves as the
basis for penalizing manufacturers if the
tested cooling capacity is lower than
95% of the rated cooling capacity of that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
equipment. This tolerance will help to
ensure that equipment is capable of
performing at the cooling capacity for
which it is represented to consumers. At
this time, DOE is declining to adopt
specific capacity-related enforcement
provisions and will evaluate compliance
with standards based on the testing
results from the enforcement sample.
DOE believes it is important that
products comply with the applicable
standards based on actual tested
performance rather than based on a
manufacturer self-declaration.
2. Compliance Dates of the Certification,
Reporting, and Test Procedure
Amendments
In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE
indicated that its proposal would be
unlikely to alter the measured efficiency
of CUACs and CUHPs. DOE proposed to
require the reporting of IEER and indoor
part-load airflow rates used in the IEER
calculation when certifying compliance
with the 2018 or 2023 standards. DOE
also proposed to apply a +/¥3-percent
tolerance to each part-load test point for
manufacturers to use when developing
the IEER ratings for a given basic model.
This clarification would be required
when testing to determine EER for partload rating points. See 80 FR at 46879–
82.
DOE stated that its proposed
amendments that were not specifically
related to IEER would clarify how to test
a given unit. The proposals, if adopted,
would result in no procedural changes
related to how testing would be
performed. The proposed amendments,
if adopted, would become effective 30
days after publication of the final rule
in the Federal Register. Consistent with
42 U.S.C. 6314(d), DOE proposed that
any representations of energy
consumption or efficiency of CUACs
and CUHPs must be based on any final
amended test procedures 360 days after
the publication of the test procedure
final rule. 80 FR at 46874–46875.
Ingersoll Rand disagreed with DOE’s
assertion that the proposed
clarifications and amendments would
not result in any changes to the energy
efficiency of current equipment. While
Ingersoll Rand agreed that the proposed
changes would likely not affect the
measure of EER for air-cooled
commercial package air conditioning
equipment, the proposed changes would
add the IEER metric, which, in Ingersoll
Rand’s view, is a significant change to
the measure of energy efficiency of
current equipment. Ingersoll Rand
commented that the proposed
amendments to the test procedures will
change the measure of energy itself, and,
as DOE’s proposal would require re-
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79663
rating units within 360 days of
publication of the final rule, that this
would be a ‘‘change in the
representations of the energy efficiency
of current equipment.’’ (Ingersoll Rand,
No. 9 at p. 12)
Ingersoll Rand also noted that while
many manufacturers, including itself,
already include an IEER rating in the
AHRI Directory of Certified Product
Performance, that information is not
based on testing units in accordance
with the sampling plan contained in the
proposed § 429.43, but is often based on
testing a single unit. Therefore, to
comply with the proposed rule,
manufacturers would be required to
perform a substantial amount of
additional testing. Furthermore, since
the testing requirements would go into
effect before the compliance date of the
energy conservation standards proposed
by the ASRAC Commercial Package Air
Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air
Furnaces Working Group, those units
currently offered for sale but not
meeting the January 2018 standards
proposed by the Working Group would
still need to be tested in order for
manufacturers to make IEER
representations on which builders
would rely for purposes of meeting the
provisions contained in ASHRAE
90.1.2013. (That industry-based
standard sets a minimum level of
efficiency for CUAC and CUHP
equipment and includes a minimum
rating level based on IEER.) In its view,
the proposal’s impact will be far more
than modest and must be addressed by
DOE or accounted for in its estimates
under the Paperwork Reduction Act.
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 10–11)
For these reasons, Ingersoll Rand
recommended that the effective date of
compliance with the test procedure
amendments with respect to testing,
representations, and reporting of IEER
be made to coincide with the effective
date of the amended standard setting the
initial IEER standard. (Ingersoll Rand,
No. 9 at p. 12)
DOE has carefully considered
Ingersoll Rand’s comments. DOE is
adopting its proposal that reporting of
IEER and indoor part-load airflow rates
used in the IEER calculation will be
required when certifying compliance
with any amended standards and finds
that this approach is consistent with
Ingersoll Rand’s comments. However,
DOE also maintains that, consistent
with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any
representations of energy consumption
or efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs must
be based on any final amended test
procedures 360 days after the
publication of the test procedure final
rule. See 80 FR at 46874–46875.
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
79664
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
Although Ingersoll Rand argued that
this amendment would subject units
that will not meet the recommended
January 2018 standards to the testing
requirements to demonstrate that the
units meet the IEER levels of ASHRAE
90.1–2013 that many builders require,
those units were already subject to those
testing requirements. DOE recognizes
that manufacturers currently do not
need to certify their equipment to meet
IEER. Manufacturers must, however,
follow the applicable test procedure
requirements when making
representations of energy efficiency,
including those aspects of the test
procedure that apply to another metric
should they decide to report the
efficiency of their equipment using that
metric. DOE’s current test procedure for
CUACs and CUHPs already includes a
test method for measuring IEER. See 10
CFR 431.96(b)(2) (incorporating,
through Table 2, various test procedures
used for assessing compliance,
including the procedures specified by
AHRI 340/360–2007, which contains
testing methods for measuring IEER).
EPCA restricts representations of
efficiency where DOE has prescribed a
test method. Specifically, any
representation of efficiency for a CUAC
or CUHP must fairly disclose the results
of testing in accordance with the DOE
test procedure within 360 days of DOE
having prescribed the test procedure.
Therefore, all existing representations of
IEER for this equipment would have
already been made in accordance with
DOE’s regulations regarding test
procedures and sampling plans, even
though submission of a certification
report for that metric is not required. As
discussed in section III.A.5, DOE has
determined that the amended
requirements on part-load test points
will produce only a de minimis change
and not impact a model’s ability to
comply with an IEER standard or alter
the measured and rated energy
efficiency of the covered equipment. For
these reasons, DOE does not anticipate
that manufacturers will require
additional time to comply with preexisting requirements that they already
must meet.
Furthermore, with respect to Ingersoll
Rand’s claim that significant additional
testing will be required to meet the
sampling requirements, based on
manufacturer compliance certifications,
most CUAC and CUHP manufacturers
use alternative efficiency determination
methods (‘‘AEDMs’’) to rate the majority
of their equipment for EER. Ingersoll
Rand states that manufacturers have
been testing for IEER and have single
tests of a wide variety of basic models,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
so manufacturers already have sufficient
test data to develop and support an
AEDM, even if they have not yet
developed AEDMs to simulate IEER.
Therefore, even if a manufacturer is not
currently making representations in
accordance with the DOE test procedure
(as it is already required to do), DOE
believes a 360-day compliance period
provides sufficient time for such a
manufacturer to do so, particularly if the
manufacturer already has a collection of
existing test data for its equipment.
Finally, DOE disagrees that the
information collection approved by the
Office of Management and Budget
requires modification as a result of this
rule. This rule does not change the test
burden or record retention requirements
that are reflected in the existing
approval. Furthermore, although the
metric reported to DOE will change
from EER to IEER, there will be no
increase in burden. DOE will revise its
certification information collection to
reflect the metric change prior to the
reporting change in 2018.
C. Future Test Procedure Rulemakings
The California IOUs encouraged DOE
to initiate a more expansive test
procedure rulemaking before January 1,
2016, as recommended by the ASRAC
Working Group. (California IOUs, No.
10 at p. 1) The California IOUs
commented that a new, more
representative, metric is needed.
The California IOUs also suggested
that DOE research the impact of fan
energy on equipment ratings,
specifically the external static pressure
settings for equipment and whether it
reflects field conditions. (California
IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2) The IOUs further
noted that the IEER test procedure
proposed for inclusion by DOE in its
regulations specified ESP ratings that
are unrealistically low in the four test
points, which results in measured fan
energy consumption during testing
conditions being lower than that found
in actual operating conditions, which
artificially inflates the IEER ratings. The
California IOUs also encouraged DOE to
create a test procedure that accounts for
economizer energy consumption, as this
aspect is omitted in the current
proposed test procedure. See id.
The California IOUs suggested further
that DOE should investigate the impact
of requiring an additional higher
temperature test point rating, such as
105 °F or 115 °F, to better reflect
operating conditions experienced in
hotter climates. (California IOUs, No. 10
at p. 2) The California IOUs noted that
the current efficiency rating measures
equipment at a maximum outside dry
bulb air temperature of 95 °F. In their
collective view, while this value is
appropriate for much of the United
States, it does not reflect peak values
often experienced in parts of the desert
southwest.
DOE notes that the Working Group
recommended that a rulemaking to
amend the test procedure shall be
initiated no later than January 1, 2016,
with the final rule issued no later than
January 1, 2019. That rulemaking, based
on the Working Group’s
recommendation, would be to focus on
better representing the total fan energy
use by considering (a) alternative
external static pressures and (b)
operation for other than mechanical
cooling and heating. EERE–2013–BT–
STD–0007–0093, ASRAC Working
Group Term Sheet (recommending a
series of actions for DOE to take with
respect to CUAC and CUHP standards
and testing). DOE plans to initiate an
additional test procedure rulemaking
focused on revising the IEER metric
consistent with this recommendation.
DOE may consider additional test
procedure revisions at that time.
D. Regulatory Text Language
Ingersoll Rand asserted that the
proposed IEER definition and the test
procedure table (Table 1 to 10 CFR
431.96) are inconsistent with the terms
of the ASRAC Working Group Term
Sheet because they add IEER as a
cooling metric but keep EER. Ingersoll
Rand stated that the Working Group
agreed that, subsequent to the effective
date of the January 2018 energy
conservation standard, IEER would be
the sole DOE measure of cooling
efficiency required to be reported to
DOE. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 1–2)
Ingersoll Rand added that it believed
that DOE proposed amending 10 CFR
431.96 in order to make it easier for the
user to follow, but without
consideration of the Working Group
recommendation to initiate a
rulemaking to amend the test procedure
for small, large, and very large aircooled commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment. In
its view, Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 could
be confusing to the user if it included
a distinction between the different
measures of energy consumption and
the two different test procedures before
and after the expected effective date of
the IEER standards. Ingersoll Rand
commented that it would be clearer and
simpler for DOE to return to the earlier
format of section 431.96 and add the test
procedure and energy descriptor
updates in separate tables with their
effective dates. It offered alternative
tables for DOE to consider. (Ingersoll
Rand, No. 9 at pp. 3–8)
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
DOE notes that that the primary
purpose of the test procedure tables in
10 CFR 431.96 is to describe the test
procedure relevant to each equipment
category. The metrics required to be
reported to DOE can be found in 10 CFR
429.43. As proposed (and amended by
this rule), 10 CFR 429.43 will not
require EER to be reported to DOE when
certifying compliance with any IEER
standards. However, consistent with
DOE’s incorporation of AHRI 340/360–
2007, the test procedure itself will still
include EER, which manufacturers are
required to use when making EER-based
representations when they choose to do
so, independent of their representations
required under DOE’s compliance
requirements.
Ingersoll Rand also criticized DOE’s
proposed reference to the ‘‘January 1,
2018 and January 1, 2023 standards’’
that would be added to 10 CFR
429.43(b)(2)(i)(B), as being vague,
particularly in light of the changes made
to the standards table in 10 CFR
431.97(b) by the July 17, 2015 final rule
regarding energy conservation standards
for small three-phase commercial aircooled air conditioners. 80 FR 42614.
Ingersoll Rand suggested that DOE
consider the format of 10 CFR
429.43(b)(2)(i) and 10 CFR 431.97 that
will result from both the test procedure
and energy conservation standards
rulemakings in completing this test
procedure rulemaking, rather than
waiting for the standards rulemaking.
Ingersoll Rand suggested wording for 10
CFR 429.43(b)(2)(i) and recommended
that DOE insert two new tables (as
Tables 4 and 5) that would
accommodate the 2018 and 2023
standards and would be reserved until
DOE completes the energy conservation
standards rulemakings. (Ingersoll Rand,
No. 9 at pp. 9–10)
Ingersoll Rand also disagreed with the
proposed language in § 429.43(b)(4) that
lists certification report requirements
(including the rated airflow for part-load
operation which is needed for testing to
measure IEER), and which refers to the
‘‘January 1, 2018 or the January 1, 2023
energy conservation standards.’’
Ingersoll Rand indicated that such
references are vague and could lead to
misinterpretations regarding DOE’s
regulations, recommending instead that
DOE refer in these sections specifically
to the appropriate standards listed in
specific tables of § 431.97. (Ingersoll
Rand, No. 9 at p. 12)
DOE acknowledges the potential for
misinterpretation. Therefore, DOE has
revised the language in § 429.43 to refer
to compliance with EER standards or
IEER standards rather than making a
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
reference to future 2018 or 2023
standards that have not been finalized.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory
Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute
‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866,
Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR
51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under
the Executive Order by the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs
(OIRA) in the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation
of an initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IFRA) 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 Web site: https://energy.gov/
gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under
the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and
policies published on February 19,
2003. This final rule prescribes
clarifications to DOE’s already-existing
test procedures that will be used to test
compliance with energy conservation
standards for the equipment that are the
subject of this rulemaking. DOE has
concluded that the final rule would not
have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
For manufacturers of small, large, and
very large air-cooled CUAC and CUHP,
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.
65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15, 2000), as
amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79665
5, 2000) and codified at 13 CFR part
121. The size standards are listed by
North American Industry Classification
System (NAICS) code and industry
description and are available at https://
www.sba.gov/category/navigationstructure/contracting/contractingofficials/small-business-size-standards.
Manufacturing of small, large, and very
large air-cooled CUAC and CUHP is
classified under NAICS 333415, ‘‘AirConditioning and Warm Air Heating
Equipment and Commercial and
Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.’’ The SBA sets a
threshold of 750 employees or less for
an entity to be considered as a small
business for this category. DOE initially
identified 13 potential manufacturers of
commercial packaged air conditioners
sold in the U.S. DOE then determined
that 10 were large manufacturers,
manufacturers that are foreign-owned
and -operated, or manufacturers that do
not produce equipment covered by this
rulemaking. DOE was able to determine
that the other three companies met the
SBA’s definition of a small business and
sell CUAC/CUHP products.
The first small company specialized
in manufacturing double-duct CUAC/
CUHP products, which would not
subject to the amended IEER standards
recommended by the Working Group
formed to negotiate the CUAC/CUHP
standards.3 This manufacturer did not
produce any equipment that would be
covered under the recommended IEER
standards. The second small company
did not own any production assets for
CUAC/CUHP equipment. This company
outsourced the design and manufacture
of equipment to a supplier. The third
small company manufactured covered
equipment that are subject to the
amended test procedures. Based on
DOE’s research, this small manufacturer
has three product platforms with 11
models that would potentially be
subject to testing to determine IEER, and
no IEER ratings have been published for
these units. Based on literature reviews,
this small manufacturer specializes in
custom and semi-custom products.
DOE expects the impact of the final
rule on manufacturers, including small
businesses, to be minimal. The final rule
amends DOE’s certification
requirements to specify additional
reporting requirements and add
enforcement provisions for verifying
cooling capacity. The final rule also
clarifies or amends DOE’s test
procedures to amend ANSI/AHRI 340/
3 See Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0007–
0093. DOE must effectuate such change in metric
through the rulemaking process and in a manner
consistent with all applicable statutory
requirements.
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
79666
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
360–2007, ‘‘2007 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment,’’ to incorporate
certain sections by reference, specify
requirements for airflow adjustment and
tolerance to meet other rating
conditions, require units with
condenser head pressure controls to be
tested with those controls active, clarify
the unit of measurement for airflow, and
establish a tolerance on part-load rating
points.
The amended energy conservation
standards for CUAC/CUHP
recommended by the Working Group
would be based on IEER rather than
EER. DOE expects the impact on test
burden to be modest. AHRI ratings
already include IEER, indicating that
many manufacturers, representing a
large portion of the market, already
determine IEER for their units. ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1–2013,
‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’
(ASHRAE 90.1–2013), has adopted an
IEER requirement, which makes
reporting of IEER necessary for
shipment to those states and localities
that will adopt that standard in building
codes. Current procedures relating to
alternative efficiency determination
methods (AEDMs), including
procedures for certifying IEER, require a
limited amount of testing to be
conducted when validating an AEDM
for CUACs and CUHPs. 10 CFR
429.70(c)(2)(iv) (detailing the minimum
number of distinct basic models
required to be test for purposes of
AEDM validation for different
equipment types and classes). DOE
expects that most CUAC and CUHP
ratings will be based on results obtained
from AEDMs. Although DOE recognizes
that some ratings will be based on
testing, DOE expects these ratings to
comprise a small minority of products.
For these reasons, DOE certifies that
this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Accordingly,
DOE has not prepared a regulatory
flexibility analysis for this rulemaking.
DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to
the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the
SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs
must certify to DOE that their
equipment comply with any applicable
energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers
must test their equipment according to
the DOE test procedures for CUACs and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
CUHPs, 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 CUACs and CUHPs. 10 CFR
part 429, subpart B. The collection-ofinformation requirement for the
certification and recordkeeping is
subject to review and approval by OMB
under the Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA).
In the Certification of Commercial
Equipment Final Rule published in May
2014, DOE amended existing regulations
governing compliance certification for a
variety of commercial equipment
covered by EPCA, which affected CUAC
and CUHP manufacturers. 79 FR 25486,
25502 (May 5, 2014). DOE amends its
certification requirements to specify
additional reporting requirements. DOE
does not believe that these additions to
the certification requirements constitute
a significant additional burden upon
respondents, as they require minimal
additional information over what
manufacturers must already report in
their certification reports. DOE believes
that the Certification of Commercial
Equipment Final Rule provides an
accurate estimate of the existing burden
on respondents and would continue to
apply to the relevant aspects of the
proposed amendments. 79 FR 25496–
25498 (detailing burden estimates and
indicating an average burden of
approximately 30 hours per company on
an annual basis). OMB has approved the
revised information collection for DOE’s
certification and recordkeeping
requirements. 80 FR 5099 (January 30,
2015).
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 final rule, DOE amends its test
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. 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, this rule amends an
existing rule without affecting the
amount, quality or distribution of
energy usage, and, therefore, will not
result in any environmental impacts.
Thus, this rulemaking is covered by
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Categorical Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR
part 1021, subpart D, which applies to
any rulemaking that interprets or
amends an existing rule without
changing the environmental effect of
that rule. 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 (August 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
examined this final rule and determined
that it will not have a substantial direct
effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. EPCA
governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to
energy conservation for the equipment
that are the subject of this final 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 (February 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
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
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, this final rule
meets the relevant standards of
Executive Order 12988.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
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. 2 U.S.C. 1531 For a
regulatory action resulting 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 https://
energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE examined this final 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.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
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
final rule will 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 regulation
will 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 (February 22, 2002), and DOE’s
guidelines were published at 67 FR
62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE has reviewed
this final 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
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 significant energy
action, the agency must give a detailed
statement of any adverse effects on
energy supply, distribution, or use if the
regulation is implemented, and of
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
79667
reasonable alternatives to the action and
their expected benefits on energy
supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action 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, 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.
While this final rule does not require
use of any commercial standards not
already incorporated by reference for
the relevant section of the code of
federal regulations, DOE consulted with
both DOJ and FTC and received no
comments.
M. Description of Materials
Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating
by reference ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/
360–2007, ‘‘2007 Standard for
Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and
Heat Pump Equipment’’ (including
Addenda 1 and 2) into part 429 and
appendix A to subpart F of part 431.
This testing standard details various
provisions regarding the testing and
calculation of results for the equipment
addressed by this rulemaking. The
adoption of these provisions are
necessary to ensure consistent and
repeatable test results. Copies of this
testing standard are readily available
from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or through its Web site
at https://www.ahrinet.org.
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
79668
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
DOE is also incorporating by reference
ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009,
‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment’’ into appendix A to subpart
F of part 431. This testing standard
details test methods for the equipment
addressed by this rulemaking. The
adoption of these provisions are
necessary to ensure consistent and
repeatable test results. Copies of this
testing standard are readily available
from the American Society of Heating,
Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning
Engineers, 1791 Tullie Circle NE.,
Atlanta, GA 30329, (800) 527–4723, or
through its Web site at https://
www.ashrae.org.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will
report to Congress on the promulgation
of this rule before its effective date. The
report will state that it has been
determined that the rule is not a ‘‘major
rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
O. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this final rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Commercial equipment, Confidential
business information, Energy
conservation, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and
procedure, Commercial equipment,
Confidential business information,
Energy conservation, Imports,
Incorporation by reference,
Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December
11, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
For the reasons stated in the
preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title
10 the Code of Federal Regulations as
set forth below:
PART 429—CERTIFICATION,
COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT
FOR CONSUMER PRODUCTS AND
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
1. The authority citation for part 429
continues to read as follows:
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
2. Amend § 429.4 by redesignating
paragraph (c) as (d) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
■
§ 429.4 Materials incorporated by
reference.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson
Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201,
(703) 524–8800, or go to: https://
www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360–
2007, (‘‘AHRI–340/360–2007’’), 2007
Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment, with Addenda 1 and 2,
ANSI approved October 27, 2011, IBR
approved for § 429.43.
(2) [Reserved]
*
*
*
*
*
■ 3. Amend § 429.43 by adding
paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and revising
paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), and
(b)(4)(i) and (ii) to read as follows:
§ 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating,
air conditioning (HVAC) equipment.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) For air-cooled commercial
package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, the represented value of
cooling capacity must be a self-declared
value corresponding to the nearest
appropriate Btu/h multiple according to
Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007
(incorporated by reference; see § 429.4)
that is no less than 95 percent of the
mean of the capacities measured for the
units in the sample selected as
described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this
section.
(2) Alternative efficiency
determination methods. (i) In lieu of
testing, a represented value of efficiency
or consumption for a basic model of
commercial HVAC equipment must be
determined through the application of
an AEDM pursuant to the requirements
of § 429.70 and the provisions of this
section, where:
(A) Any represented value of energy
consumption or other measure of energy
use of a basic model for which
consumers would favor lower values
shall be greater than or equal to the
output of the AEDM and less than or
equal to the Federal standard for that
basic model; and
(B) Any represented value of energy
efficiency or other measure of energy
consumption of a basic model for which
consumers would favor higher values
shall be less than or equal to the output
of the AEDM and greater than or equal
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
to the Federal standard for that basic
model.
(ii) For air-cooled commercial package
air-conditioning and heating equipment,
the represented value of cooling
capacity must be the cooling capacity
output simulated by the AEDM as
described in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Commercial package airconditioning equipment (except
commercial package air conditioning
equipment that is air-cooled with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):
(A) When certifying compliance with
an EER standard: the energy efficiency
ratio (EER in British thermal units per
Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the rated cooling
capacity in British thermal units per
hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of heating
used by the basic model (e.g., electric,
gas, hydronic, none).
(B) When certifying compliance with
an IEER standard: the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER in British thermal
units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the rated
cooling capacity in British thermal units
per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of
heating used by the basic model (e.g.,
electric, gas, hydronic, none).
(ii) Commercial package heating
equipment (except commercial package
heating equipment that is air-cooled
with a cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h):
(A) When certifying compliance with
an EER standard: the energy efficiency
ratio (EER in British thermal units per
Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the coefficient of
performance (COP), the rated cooling
capacity in British thermal units per
hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of heating
used by the basic model (e.g., electric,
gas, hydronic, none).
(B) When certifying compliance an
IEER standard: the integrated energy
efficiency ratio (IEER in British thermal
units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the
coefficient of performance (COP), the
rated cooling capacity in British thermal
units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s)
of heating used by the basic model (e.g.,
electric, gas, hydronic, none).
*
*
*
*
*
(4) * * *
(i) Commercial package airconditioning equipment (except
commercial package air conditioning
equipment that is air-cooled with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):
rated indoor airflow in standard cubic
feet per minute (SCFM) for each fan
coil; water flow rate in gallons per
minute (gpm) for water-cooled units
only; rated external static pressure in
inches of water; frequency or control set
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
points for variable speed components
(e.g., compressors, VFDs); required dip
switch/control settings for step or
variable components; a statement
whether the model will operate at test
conditions without manufacturer
programming; any additional testing
instructions, if applicable; and if a
variety of motors/drive kits are offered
for sale as options in the basic model to
account for varying installation
requirements, the model number and
specifications of the motor (to include
efficiency, horsepower, open/closed,
and number of poles) and the drive kit,
including settings, associated with that
specific motor that were used to
determine the certified rating. When
certifying compliance with an IEER
standard, rated indoor airflow in SCFM
for each part-load point used in the
IEER calculation and any special
instructions required to obtain operation
at each part-load point, such as
frequency or control set points for
variable speed components (e.g.,
compressors, VFDs), dip switch/control
settings for step or variable components,
or any additional applicable testing
instructions, are also required.
(ii) Commercial package heating
equipment (except commercial package
heating equipment that is air-cooled
with a cooling capacity less than 65,000
Btu/h): The rated heating capacity in
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h);
rated indoor airflow in standard cubic
feet per minute (SCFM) for each fan coil
(in cooling mode); rated airflow in
SCFM for each fan coil in heating mode
if the unit is designed to operate with
different airflow rates for cooling and
heating mode; water flow rate in gallons
per minute (gpm) for water cooled units
only; rated external static pressure in
inches of water; frequency or control set
points for variable speed components
(e.g., compressors, VFDs); required dip
switch/control settings for step or
variable components; a statement
whether the model will operate at test
conditions without manufacturer
programming; any additional testing
instructions, if applicable; and if a
variety of motors/drive kits are offered
for sale as options in the basic model to
account for varying installation
requirements, the model number and
specifications of the motor (to include
efficiency, horsepower, open/closed,
and number of poles) and the drive kit,
including settings, associated with that
specific motor that were used to
determine the certified rating. When
certifying compliance with an IEER
standard, rated indoor airflow in SCFM
for each part-load point used in the
IEER calculation and any special
instructions required to obtain operation
at each part-load point, such as
frequency or control set points for
variable speed components (e.g.,
compressors, VFDs), dip switch/control
settings for step or variable components,
or any additional applicable testing
instructions, are also required.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
§ 429.134 Product-specific enforcement
provisions.
*
*
*
*
*
(g) Air-cooled small (≥65,000 Btu/h
and <135,000 Btu/h), large (≥135,000
Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h), and very
large (≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000
Btu/h) commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment—
verification of cooling capacity. The
cooling capacity of each tested unit of
the basic model will be measured
pursuant to the test requirements of part
431 of this chapter. The mean of the
measurement(s) will be used to
determine the applicable standards for
purposes of compliance.
PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY
PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL
EQUIPMENT
5. The authority citation for part 431
continues to read as follows:
■
79669
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317.
6. Amend § 431.92 by adding a
definition of ‘‘Integrated energy
efficiency ratio, or IEER,’’ in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
■
§ 431.92 Definitions concerning
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps.
*
*
*
*
*
Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or
IEER, means a weighted average
calculation of mechanical cooling EERs
determined for four load levels and
corresponding rating conditions, as
measured in appendix A of this subpart,
expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 431.95
[Amended]
7. Amend § 431.95 by:
a. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(5)
through (8) as (b)(4) through (7),
respectively; and
■ c. Adding ‘‘and appendix A of this
subpart’’ to the end of newly
redesignated paragraphs (b)(4) and
(c)(2).
■
■
■
8. Amend § 431.96 by revising
paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) and Table 1 to
read as follows:
■
§ 431.96 Uniform test method for the
measurement of energy efficiency of
commercial air conditioners and heat
pumps.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) Determine the energy efficiency of
each type of covered equipment by
conducting the test procedure(s) listed
in Table 1 of this section along with any
additional testing provisions set forth in
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section
and appendix A to this subpart, that
apply to the energy efficiency descriptor
for that equipment, category, and
cooling capacity. The omitted sections
of the test procedures listed in Table 1
of this section must not be used.
*
*
*
*
*
TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS
Use tests, conditions,
and
procedures 1 in
Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed
paragraphs of this
section
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Equipment type
Category
Cooling capacity
Energy efficiency
descriptor
Small Commercial
Package Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment.
Air-Cooled, 3-Phase,
AC and HP.
<65,000 Btu/h ...........
SEER and HSPF ......
AHRI 210/240–2008
(omit section 6.5).
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
Air-Cooled AC and
HP.
Water-Cooled and
EvaporativelyCooled AC.
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h ...........
EER, IEER, and COP
Appendix A to this
subpart.
AHRI 210/240–2008
(omit section 6.5).
None.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4700
EER ...........................
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
79670
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1 TO § 431.96—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued
Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed
paragraphs of this
section
Use tests, conditions,
and
procedures 1 in
AHRI 340/360–2007
(omit section 6.3).
ISO Standard 13256–
1 (1998).
Appendix A to this
subpart.
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
Paragraph (e).
Category
Cooling capacity
Energy efficiency
descriptor
EER ...........................
Water-Source HP ......
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<135,000 Btu/h.
<135,000 Btu/h .........
Air-Cooled AC and
HP.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
EER, IEER and COP
Water-Cooled and
EvaporativelyCooled AC.
Air-Cooled AC and
HP.
≥135,000 Btu/h and
<240,000 Btu/h.
EER ...........................
AHRI 340/360–2007
(omit section 6.3).
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
EER, IEER and COP
Appendix A to this
subpart.
None.
Water-Cooled and
EvaporativelyCooled AC.
AC and HP ................
≥240,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
EER ...........................
AHRI 340/360–2007
(omit section 6.3).
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
<760,000 Btu/h .........
EER and COP ..........
Paragraph (g) of this
section.
Paragraphs (c), (e),
and (g).
AC .............................
<65,000 Btu/h ...........
SCOP ........................
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
<65,000 Btu/h (3phase).
SCOP ........................
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
Paragraphs (c), (d),
(e), and (f).
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
EER ...........................
<65,000 Btu/h (3phase).
SEER and HSPF ......
≥65,000 Btu/h and
<760,000 Btu/h.
EER and COP ..........
HP .............................
<760,000 Btu/h .........
EER and COP ..........
AC and HP ................
<760,000 Btu/h .........
EER and COP ..........
ASHRAE 127–2007
(omit section 5.11).
ASHRAE 127–2007
(omit section 5.11).
AHRI 1230–2010
(omit sections 5.1.2
and 6.6).
AHRI 1230–2010
(omit sections 5.1.2
and 6.6).
AHRI 1230–2010
(omit sections 5.1.2
and 6.6).
AHRI 1230–2010
(omit sections 5.1.2
and 6.6).
AHRI 1230–2010
(omit sections 5.1.2
and 6.6).
AHRI 390–2003 (omit
section 6.4).
Equipment type
Large Commercial
Package Air-Conditioning and Heating
Equipment.
Very Large Commercial Package AirConditioning and
Heating Equipment.
Packaged Terminal Air
Conditioners and
Heat Pumps.
Computer Room Air
Conditioners.
Variable Refrigerant
Flow Multi-split Systems.
Variable Refrigerant
Flow Multi-split Systems, Air-cooled.
Variable Refrigerant
Flow Multi-split Systems, Water-source.
Single Package
Vertical Air Conditioners and Single
Package Vertical
Heat Pumps.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
1 Incorporated
AC .............................
HP .............................
SEER ........................
None.
Paragraphs (c), (d),
(e), and (f).
Paragraphs (c), (d),
(e), and (f).
Paragraphs (c), (d),
(e), and (f).
Paragraphs (c), (d),
(e), and (f).
Paragraphs (c) and
(e).
by reference; see § 431.95.
(c) Optional break-in period for tests
conducted using AHRI 210/240–2008,
AHRI 390–2003, AHRI 1230–2010, and
ASHRAE 127–2007. Manufacturers may
optionally specify a ‘‘break-in’’ period,
not to exceed 20 hours, to operate the
equipment under test prior to
conducting the test method specified by
AHRI 210/240–2008, AHRI 390–2003,
AHRI 1230–2010, or ASHRAE 127–2007
(incorporated by reference; see
§ 431.95). A manufacturer who elects to
use an optional compressor break-in
period in its certification testing should
record this information (including the
duration) in the test data underlying the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
EER and COP ..........
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
certified ratings that is required to be
maintained under 10 CFR 429.71.
*
*
*
*
*
9. Add appendix A to subpart F of
part 431 to read as follows:
■
Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431—
Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of
Air-Cooled Small (≥65,000 Btu/h),
Large, and Very Large Commercial
Package Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment
Note: Prior to December 19, 2016,
representations with respect to the energy
use or efficiency of air-cooled small, large,
and very large commercial package air
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
conditioning and heating equipment,
including compliance certifications, must be
based on testing conducted in accordance
with either Table 1 to § 431.96 as it now
appears or Table 1 to § 431.96 as it appeared
in subpart F of this part, in the 10 CFR parts
200 through 499 edition revised as of January
1, 2015. After December 19, 2016,
representations with respect to energy use or
efficiency of air-cooled small, large, and very
large commercial package air conditioning
and heating equipment, including
compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with Table
1 to § 431.96 as it now appears.
(1) Cooling mode test method. The test
method for cooling mode consists of the
methods and conditions in AHRI 340/360–
2007 sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 246 / Wednesday, December 23, 2015 / Rules and Regulations
6.3) (incorporated by reference; see § 431.95),
and in ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 (incorporated
by reference; see § 431.95). In case of a
conflict between AHRI 340/360–2007 or
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 and the CFR, the
CFR provisions control.
(2) Heating mode test method. The test
method for heating mode consists of the
methods and conditions in AHRI 340/360–
2007 sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section
6.3) (incorporated by reference; see § 431.95),
and in ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 (incorporated
by reference; see § 431.95). In case of a
conflict between AHRI 340/360–2007 or
ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 and the CFR, the
CFR provisions control.
(3) Minimum external static pressure. Use
the certified cooling capacity for the basic
model to choose the minimum external static
pressure found in table 5 of section 6 of AHRI
340/360–2007 (incorporated by reference; see
§ 431.95) for testing.
(4) Optional break-in period.
Manufacturers may optionally specify a
‘‘break-in’’ period, not to exceed 20 hours, to
operate the equipment under test prior to
conducting the test method in appendix A of
this part. A manufacturer who elects to use
an optional compressor break-in period in its
certification testing must record this
information (including the duration) as part
of the information in the supplemental
testing instructions under 10 CFR 429.43.
(5) Additional provisions for equipment
set-up. The only additional specifications
that may be used in setting up a unit for test
are those set forth in the installation and
operation manual shipped with the unit.
Each unit should be set up for test in
accordance with the manufacturer
installation and operation manuals.
Paragraphs (5)(i) through (ii) of this section
provide specifications for addressing key
information typically found in the
installation and operation manuals.
(i) If a manufacturer specifies a range of
superheat, sub-cooling, and/or refrigerant
pressure in its installation and operation
manual for a given basic model, any value(s)
within that range may be used to determine
refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant,
unless the manufacturer clearly specifies a
rating value in its installation and operation
manual, in which case the specified rating
value shall be used.
(ii) The airflow rate used for testing must
be that set forth in the installation and
operation manuals being shipped to the
customer with the basic model and clearly
identified as that used to generate the DOE
performance ratings. If a certified airflow
value for testing is not clearly identified, a
value of 400 standard cubic feet per minute
(scfm) per ton shall be used.
(6) Indoor airflow testing and adjustment.
(i) When testing full-capacity cooling
operation at the required external static
pressure condition, the full-load indoor
airflow rate must be within +/¥ 3 percent of
the certified-rated airflow at full-capacity
cooling operation. If the indoor airflow rate
at the required minimum external pressure is
outside the +/¥ 3-percent tolerance, the unit
and/or test setup must be adjusted such that
both the airflow and ESP are within the
required tolerances. This process may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:43 Dec 22, 2015
Jkt 238001
include, but is not limited to, adjusting any
adjustable motor sheaves, adjusting variable
drive settings, or adjusting the code tester
fan.
(ii) When testing other than full-capacity
cooling operation using the full-load indoor
airflow rate (e.g., full-load heating), the fullload indoor airflow rate must be within +/¥
3 percent of the certified-rated full-load
cooling airflow (without regard to the
resulting external static pressure), unless the
unit is designed to operate at a different
airflow for cooling and heating mode. If
necessary, a test facility setup may be made
in order to maintain airflow within the
required tolerance; however, no adjustments
to the unit under test may be made.
(7) Condenser head pressure controls.
Condenser head pressure controls, if
typically shipped with units of the basic
model by the manufacturer or available as an
option to the basic model, must be active
during testing.
(8) Standard CFM. In the referenced
sections of AHRI 340/360–2007 (incorporated
by reference; see § 431.95), all instances of
CFM refer to standard CFM (SCFM).
Likewise, all references to airflow or air
quantity refer to standard airflow and
standard air quantity.
(9) Capacity rating at part-load. When
testing to determine EER for the part-load
rating points (i.e. 75-percent load, 50-percent
load, and 25-percent load), if the measured
capacity expressed as a percent of full-load
capacity for a given part-load test is within
three percent above or below the target partload percentage, the EER calculated for the
test may be used without any interpolation
to determine IEER.
(10) Condenser air inlet temperature for
part-load testing. When testing to determine
EER for the part-load rating points (i.e. 75percent load, 50-percent load, and 25-percent
load), the condenser air inlet temperature
shall be calculated (using the equation in
Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2007; incorporated
by reference; see § 431.95) for the target
percent load rather than for the percent load
measured in the test. Table 1 of this appendix
shows the condenser air inlet temperature
corresponding with each target percent load,
as calculated using the equation in Table 6
of AHRI 340/360–2007.
79671
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 201
[Docket No. R–1528; Regulation A]
RIN 7100–AE42
Extensions of Credit by Federal
Reserve Banks
Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Board of Governors of the
Federal Reserve System (‘‘Board’’) has
adopted final amendments to its
Regulation A to reflect the Board’s
approval of an increase in the rate for
primary credit at each Federal Reserve
Bank. The secondary credit rate at each
Reserve Bank automatically increased
by formula as a result of the Board’s
primary credit rate action.
DATES: The amendments to part 201
(Regulation A) are effective December
23, 2015. The rate changes for primary
and secondary credit were applicable on
December 17, 2015, as specified in 12
CFR 201.51, as amended.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephanie Martin, Associate General
Counsel (202/452–3198), or Clinton N.
Chen, Attorney (202–452–3952), Legal
Division, or Lyle Kumasaka, Senior
Financial Analyst (202–452–2382); for
users of Telecommunications Device for
the Deaf (TDD) only, contact 202–263–
4869; Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, 20th and C Streets
NW., Washington, DC 20551.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Reserve Banks make primary
and secondary credit available to
depository institutions as a backup
source of funding on a short-term basis,
usually overnight. The primary and
secondary credit rates are the interest
rates that the twelve Federal Reserve
Banks charge for extensions of credit
under these programs. In accordance
with the Federal Reserve Act, the
primary and secondary credit rates are
TABLE 1 TO APPENDIX A TO SUBPART established by the boards of directors of
F OF PART 431—CONDENSER AIR the Federal Reserve Banks, subject to
the review and determination of the
INLET TEMPERATURES FOR PART- Board.
LOAD TESTS
The Board approved requests by the
Reserve Banks to increase by 1⁄4
Condenser air
percentage point the primary credit rate
Target percent load
inlet temperain effect at each of the twelve Federal
(%)
ture
Reserve Banks, thereby increasing from
(°F)
0.75 percent to 1.00 percent the rate that
25 ........................................
65
each Reserve Bank charges for
50 ........................................
68
extensions of primary credit. In
75 ........................................
81.5 addition, the Board had previously
approved requests by the Reserve Banks
[FR Doc. 2015–31906 Filed 12–22–15; 8:45 a.m.]
to renew the formula for the secondary
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
credit rate, the primary credit rate plus
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23DER1.SGM
23DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 246 (Wednesday, December 23, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79655-79671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31906]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket No. EERE-2015-BT-TP-0015]
RIN 1904-AD54
Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Small, Large,
and Very Large Air-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioning and
Heating Equipment
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this final rule, the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE)
reaffirms that the currently prescribed test procedure, with certain
amendments adopted in this rulemaking, must be used when measuring the
energy efficiency of certain categories of small, large, and very large
air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heating equipment.
The final rule, in addition to satisfying the agency's obligation to
periodically review its test procedures for covered equipment, also
clarifies specific certification, compliance, and enforcement
provisions related to this equipment. The final rule limits the
incorporation by reference of the industry test procedure ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment,'' to certain sections and addenda; clarifies indoor airflow
tolerance and adjustment specifications when meeting other rating
conditions; clarifies requirements for condenser head pressure
controls; clarifies units of measurement for airflow; establishes a
tolerance on part-load rating points and specifies the ambient
temperatures used for the part-load rating points; and defines the
term, ``integrated energy efficiency ratio.''
[[Page 79656]]
DATES: The effective date of this rule is January 22, 2016. The final
rule changes will be mandatory for testing starting December 19, 2016.
The incorporation by reference of certain material listed in this rule
is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of January 22,
2016.
ADDRESSES: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in the regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at: https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=EERE-2015-BT-TP-0015-0001. This
Web page will contain a link to the docket for this notice on the
regulations.gov site. The regulations.gov Web page will contain simple
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments,
in the docket.
For further information on how to review the docket, contact Ms.
Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Ashley Armstrong, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Program, EE-2J, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington,
DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9590, or email
Ashley.Armstrong@ee.doe.gov.
For legal issues, please contact Mr. Michael Kido, U.S. Department
of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 586-8145.
Email: Michael.Kido@hq.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: DOE intends to incorporate by reference the
following industry standard into part 429 and appendix A to subpart F
of part 431: ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, (``AHRI 340/360-2007''),
``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' with Addenda 1 and
2, approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011. This industry standard
provides guidance regarding a variety of different elements related to
the testing of commercial and industrial unitary air-conditioning and
heat pump equipment, including definitions, classifications, as well as
testing, rating, data, and operating requirements. ANSI/AHRI Standard
340/360-2007 is readily available from the Air-Conditioning, Heating,
and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington,
VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to: https://www.ahrinet.org.
DOE intends to incorporate by reference the following industry
standard into appendix A to subpart F of part 431: ANSI/ASHRAE Standard
37-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37''), ``Methods of Testing for Rating
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,''
approved by ASHRAE on June 20, 2009. This testing standard details test
methods for the equipment addressed by this rulemaking. Copies of this
testing standard are readily available from the American Society of
Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, (800) 527-4723, or through its Web site
at https://www.ashrae.org.
These standards are described further in section IV.M.
Table of Contents
I. Authority and Background
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
III. Discussion
A. Clarifications to the Current DOE Test Procedure
1. Sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 Incorporated by Reference
2. Indoor Airflow Adjustment and Reporting
3. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
4. Unit of Measurement for Airflow
5. Tolerance on Percent Load for IEER Part-Load Tests
6. Definition of IEER
7. Additional Test Procedure Provisions
B. Certification and Enforcement Issues and Compliance Dates
1. Measuring Cooling Capacity for Purposes of Certification,
Assessment, and Enforcement
2. Compliance Dates of the Certification, Reporting, and Test
Procedure Amendments
C. Future Test Procedure Rulemakings
D. Regulatory Text Language
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government
Appropriations Act, 1999
I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations
Act, 2001
K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration
Act of 1974
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
N. Congressional Notification
O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Authority and Background
Title III of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975 (42
U.S.C. 6291, et seq.; ``EPCA'' or, ``the Act'') sets forth a variety of
provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. (All references to
EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the
Energy Efficiency Improvement Act of 2015, Public Law 114-11 (April 30,
2015).) Part C of Title III, which for editorial reasons was
redesignated as Part A-1 upon incorporation into the U.S. Code (42
U.S.C. 6311-6317, as codified), establishes the Energy Conservation
Program for Certain Commercial and Industrial Equipment. Among the
equipment covered under this statutory framework are small, large, and
very large air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment--which are referred to in this notice as commercial unitary
air conditioners (CUACs) and commercial unitary heat pumps (CUHPs).
These equipment are the subject of this document. (42 U.S.C.
6311(1)(B)-(D))
Under EPCA, the energy conservation program consists essentially of
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. The
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 under EPCA, and (2) making representations about the
efficiency of that equipment. Similarly, DOE must use these test
procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with any
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
DOE's test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs is codified at Title 10 of
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Sec. 431.96. The current
regulations require that manufacturers use ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007,
``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (ANSI/AHRI 340/360-
2007), when measuring the efficiency of a given CUAC or CUHP and
certifying that equipment as compliant with the applicable
[[Page 79657]]
standard.\1\ 77 FR 28928, 28990 (May 16, 2012) (final rule specifying
applicable energy conservation standards and test procedures for
various commercial and industrial equipment, including CUACs and
CUHPs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ DOE notes that for purposes of this notice, all references
to ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360-2007 include Addenda 1 and 2 to this
industry-based standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On February 1, 2013, DOE published a request for information and
notice of document availability regarding the potential amendment of
the energy conservation standards for CUACs and CUHPs. 78 FR 7296. DOE
solicited information from the public to help determine whether
national standards more stringent than the current ones would result in
a significant amount of additional energy savings and whether those
national standards would be technologically feasible and economically
justified. DOE also sought information from the public on the merits of
adopting the integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) as the energy
efficiency descriptor for small, large, and very large air-cooled
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, and which includes
provisions to measure equipment performance under partial-load
operating conditions. Currently, manufacturers must measure the energy
efficiency of their equipment using the energy efficiency ratio (EER),
which measures the full-load efficiency of a given unit. The procedure
to follow when measuring and calculating that value, like the proposed
IEER metric, is found in ANSI/ASHRAE 340/360-2007. See ANSI/ASHRAE 340/
360-2007, sec. 6. Comments received on the topic of IEER are discussed
in a related notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) published September
30, 2014, which sought to amend the CUAC and CUHP energy conservation
standards. 79 FR 58948.
Subsequently, on April 1, 2015, DOE issued a notice of intent to
establish the Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps and
Commercial Warm Air Furnaces Working Group to negotiate potential
amendments to the energy conservation standards for this equipment. 80
FR 17363. This Working Group was established under the Appliance
Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in
accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act and the Negotiated
Rulemaking Act. See 5 U.S.C. Appendix--Federal Advisory Committee Act
and 5 U.S.C. 561-570a. The Working Group, which consisted of 17
members, including one member from ASRAC and one DOE representative,
met six times (five times in person and once by teleconference). The
meetings were held on April 28, May 11-12, May 20-21, June 1-2, June 9-
10, and June 15, 2015. The Working Group successfully reached consensus
on energy conservation standards for CUACs, CUHPs, and commercial warm
air furnaces, which the Working Group provided as recommendations as
part of a Term Sheet for submission to ASRAC. The group also chose to
provide test procedure and metric-related recommendations to the ASRAC.
ASRAC voted unanimously to approve the Working Group's recommendations
on June 17, 2015. Participants in the Working Group consisted of the
following entities aside from DOE:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acronym,
Organization Abbreviation Affiliation
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air Conditioning Contractors ACCA............. Contractor/Installer
of America. Group.
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and AHRI............. HVAC Manufacturers
Refrigeration Institute. Group.
American Council for an Energy ACEEE............ Energy Efficiency
Efficient Economy. Advocacy Group.
Appliance Standards Awareness ASAP............. Energy Efficiency
Project. Advocacy Group.
Emerson Climate Technologies.. Emerson.......... Manufacturer.
Goodman Manufacturing......... Goodman.......... Manufacturer.
Lennox International.......... Lennox........... Manufacturer.
Mitsubishi Electric........... Mitsubishi....... Manufacturer.
Natural Resources Defense NRDC............. Energy Efficiency
Council. Advocacy Group.
Northwest Energy Efficiency NEEA............. Energy Efficiency
Alliance. Advocacy Group.
Pacific Gas & Electric Cal. IOUs........ Investor-Owned
Company, San Diego Gas & Utilities.
Electric Company, Southern
California Edison, and
Southern California Gas
Company.
Rheem Manufacturing Company... Rheem............ Manufacturer.
Sheet Metal and Air SMACCNA.......... Contractor/Installer
Conditioning Contractors Group.
National Association, Inc..
Trane/Ingersoll Rand.......... Trane............ Manufacturer.
United Technologies Carrier.......... Manufacturer.
Corporation (Carrier).
Underwriters Laboratories..... UL............... Test Lab.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE initiated a rulemaking to amend the test procedure and
associated certification requirements for CUACs and CUHPs to implement
certain of the Working Group's recommendations regarding the metric and
test procedure. On August 6, 2015, DOE published a NOPR (August 2015
NOPR), 80 FR 46870, in which DOE proposed to clarify aspects of the
CUAC and CUHP test procedure. These clarifications include, among other
things, limiting the incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-
2007 to certain sections and addenda, specifying requirements for
indoor airflow adjustment and reporting, clarifying requirements for
condenser head pressure controls, clarifying the unit of measurement
for airflow, establishing a tolerance on percent load for IEER part-
load tests, and defining the term IEER. In this final rule, DOE
responds to comments received from stakeholders in response to the
NOPR.
A. General Test Procedure Rulemaking Process
EPCA sets forth the general criteria and procedures DOE must follow
when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. See
generally 42 U.S.C. 6314. EPCA provides in relevant part that any test
procedures prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably
designed to produce test results that measure the energy efficiency,
energy use or estimated annual operating cost of a covered
[[Page 79658]]
product during a representative average use cycle or period of use, and
must not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In
addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is
warranted, it must publish proposed test procedures and offer an
opportunity for the public to present oral and written comments. (42
U.S.C. 6314(b))
EPCA also requires DOE to evaluate its test procedures at least
once every 7 years for each class of covered equipment (including CUACs
and CUHPs) to determine if an amended test procedure would more
accurately or fully comply with the requirement to be reasonably
designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency,
energy use, and operating costs during a representative average use
cycle. DOE must either prescribe amended test procedures or publish a
notice in the Federal Register regarding its determination not to amend
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)-(2))
DOE considers the activity associated with this rulemaking
sufficient to satisfy this review requirement.
II. Synopsis of the Final Rule
This final rule clarifies aspects of DOE's test procedure for CUACs
and CUHPs to improve the consistency and accuracy of the results
generated when using that procedure. The rule clarifies how to test for
compliance with the current energy conservation standards along with
those standards that DOE anticipates adopting consistent with the
Working Group's Term Sheet. The rule also amends certain certification,
compliance, and enforcement provisions. DOE has determined that this
final rule will not change the measured energy efficiency of CUACs and
CUHPs when compared to the current test procedure.
III. Discussion
This final rule amends the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs in
appendix A to subpart F of part 431 and adds new equipment-specific
certification and enforcement provisions in 10 CFR 429.43 and 429.134.
With respect to the latter of these changes, a new Sec. 429.134(g)
would be added to the pre-existing provisions already contained in
Sec. 429.134(a)-(f). The rule also amends certain definitions found in
10 CFR 431.92 and updates certain materials incorporated by reference
in 10 CFR 431.95.
In response to the August 2015 NOPR, six interested parties
submitted written comments: Air-Conditioning, Heating and Refrigeration
Institute (AHRI); United Technologies Corporation (Carrier), Ingersoll
Rand, the California Investor-Owned Utilities (Cal. IOUs), Goodman
Manufacturing Company (Goodman), and Lennox International Inc.
(Lennox). Interested parties commented on a range of issues, including
those DOE identified in the August 2015 NOPR, as well as several other
pertinent issues related to DOE's proposal. Commenters also offered
thoughts on further opportunities to improve the clarity of the test
procedure. These issues, as well as DOE's responses to them and the
resulting changes to DOE's proposal, are discussed in the subsequent
sections.
A. Clarifications to the Current DOE Test Procedure
In response to the August 2015 NOPR, DOE received input on a
variety of test procedure issues, including: (1) sections of ANSI/AHRI
340/360-2007 incorporated by reference; (2) indoor airflow adjustment
and reporting; (3) condenser head pressure controls; (4) the unit of
measurement for airflow; (5) the tolerance on percent load for IEER
part-load tests; (6) the definition of IEER; and (7) additional
provisions in the current test procedure. DOE's treatment of these
issues is addressed below.
1. Sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 Incorporated by Reference
As noted previously, DOE intends to incorporate by reference ANSI/
AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, (``AHRI 340/360-2007''), ``2007 Standard
for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' which was approved by ANSI on
October 27, 2011, and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and
addendum 2 in June 2011. This industry standard provides guidance
regarding a variety of different elements related to the testing of
commercial and industrial unitary air-conditioning and heat pump
equipment, including definitions, classifications, as well as testing,
rating, data, and operating requirements. (ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-
2007 is readily available from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and
Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA
22201, (703) 524-8800, or go to: https://www.ahrinet.org.)
In its August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that when testing
CUACs and CUHPs for the EER, coefficient of performance (COP), and IEER
metrics, only certain sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 would be
required--specifically, sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section 6.3)--
rather than applying the entirety of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007. DOE also
proposed not to incorporate section 5 of that testing standard, and to
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, which was previously
incorporated by reference through section 5 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007.
80 FR at 46873.
Responding to this aspect of DOE's proposal, AHRI, Carrier,
Ingersoll Rand, Goodman, and Lennox commented that DOE should reference
ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2015 after its final version is released.
(AHRI, No. 8 at p. 1; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 2; Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at
p. 13; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 2, 6) They
commented that this revised testing standard addresses the issues that
DOE raised in the NOPR and additional items identified by industry to
improve the test procedure. In addition, Lennox noted that EPCA
requires DOE to use those test procedures that are generally accepted
by industry. (Lennox No. 13 at pp. 2, 6) See also 42 U.S.C.
6314(a)(4)(A) (indicating that the test procedures for commercial
package air conditioning and heating equipment shall be those
``generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures''
developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE ``as referenced in ASHRAE/IES
Standard 90.1 and in effect on June 30, 1992''). Additionally, AHRI
commented that sections 6.5 and 6.6 of the soon-to-be-released version
of AHRI 340/360-2015, which address verification testing uncertainty
and uncertainty allowances, respectively, should be referenced as well.
AHRI commented that doing so will help the user of the standard more
fully understand the causes of why measured capacity and efficiency may
vary, which, in its view, will be helpful to laboratories performing
tests to complete the uncertainty analyses required by ISO 17025.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ISO 17025 is a test facility standard that provides general
requirements for standard operating procedures for accuracy of
laboratory measurements and tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AHRI agreed with DOE's proposal to incorporate by reference ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2) AHRI noted that ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2015 has updated the reference to ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, and that
section 5 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 addresses items related to unit
setup and operating conditions that are not currently covered by ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009.
Carrier commented that ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 requires that
corrections be made for the impact of atmospheric pressure changes and
resulting air density changes. Carrier requested that DOE adopt
Appendix D of ANSI/AHRI
[[Page 79659]]
340/360-2015 to better account for changes in atmospheric pressure and
altitude changes of test laboratories. (Carrier No. 11 at p. 3)
AHRI and Carrier commented that DOE uses a confidence level of 95
percent in the sampling requirements given in 10 CFR 429.43, whereas
section 6.4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 uses a confidence level of 90
percent. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 2; Carrier No. 11 at p. 2) AHRI and Carrier
noted that commercial equipment has as much, if not more, uncertainty
and variability in testing than residential equipment, and that 90
percent is an appropriate confidence level.
After reviewing the comments from the August 2015 NOPR, DOE agrees
that many of the raised issues are addressed in the draft version of
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015. However, DOE is still investigating whether
certain provisions in the draft ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 will change
measured efficiency. Furthermore, a final version of the new standard
was not available during the preparation of this final rule. For these
reasons, DOE declines to adopt ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 in whole or in
part at this time. In this final rule, DOE amends its test procedure to
reference sections 3, 4, and 6 (omitting section 6.3) of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2007. DOE may, however, consider incorporating the final version of
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015, or additional provisions within it, in a future
test procedure rulemaking, as discussed in section III.C. With respect
to ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, DOE already incorporates by reference this
testing standard in part 431.
In the NOPR, DOE did not make any proposals regarding the
confidence level in its certification and enforcement provisions.
Accordingly, DOE declines to adopt provisions on this issue without
holding further public comment. While DOE is open to considering
changes to its confidence level in the future, manufacturers or other
parties with access to relevant data should provide data regarding the
variability of units in production and testing to enable DOE to
facilitate its efforts to make any necessary adjustments in an
appropriate future rulemaking proceeding.
2. Indoor Airflow Adjustment and Reporting
In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed that equipment must be tested
using the motor and drive assembly and settings specified in the
certification report (supplemental testing instruction PDF), and that
the external static pressure (ESP) during testing remain within the
tolerances set forth in Section 6.1.3.2 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 with
the indoor airflow rate staying within +/-5 percent of the
manufacturer-rated full-load indoor airflow rate. DOE proposed that the
unit and/or test facility be adjusted to set up the unit such that both
the airflow and ESP are within the required tolerances. See 80 FR at
46873 (noting situations in which a test facility's equipment may need
adjusting to maintain the proposed tolerances).
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, section 6.1.3.2.e, specifies that the full-
load cooling airflow rate (in SCFM) must be employed, irrespective of
resulting ESP, for all situations other than full-load cooling in which
full-load airflow is used (e.g., full-load heating). DOE proposed that
the +/-5 percent tolerance for airflow rate must be applied for these
other conditions as well. DOE also indicated that it interpreted this
section to mean that a test facility adjustment can be made to obtain
the proper airflow (i.e. to maintain airflow within the proposed
tolerance), but that the unit under test itself cannot be adjusted, and
that there is no ESP requirement for this part of the test. 80 FR at
46873.
In addition, DOE proposed that in cases where a unit is designed to
operate with a different indoor airflow rate for cooling and heating
modes, manufacturers would report the individual indoor airflow rates
in cooling and heating modes. DOE also proposed that a manufacturer
must include in its certification report the adjusted indoor airflow at
each part-load condition. 80 FR at 46873.
Responding to the NOPR, AHRI and Carrier agreed that the tester
must use the same motor and drive kit that was used to determine the
certified rating, as specified in the manufacturer's certification
information. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5; Carrier No. 11 at p. 4) AHRI,
Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox agreed that a tolerance for indoor airflow
is needed to ensure that it closely approximates the manufacturer's
rated full-load indoor airflow rate. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5; Carrier No.
11 at p. 4; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4) However,
these commenters indicated that a 5 percent tolerance would result in
too much variation in EER and cooling capacity. The commenters
recommended that the airflow should be allowed to vary by +/-3 percent
of the rated full-load indoor airflow rate to reduce test uncertainty
and to ensure the variations in EER and cooling capacity are at
acceptable levels. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5; Carrier No. 11 at p. 4;
Goodman, No. 14 at p. 1; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 4)
In contrast, AHRI commented that no adjustments should be made to
the airflow or the ESP during the heating test after it is set during
the cooling test. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 5). Goodman generally agreed with
this view. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2) DOE's proposal would require
adjustments to the test facility's equipment (but not the tested unit's
fan settings) to maintain the full-load airflow rate when switching
from the cooling test to the heating test, without regard to the
resulting ESP. The method AHRI described is inconsistent with DOE's
proposed method, because it would prohibit making adjustments to the
ESP when switching from the cooling test to the heating test, whereas
the proposal would allow the ESP to change between the cooling and
heating tests as long as the full-load airflow rate is maintained.
Lennox agreed with DOE's proposed approach to maintain the full-load
airflow rate when switching from the cooling test to the heating test
by making adjustments to the test facility's equipment--and not to the
tested unit's fan settings--without regard to the resulting ESP. Lennox
suggested that a +/-3 percent tolerance should apply to the full-load
indoor airflow rate during the heating test. (Lennox, No. 13 at p. 5)
Carrier also supported making adjustments to the test facility's
equipment, but not to the unit's fan settings, to maintain proper
airflow. Carrier also commented that the proposed ANSI/AHRI 340/360-
2015 includes a requirement to manually adjust fan speed during the
heating cycle if the unit is equipped with automatic controls that
control the fan speed in heating mode. (Carrier No. 11 at pp. 4-5)
AHRI, Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox agreed with DOE that indoor
airflow should be reported in both cooling and heating mode if they are
different. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 11 at p. 5; Goodman, No.
14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 5) AHRI and Carrier are not aware of
any equipment that has a different airflow for heating and cooling but
believe that it could be an option in the future.
After reviewing the comments on the NOPR, DOE agrees that a 5-
percent tolerance on the rated full-load indoor airflow rate would
allow more variation than desired in the EER and cooling capacity. Test
results provided by manufacturers regarding the range of potential
variation are greater than the estimates DOE initially made, which
supported the 5 percent proposal. Based on the additional information
provided
[[Page 79660]]
by manufacturers, DOE is revising its proposed tolerance level on the
rated full-load indoor airflow rate from 5 percent to 3 percent.
Additionally, given the generally positive feedback received in
response to its proposed approach, DOE is also adopting its proposal
that full-load airflow rate be maintained when switching from cooling
mode to heating mode by adjusting the test facility (but not the unit
under test) without regard to the resulting ESP. In addition, DOE is
adopting its proposed certification and reporting requirements with
minor clarifications. Specifically, a manufacturer must include in its
certification report the adjusted indoor airflow at each part-load
condition for both cooling and heating modes. In cases where a model is
designed to operate with the same indoor airflow rate for cooling and
heating modes, the reported numbers may be the same for each mode.
3. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE proposed to specify that condenser
head pressure controls, if included with the unit, must be active
during testing. DOE proposed that if a unit with condenser head
pressure controls cannot achieve steady-state operation with the
controls active, and thus cannot be tested, the manufacturer would have
to request a waiver. DOE also requested comment on whether there are
any units on the market with condenser head pressure controls that
would prevent the unit from achieving steady-state under the test
conditions, and if so, how should DOE address these kinds of units for
testing purposes. 80 FR at 46873-46874.
In response, AHRI, Carrier, Ingersoll Rand, Goodman, and Lennox
agreed with DOE's proposal to keep the head pressure controls active in
automatic mode if present. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier, No. 11 at p.
5; Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 31; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No.
13 at p. 5) AHRI, Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox also commented that the
current draft of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 clarifies the requirements for
running the head pressure control in automatic mode and also provides a
new test procedure to determine the rating performance when head
pressure control results in unstable operation.
After reviewing the comments, DOE is clarifying the current test
procedure to specify that condenser head pressure controls, if included
with the unit, must be active during testing, as proposed in the NOPR.
As noted previously, AHRI 340/360-2015 is still a draft document, and
DOE is not incorporating it by reference in this rule. In addition, DOE
declines at this time to adopt a test method like that in AHRI 340/360-
2015 regarding rating performance when head pressure control results in
unstable operation. DOE will continue to review this industry testing
standard and may consider adopting a method to address this issue in
the future after a full public comment process.
4. Unit of Measurement for Airflow
DOE also proposed that all instances of CFM as a unit of airflow
must be interpreted to mean SCFM where they appear in the sections of
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 431,
subpart F. 80 FR at 46874.
In response, AHRI, Carrier and Ingersoll Rand agreed with this
approach. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4; Carrier No. 11 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand
No. 9 at p. 14) Each of these commenters recommended adopting ANSI/AHRI
340/360-2015, which would provide clear instructions to ensure that
airflow is measured in SCFM for testing. AHRI noted that this issue is
already addressed in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 through the reference to
ASHRAE 37-2009, which defines the unit of airflow as standard CFM.
As noted in section III.A.1, DOE declines to reference ANSI/AHRI
340/360-2015 at this time. Further, although section 7.7.2.3 of ASHRAE
37-2009 may be interpreted as an indication that airflow rate is to be
expressed in terms of standard air in all test standards that
incorporate it by reference, this interpretation may not be
sufficiently clear from the relevant text of the current test
procedure, which refers to both CFM and SCFM in various locations.
Hence, DOE is clarifying the test procedure to indicate that all
instances of CFM as a unit of airflow must be interpreted to mean SCFM
where they appear in the sections of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007
incorporated by reference in 10 CFR part 431, subpart F.
5. Tolerance on Percent Load for IEER Part-Load Tests
DOE proposed applying a +/-3-percent tolerance to each part-load
test point in the IEER calculation, and formally requested comment on
the appropriateness of establishing such a tolerance level. See 80 FR
at 46878-46879 (request for comment) and 80 FR at 46874 (discussing
DOE's +/-3-percent tolerance proposal). Specifically, if the measured
load fraction is within 3 percent of the target load fraction, the
measured EER would not have to be adjusted using interpolation or
application of the degradation factor for cyclic operation.
Responding to this aspect of the proposal, AHRI, Goodman, and
Lennox agreed in principle with setting a tolerance on the part-load
percent load when the unit cannot run at precisely 75-percent, 50-
percent, and 25-percent part-load capacities. The commenters also
agreed with DOE's tolerance level of 3 percent. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6;
Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6)
However, AHRI and Carrier commented that implementing the 3-percent
tolerance without also adopting some other provisions of ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2015 would vary IEER results by as much as 5 percent, a magnitude
they considered inappropriate. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 6; Carrier No. 11 at
p. 3) AHRI stated that this variation could be reduced significantly by
changing the condenser air inlet temperature used for each given part-
load point. Specifically, AHRI 340/360-2007 relies on condenser air
inlet temperatures as a function of percent load, while AHRI 340/360-
2015 specifies condenser air inlet temperatures that are fixed for each
rating point percent load. (AHRI, No. 9 at p. 6) The relationship
between condenser air inlet temperature and percent load is provided in
section 6.2.2 of AHRI 340/360-2007. AHRI stated that adopting the
proposed 3-percent tolerance for part-load tests with the current
approach would result in an IEER variation of -4.6 percent to +4.8
percent. However, if the condenser air entering temperature is fixed to
the target percent load, then IEER variations would be reduced to 1.5
or 1.6 percent. (AHRI, Public Meeting Transcript, No. 15 at p. 33-36)
AHRI and Carrier, as well as Goodman and Lennox, proposed that DOE
reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 (section 6.2) which includes the +/-
3-percent load fraction tolerance along with the other revisions to the
IEER testing procedures. (AHRI, No. 8 at pp. 6-7; Carrier, No. 11 at p.
3; Goodman, No. 14 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 13 at p. 6)
After reviewing the comments on the appropriateness of establishing
a 3-percent tolerance on each part-load test point, as proposed in the
NOPR, DOE is adopting the 3-percent part-load test point tolerance, and
is also adopting the suggestion from several commenters for setting the
condenser inlet air temperature for the test, which commenters viewed
as being linked to the revised 3-percent tolerance level. DOE is
adopting this suggestion in response to stakeholders' comments that a
3-percent tolerance on part-load testing would not be appropriate
unless the condenser air entering temperature is fixed at the
temperature for the target
[[Page 79661]]
part-load point. Adopting this suggested approach will help reduce the
variability in test results for variations in percent load within 3-
percent of the target part-load point. AHRI supported this approach
with data demonstrating how implementing this requirement for setting
the condenser air entering temperature would reduce the variability in
test results. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 18) In addition, this change has the
potential to significantly reduce test burden, since the current test
procedure requirement, by specifying condenser inlet air temperature as
a function of the measured load fraction, can lead to multiple
repetitions of the test if the measured load fraction is different than
the load fraction used to calculate the air temperature used for the
test. Also, the suggested approach from the commenters is more
consistent with the way a unit would actually operate in the field.
Specifically, when a unit cycles between operating levels to satisfy an
average load represented by the target load fraction, the ambient
temperature remains constant. DOE investigated potential changes in
measurement associated with this test procedure change and found that
it would not change the measurement unless the interpolation method is
used to determine one or more of the part-load EER levels and for which
one of the measurements used for the interpolation(s) has a measured
percent load less than 44.4 percent. Also, for typical units that fit
this description, the change in the measurement is less than one
percent. With respect to IEER, DOE concludes this is a de minimis
change, the extent of which would not impact a model's ability to
comply with a given IEER standard or alter the measured energy
efficiency of the covered equipment.
DOE has elected to implement the additional change regarding
condenser air inlet temperature by noting this difference with respect
to AHRI 340/360-2007 within the regulatory language in the CFR rather
than incorporating by reference the 2015 version of the standard--DOE's
decision not to incorporation AHRI 340/360-2015 by reference is
discussed in section III.A.1.
6. Definition of IEER
DOE proposed to define IEER (i.e. integrated energy efficiency
ratio) as meaning ``a single number part-load efficiency based on
weighting of EER at various load capacities, as measured in appendix A
to subpart F of part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.'' (80 FR at
46880)
In response to this proposed definition, AHRI and Carrier agreed
that the definition of IEER must be improved and clarified. (AHRI, No.
8 at p. 4; Carrier, No. 11 at pp. 3-4) However, AHRI and Carrier
commented that DOE's definition does not account for the operating
conditions and rating conditions required to accurately rate IEER. They
commented that this is a significant aspect of the IEER metric and it
should be mentioned in the definition to avoid any misrepresentation.
AHRI and Carrier further commented that the DOE definition also
proposes to reference the new DOE appendix A, which does not directly
address the requirements for IEER and refers back to AHRI 340/360. AHRI
and Carrier suggested as an alternative that DOE use the IEER
definition in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 4; Carrier,
No. 11 at pp. 3-4)
The draft version of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2015 section 3.11 defines
IEER as ``a weighted calculation of mechanical cooling EERs at full-
load and part-load Standard Rating Conditions, defined in Section 6.2,
expressed in Btu/Wh.''
Ingersoll Rand suggested a different definition for IEER:
``Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means the cooling energy
efficiency descriptor for packaged air-conditioning and heating
equipment (air-cooled with a rated cooling capacity >=65,000 Btu/h),
determined as a single number part-load efficiency based on weighting
of EER at various load capacities, as measured in appendix A to subpart
F of part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.'' (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at
p. 2) Ingersoll Rand made this suggestion to clarify that: (1) IEER is
the only cooling efficiency descriptor for CUAC and CUHP and (2) IEER
is specific to CUAC and CUHP and does not apply to other commercial
package air-conditioning and heating equipment. (Id.)
DOE agrees that the rating conditions for IEER could be
acknowledged in the definition. However, DOE declines to reference AHRI
340/360 directly, as all representations of IEER must be made based on
DOE's test procedure, which contains additional provisions beyond those
in the referenced industry standard. Therefore, DOE is adopting a
modified definition for IEER that references rating conditions rather
than load capacities, but still specifies that measurements be made in
accordance with appendix A. DOE also declines to include equipment
references at this time. In the future, DOE may adopt energy
conservation standards based on IEER for equipment other than CUAC and
CUHP. Hence, DOE declines to specify or otherwise limit what equipment
uses this metric. DOE addresses Ingersoll Rand's concern regarding the
efficiency descriptor in section III.D.
DOE does agree that the IEER is intended to measure cooling
provided by the refrigeration system, i.e. ``mechanical cooling'', and
does not address other modes of cooling that the equipment might
provide. As an example, CUAC and CUHP equipment may provide economizer
cooling, which involves use of cool outdoor air during cool weather to
cool the interior of a building without the use of refrigeration system
operation.
For these reasons, DOE is adopting the following definition for
IEER:
Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means a weighted
average calculation of mechanical cooling EERs determined for four load
levels and corresponding rating conditions, as measured in appendix A
to subpart F of part 431, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
7. Additional Test Procedure Provisions
Current DOE regulations include provisions for refrigerant charging
and airflow rate relevant to multiple equipment categories, including
CUACs and CUHPs. (10 CFR 431.96(e)) DOE proposed adding these
provisions to the proposed appendix A, section (5) for CUACs and CUHPs,
while maintaining the original provision in 431.96(e) for the other
relevant equipment categories. 80 FR at 46881. These provisions require
that if a manufacturer specifies a range (rather than a specific rating
value) of superheat, sub-cooling, and/or refrigerant charge pressure in
its installation and operation manual, any value within that range may
be used to determine refrigerant charge or mass of refrigerant.
In response to the NOPR, Goodman stated that manufacturers
typically specify a broader range of superheat or subcooling for field
charging than would be accepted in the laboratory (because field
measurement equipment is not as accurate as laboratory measurement
equipment). Goodman further added that the AHRI certification program
has a policy of adjusting charge to the middle of the range, which
makes the test more accurate. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
DOE notes that the refrigerant charge, superheat, and subcooling
values are interrelated such that DOE does not believe Goodman's
suggestion of hitting the midpoint of all of the ranges can be achieved
in all cases. Consequently, DOE is not requiring that the test be
performed at the midpoint of each of the ranges. Instead, DOE is
clarifying that test labs should only be adjusting charge
[[Page 79662]]
once for both the cooling and heating test and a test lab should aim
for the middle of the subheat or subcool range. However, DOE emphasizes
that any point in the range is still acceptable at this point in time.
Should industry believe additional specificity regarding these
provisions would improve repeatability or reproducibility, DOE may
consider further amendments in a future rulemaking. For consistency in
testing, DOE will follow the approach of attempting to achieve the
midpoint of one of the values, which it considers to be a best
practice.
In regards to airflow, DOE currently requires that the airflow rate
used for testing must be in the installation and operations manual
shipped with the basic model and clearly identified as the value used
to generate DOE performance ratings; otherwise, a value of 400 SCFM per
ton is used. See 10 CFR 431.96(e). Responding to DOE's proposal to
include this set of requirements as part of appendix A, Goodman noted
that manufacturers who certify through AHRI have the full-load cooling
capacity shown in the AHRI Directory of Certified Product Performance,
and that the value in that directory should be used as opposed to using
400 SCFM per ton. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
DOE notes that for commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, manufacturers are currently required to certify rated
airflow in SCFM for each fan coil. See 10 CFR 429.43(b)(4)(i)-(ii)
(specifying certification report contents for commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment). As noted earlier, DOE is
clarifying this requirement as described in section III.A.2. DOE
expects the certified airflow values to be consistent with those in the
installation manual and reported to AHRI, because the airflow used in
tests (whether for certifying performance to DOE or as used by AHRI)
should be the same airflow that installers would use when setting up
the unit based on the installation instructions. However, in the event
a manufacturer fails to report airflow to DOE, the specified value of
400 SCFM per ton prescribed by 10 CFR 431.96(e) will continue to apply.
B. Certification and Enforcement Issues and Compliance Dates
In addition to addressing various aspects related to the testing of
CUACs and CUHPs, DOE also proposed various certification and
enforcement-related provisions with respect to this equipment.
Additionally, DOE proposed including provisions related to the
reporting of IEER values for certification and compliance purposes once
the compliance dates for the standards recommended by the Working Group
are reached. These issues are addressed in the following sections.
1. Measuring Cooling Capacity for Purposes of Certification,
Assessment, and Enforcement
DOE proposed that the cooling capacity represented and subsequently
certified to DOE for a given basic model must be the average of the
capacities measured for the sample of units tested to certify that
basic model, rounded according to the multiples in Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI
340/360-2007. DOE also proposed that when conducting assessment and
enforcement testing, it would measure the total cooling capacity
pursuant to the test requirements of 10 CFR 431.96 for each unit
tested, and the results of the measurement(s) would be compared to the
value of cooling capacity certified by the manufacturer. The
manufacturer-certified cooling capacity will be considered valid if the
cooling capacity determined through DOE testing is within 5 percent of
the certified cooling capacity. (80 FR at 46874)
With respect to the certification requirements, Lennox disagreed
with DOE's proposal to require that the certified cooling capacity be
the average of the capacities measured for the sample of units tested.
(Lennox, No. 13 at p. 3) Lennox stated that conservative capacity
ratings subject equipment to more stringent efficiency standards.
Lennox further commented that if forced to reclassify equipment into
higher-capacity classes, manufacturers could face unduly burdensome
administrative and procedural obligations without any benefit to energy
efficiency. Lennox also stated that if conservatively-rated equipment
is categorized into a larger equipment class, it can change the test
conditions (i.e. ESP), resulting in a further change from the designed
capacity and IEER level of the product. Lennox added that in the past,
DOE has allowed manufacturers to conservatively rate products, such as
in the final rule establishing AEDMs for commercial air-conditioning
and refrigeration equipment and walk-in coolers and freezers. (Lennox,
No. 13 at pp. 3-4)
Ingersoll Rand commented that, while DOE's certification
regulations typically require manufacturers to report capacity, DOE
does not specify that manufacturers determine capacity through testing
specified by DOE, and that DOE has not found that capacity is a measure
of energy consumption as defined by EPCA at 42 U.S.C. 6291(8).
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 13) Ingersoll Rand also noted that DOE had
not demonstrated why such a proposal is necessary. (Id.)
With respect to the enforcement testing provisions, AHRI, Ingersoll
Rand, and Goodman commented that a tolerance of 5 percent should not be
applied to capacity because there are many factors that can affect
measured capacity and performance, including variance in airflow,
refrigerant charge levels, ambient conditions, test labs, and test
setup. (AHRI, No. 8 at p. 3; Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 14; Goodman,
No. 14 at p. 3) Goodman commented that a 5-percent tolerance is too low
because, due to a number of variables, the true uncertainty of the test
is probably at least 8 percent. (Goodman, No. 14 at p. 3)
AHRI commented that in the event that a verification test for its
certification program shows that the cooling capacity is less than 95
percent of its rated value, the manufacturer fails the test and is then
subject to stiff penalties, which are, in its view, strong incentives
to discourage manufacturers from over-rating cooling capacity and
energy efficiency. AHRI recommended that DOE base the equipment
classification on the rated capacity only. However, in the event that
DOE feels compelled to move forward with its proposal, AHRI requested
that the proposed requirement apply only when the tested cooling
capacity is less than 95 percent of the certified value, and not when
the tested cooling capacity is greater than 105 percent of the
certified value. (AHRI, No. 7 at p. 3) Carrier agreed that any
tolerance should be a one-sided tolerance, allowing manufacturers to
choose to rate products conservatively. (Carrier, No. 11 at p.3)
Trane commented that, in common practice, a tolerance on capacity
becomes an issue at 240,000 Btu/h, which is a break between equipment
classes as well as a nominal equipment tonnage. However, manufacturers
do not always hit this design point, which puts them on one side or the
other of the equipment class dividing line. For this reason, they tend
to rate conservatively to avoid risk. (Trane, NOPR public meeting
transcript, No. 15 at pp. 54-55) Carrier added that the need to
conservatively rate will increase with the change in refrigerants, and
that the current AHRI statistics show that they exceed 105 percent on
many tests. (Carrier, NOPR public meeting transcript, No. 15 at pp. 55-
56)
DOE notes that the August 2015 NOPR proposed to add a provision
that the represented value of cooling capacity must be the average of
the
[[Page 79663]]
capacities measured for the units in the sample selected for testing or
the output of the AEDM when simulating results rounded according to the
multiples in Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007. DOE further proposed to
add enforcement provisions for verifying the rated cooling capacity, as
the rated cooling capacity determines both the equipment class and
which testing conditions apply. See 80 FR at 46874 (discussing proposed
clarification) and 46879 (presenting detailed regulatory text). Without
reporting and enforcement provisions for cooling capacity,
manufacturers may choose to over- or under-rate cooling capacity
intentionally in order to achieve more favorable testing conditions or
less stringent efficiency standards. DOE does not believe industry
intended to suggest a regulatory approach where a manufacturer would
self-declare its rating conditions and standards, as that approach
could cause unintended consequences such as inequitable ratings due to
differences in self-declarations. Many in industry, including
commenters who participate in the AHRI Certification Program, saw the
importance of including provisions surrounding cooling capacity since
there is a verification tolerance reflected in that program, as AHRI
noted. Consequently, in DOE's view, provisions regarding the
determination of represented cooling capacity along the lines of the
August 2015 proposal are needed.
While DOE acknowledges that multiple factors may affect the
measurement of cooling capacity, DOE maintains that capacity-related
provisions are necessary to ensure the reliability and consistency of
the reported ratings because, as commenters pointed out, DOE expects
there to be variation in the capacity measurement from different units
being tested at different laboratories. Consequently, DOE is modifying
its proposal for determining represented cooling capacity based on the
comments received to allow for conservative rating declared according
to the multiples in Table 4 in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 but is not less
than 95% of the mean values of the two or more units in the sample for
certification testing or the output from the AEDM. DOE believes this is
consistent with that currently used in the industry, including the
certified ratings program approach developed by AHRI. In the industry
program, this tolerance serves as the basis for penalizing
manufacturers if the tested cooling capacity is lower than 95% of the
rated cooling capacity of that equipment. This tolerance will help to
ensure that equipment is capable of performing at the cooling capacity
for which it is represented to consumers. At this time, DOE is
declining to adopt specific capacity-related enforcement provisions and
will evaluate compliance with standards based on the testing results
from the enforcement sample. DOE believes it is important that products
comply with the applicable standards based on actual tested performance
rather than based on a manufacturer self-declaration.
2. Compliance Dates of the Certification, Reporting, and Test Procedure
Amendments
In the August 2015 NOPR, DOE indicated that its proposal would be
unlikely to alter the measured efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. DOE
proposed to require the reporting of IEER and indoor part-load airflow
rates used in the IEER calculation when certifying compliance with the
2018 or 2023 standards. DOE also proposed to apply a +/-3-percent
tolerance to each part-load test point for manufacturers to use when
developing the IEER ratings for a given basic model. This clarification
would be required when testing to determine EER for part-load rating
points. See 80 FR at 46879-82.
DOE stated that its proposed amendments that were not specifically
related to IEER would clarify how to test a given unit. The proposals,
if adopted, would result in no procedural changes related to how
testing would be performed. The proposed amendments, if adopted, would
become effective 30 days after publication of the final rule in the
Federal Register. Consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), DOE proposed that
any representations of energy consumption or efficiency of CUACs and
CUHPs must be based on any final amended test procedures 360 days after
the publication of the test procedure final rule. 80 FR at 46874-46875.
Ingersoll Rand disagreed with DOE's assertion that the proposed
clarifications and amendments would not result in any changes to the
energy efficiency of current equipment. While Ingersoll Rand agreed
that the proposed changes would likely not affect the measure of EER
for air-cooled commercial package air conditioning equipment, the
proposed changes would add the IEER metric, which, in Ingersoll Rand's
view, is a significant change to the measure of energy efficiency of
current equipment. Ingersoll Rand commented that the proposed
amendments to the test procedures will change the measure of energy
itself, and, as DOE's proposal would require re-rating units within 360
days of publication of the final rule, that this would be a ``change in
the representations of the energy efficiency of current equipment.''
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 12)
Ingersoll Rand also noted that while many manufacturers, including
itself, already include an IEER rating in the AHRI Directory of
Certified Product Performance, that information is not based on testing
units in accordance with the sampling plan contained in the proposed
Sec. 429.43, but is often based on testing a single unit. Therefore,
to comply with the proposed rule, manufacturers would be required to
perform a substantial amount of additional testing. Furthermore, since
the testing requirements would go into effect before the compliance
date of the energy conservation standards proposed by the ASRAC
Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Commercial Warm Air Furnaces
Working Group, those units currently offered for sale but not meeting
the January 2018 standards proposed by the Working Group would still
need to be tested in order for manufacturers to make IEER
representations on which builders would rely for purposes of meeting
the provisions contained in ASHRAE 90.1.2013. (That industry-based
standard sets a minimum level of efficiency for CUAC and CUHP equipment
and includes a minimum rating level based on IEER.) In its view, the
proposal's impact will be far more than modest and must be addressed by
DOE or accounted for in its estimates under the Paperwork Reduction
Act. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 10-11)
For these reasons, Ingersoll Rand recommended that the effective
date of compliance with the test procedure amendments with respect to
testing, representations, and reporting of IEER be made to coincide
with the effective date of the amended standard setting the initial
IEER standard. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at p. 12)
DOE has carefully considered Ingersoll Rand's comments. DOE is
adopting its proposal that reporting of IEER and indoor part-load
airflow rates used in the IEER calculation will be required when
certifying compliance with any amended standards and finds that this
approach is consistent with Ingersoll Rand's comments. However, DOE
also maintains that, consistent with 42 U.S.C. 6314(d), any
representations of energy consumption or efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs
must be based on any final amended test procedures 360 days after the
publication of the test procedure final rule. See 80 FR at 46874-46875.
[[Page 79664]]
Although Ingersoll Rand argued that this amendment would subject units
that will not meet the recommended January 2018 standards to the
testing requirements to demonstrate that the units meet the IEER levels
of ASHRAE 90.1-2013 that many builders require, those units were
already subject to those testing requirements. DOE recognizes that
manufacturers currently do not need to certify their equipment to meet
IEER. Manufacturers must, however, follow the applicable test procedure
requirements when making representations of energy efficiency,
including those aspects of the test procedure that apply to another
metric should they decide to report the efficiency of their equipment
using that metric. DOE's current test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs
already includes a test method for measuring IEER. See 10 CFR
431.96(b)(2) (incorporating, through Table 2, various test procedures
used for assessing compliance, including the procedures specified by
AHRI 340/360-2007, which contains testing methods for measuring IEER).
EPCA restricts representations of efficiency where DOE has prescribed a
test method. Specifically, any representation of efficiency for a CUAC
or CUHP must fairly disclose the results of testing in accordance with
the DOE test procedure within 360 days of DOE having prescribed the
test procedure. Therefore, all existing representations of IEER for
this equipment would have already been made in accordance with DOE's
regulations regarding test procedures and sampling plans, even though
submission of a certification report for that metric is not required.
As discussed in section III.A.5, DOE has determined that the amended
requirements on part-load test points will produce only a de minimis
change and not impact a model's ability to comply with an IEER standard
or alter the measured and rated energy efficiency of the covered
equipment. For these reasons, DOE does not anticipate that
manufacturers will require additional time to comply with pre-existing
requirements that they already must meet.
Furthermore, with respect to Ingersoll Rand's claim that
significant additional testing will be required to meet the sampling
requirements, based on manufacturer compliance certifications, most
CUAC and CUHP manufacturers use alternative efficiency determination
methods (``AEDMs'') to rate the majority of their equipment for EER.
Ingersoll Rand states that manufacturers have been testing for IEER and
have single tests of a wide variety of basic models, so manufacturers
already have sufficient test data to develop and support an AEDM, even
if they have not yet developed AEDMs to simulate IEER. Therefore, even
if a manufacturer is not currently making representations in accordance
with the DOE test procedure (as it is already required to do), DOE
believes a 360-day compliance period provides sufficient time for such
a manufacturer to do so, particularly if the manufacturer already has a
collection of existing test data for its equipment.
Finally, DOE disagrees that the information collection approved by
the Office of Management and Budget requires modification as a result
of this rule. This rule does not change the test burden or record
retention requirements that are reflected in the existing approval.
Furthermore, although the metric reported to DOE will change from EER
to IEER, there will be no increase in burden. DOE will revise its
certification information collection to reflect the metric change prior
to the reporting change in 2018.
C. Future Test Procedure Rulemakings
The California IOUs encouraged DOE to initiate a more expansive
test procedure rulemaking before January 1, 2016, as recommended by the
ASRAC Working Group. (California IOUs, No. 10 at p. 1) The California
IOUs commented that a new, more representative, metric is needed.
The California IOUs also suggested that DOE research the impact of
fan energy on equipment ratings, specifically the external static
pressure settings for equipment and whether it reflects field
conditions. (California IOUs, No. 10 at p. 2) The IOUs further noted
that the IEER test procedure proposed for inclusion by DOE in its
regulations specified ESP ratings that are unrealistically low in the
four test points, which results in measured fan energy consumption
during testing conditions being lower than that found in actual
operating conditions, which artificially inflates the IEER ratings. The
California IOUs also encouraged DOE to create a test procedure that
accounts for economizer energy consumption, as this aspect is omitted
in the current proposed test procedure. See id.
The California IOUs suggested further that DOE should investigate
the impact of requiring an additional higher temperature test point
rating, such as 105 [deg]F or 115 [deg]F, to better reflect operating
conditions experienced in hotter climates. (California IOUs, No. 10 at
p. 2) The California IOUs noted that the current efficiency rating
measures equipment at a maximum outside dry bulb air temperature of 95
[deg]F. In their collective view, while this value is appropriate for
much of the United States, it does not reflect peak values often
experienced in parts of the desert southwest.
DOE notes that the Working Group recommended that a rulemaking to
amend the test procedure shall be initiated no later than January 1,
2016, with the final rule issued no later than January 1, 2019. That
rulemaking, based on the Working Group's recommendation, would be to
focus on better representing the total fan energy use by considering
(a) alternative external static pressures and (b) operation for other
than mechanical cooling and heating. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093, ASRAC
Working Group Term Sheet (recommending a series of actions for DOE to
take with respect to CUAC and CUHP standards and testing). DOE plans to
initiate an additional test procedure rulemaking focused on revising
the IEER metric consistent with this recommendation. DOE may consider
additional test procedure revisions at that time.
D. Regulatory Text Language
Ingersoll Rand asserted that the proposed IEER definition and the
test procedure table (Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96) are inconsistent with
the terms of the ASRAC Working Group Term Sheet because they add IEER
as a cooling metric but keep EER. Ingersoll Rand stated that the
Working Group agreed that, subsequent to the effective date of the
January 2018 energy conservation standard, IEER would be the sole DOE
measure of cooling efficiency required to be reported to DOE.
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 1-2)
Ingersoll Rand added that it believed that DOE proposed amending 10
CFR 431.96 in order to make it easier for the user to follow, but
without consideration of the Working Group recommendation to initiate a
rulemaking to amend the test procedure for small, large, and very large
air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment.
In its view, Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 could be confusing to the user if
it included a distinction between the different measures of energy
consumption and the two different test procedures before and after the
expected effective date of the IEER standards. Ingersoll Rand commented
that it would be clearer and simpler for DOE to return to the earlier
format of section 431.96 and add the test procedure and energy
descriptor updates in separate tables with their effective dates. It
offered alternative tables for DOE to consider. (Ingersoll Rand, No. 9
at pp. 3-8)
[[Page 79665]]
DOE notes that that the primary purpose of the test procedure
tables in 10 CFR 431.96 is to describe the test procedure relevant to
each equipment category. The metrics required to be reported to DOE can
be found in 10 CFR 429.43. As proposed (and amended by this rule), 10
CFR 429.43 will not require EER to be reported to DOE when certifying
compliance with any IEER standards. However, consistent with DOE's
incorporation of AHRI 340/360-2007, the test procedure itself will
still include EER, which manufacturers are required to use when making
EER-based representations when they choose to do so, independent of
their representations required under DOE's compliance requirements.
Ingersoll Rand also criticized DOE's proposed reference to the
``January 1, 2018 and January 1, 2023 standards'' that would be added
to 10 CFR 429.43(b)(2)(i)(B), as being vague, particularly in light of
the changes made to the standards table in 10 CFR 431.97(b) by the July
17, 2015 final rule regarding energy conservation standards for small
three-phase commercial air-cooled air conditioners. 80 FR 42614.
Ingersoll Rand suggested that DOE consider the format of 10 CFR
429.43(b)(2)(i) and 10 CFR 431.97 that will result from both the test
procedure and energy conservation standards rulemakings in completing
this test procedure rulemaking, rather than waiting for the standards
rulemaking. Ingersoll Rand suggested wording for 10 CFR 429.43(b)(2)(i)
and recommended that DOE insert two new tables (as Tables 4 and 5) that
would accommodate the 2018 and 2023 standards and would be reserved
until DOE completes the energy conservation standards rulemakings.
(Ingersoll Rand, No. 9 at pp. 9-10)
Ingersoll Rand also disagreed with the proposed language in Sec.
429.43(b)(4) that lists certification report requirements (including
the rated airflow for part-load operation which is needed for testing
to measure IEER), and which refers to the ``January 1, 2018 or the
January 1, 2023 energy conservation standards.'' Ingersoll Rand
indicated that such references are vague and could lead to
misinterpretations regarding DOE's regulations, recommending instead
that DOE refer in these sections specifically to the appropriate
standards listed in specific tables of Sec. 431.97. (Ingersoll Rand,
No. 9 at p. 12)
DOE acknowledges the potential for misinterpretation. Therefore,
DOE has revised the language in Sec. 429.43 to refer to compliance
with EER standards or IEER standards rather than making a reference to
future 2018 or 2023 standards that have not been finalized.
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
A. Review Under Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that test
procedure rulemakings do not constitute ``significant regulatory
actions'' under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866, Regulatory
Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993). Accordingly, this
action was not subject to review under the Executive Order by the
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB).
B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IFRA) 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 Web site: https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel.
DOE reviewed this final rule under the provisions of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February
19, 2003. This final rule prescribes clarifications to DOE's already-
existing test procedures that will be used to test compliance with
energy conservation standards for the equipment that are the subject of
this rulemaking. DOE has concluded that the final rule would not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.
For manufacturers of small, large, and very large air-cooled CUAC
and CUHP, 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. 65 FR 30836, 30848 (May 15,
2000), as amended at 65 FR 53533, 53544 (Sept. 5, 2000) and codified at
13 CFR part 121. The size standards are listed by North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS) code and industry description
and are available at https://www.sba.gov/category/navigation-structure/contracting/contracting-officials/small-business-size-standards.
Manufacturing of small, large, and very large air-cooled CUAC and CUHP
is classified under NAICS 333415, ``Air-Conditioning and Warm Air
Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment
Manufacturing.'' The SBA sets a threshold of 750 employees or less for
an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. DOE
initially identified 13 potential manufacturers of commercial packaged
air conditioners sold in the U.S. DOE then determined that 10 were
large manufacturers, manufacturers that are foreign-owned and -
operated, or manufacturers that do not produce equipment covered by
this rulemaking. DOE was able to determine that the other three
companies met the SBA's definition of a small business and sell CUAC/
CUHP products.
The first small company specialized in manufacturing double-duct
CUAC/CUHP products, which would not subject to the amended IEER
standards recommended by the Working Group formed to negotiate the
CUAC/CUHP standards.\3\ This manufacturer did not produce any equipment
that would be covered under the recommended IEER standards. The second
small company did not own any production assets for CUAC/CUHP
equipment. This company outsourced the design and manufacture of
equipment to a supplier. The third small company manufactured covered
equipment that are subject to the amended test procedures. Based on
DOE's research, this small manufacturer has three product platforms
with 11 models that would potentially be subject to testing to
determine IEER, and no IEER ratings have been published for these
units. Based on literature reviews, this small manufacturer specializes
in custom and semi-custom products.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007-0093. DOE must
effectuate such change in metric through the rulemaking process and
in a manner consistent with all applicable statutory requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE expects the impact of the final rule on manufacturers,
including small businesses, to be minimal. The final rule amends DOE's
certification requirements to specify additional reporting requirements
and add enforcement provisions for verifying cooling capacity. The
final rule also clarifies or amends DOE's test procedures to amend
ANSI/AHRI 340/
[[Page 79666]]
360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and
Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' to
incorporate certain sections by reference, specify requirements for
airflow adjustment and tolerance to meet other rating conditions,
require units with condenser head pressure controls to be tested with
those controls active, clarify the unit of measurement for airflow, and
establish a tolerance on part-load rating points.
The amended energy conservation standards for CUAC/CUHP recommended
by the Working Group would be based on IEER rather than EER. DOE
expects the impact on test burden to be modest. AHRI ratings already
include IEER, indicating that many manufacturers, representing a large
portion of the market, already determine IEER for their units. ANSI/
ASHRAE/IES Standard 90.1-2013, ``Energy Standard for Buildings Except
Low-Rise Residential Buildings'' (ASHRAE 90.1-2013), has adopted an
IEER requirement, which makes reporting of IEER necessary for shipment
to those states and localities that will adopt that standard in
building codes. Current procedures relating to alternative efficiency
determination methods (AEDMs), including procedures for certifying
IEER, require a limited amount of testing to be conducted when
validating an AEDM for CUACs and CUHPs. 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv)
(detailing the minimum number of distinct basic models required to be
test for purposes of AEDM validation for different equipment types and
classes). DOE expects that most CUAC and CUHP ratings will be based on
results obtained from AEDMs. Although DOE recognizes that some ratings
will be based on testing, DOE expects these ratings to comprise a small
minority of products.
For these reasons, DOE certifies that this final rule will not have
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Accordingly, DOE has not prepared a regulatory flexibility
analysis for this rulemaking. DOE will transmit the certification and
supporting statement of factual basis to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy
of the SBA for review under 5 U.S.C. 605(b).
C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs must certify to DOE that their
equipment comply with any applicable energy conservation standards. In
certifying compliance, manufacturers must test their equipment
according to the DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs, 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 CUACs
and CUHPs. 10 CFR part 429, subpart B. The collection-of-information
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA).
In the Certification of Commercial Equipment Final Rule published
in May 2014, DOE amended existing regulations governing compliance
certification for a variety of commercial equipment covered by EPCA,
which affected CUAC and CUHP manufacturers. 79 FR 25486, 25502 (May 5,
2014). DOE amends its certification requirements to specify additional
reporting requirements. DOE does not believe that these additions to
the certification requirements constitute a significant additional
burden upon respondents, as they require minimal additional information
over what manufacturers must already report in their certification
reports. DOE believes that the Certification of Commercial Equipment
Final Rule provides an accurate estimate of the existing burden on
respondents and would continue to apply to the relevant aspects of the
proposed amendments. 79 FR 25496-25498 (detailing burden estimates and
indicating an average burden of approximately 30 hours per company on
an annual basis). OMB has approved the revised information collection
for DOE's certification and recordkeeping requirements. 80 FR 5099
(January 30, 2015).
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 final rule, DOE amends its test procedure for CUACs and
CUHPs. 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, this rule
amends an existing rule without affecting the amount, quality or
distribution of energy usage, and, therefore, will not result in any
environmental impacts. Thus, this rulemaking is covered by Categorical
Exclusion A5 under 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, which applies to any
rulemaking that interprets or amends an existing rule without changing
the environmental effect of that rule. 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 (August 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 examined this final
rule and determined that it will not have a substantial direct effect
on the States, on the relationship between the national government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal
preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the
equipment that are the subject of this final 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 (February 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
[[Page 79667]]
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, this final 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. 2 U.S.C. 1531 For a regulatory action resulting 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 https://energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE
examined this final 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 final rule will 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 regulation will 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 (February 22, 2002),
and DOE's guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). DOE
has reviewed this final 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 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 significant energy action, the
agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy
supply, distribution, or use if the regulation is implemented, and of
reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on
energy supply, distribution, and use.
This regulatory action 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, 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.
While this final rule does not require use of any commercial
standards not already incorporated by reference for the relevant
section of the code of federal regulations, DOE consulted with both DOJ
and FTC and received no comments.
M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
In this final rule, DOE is incorporating by reference ANSI/AHRI
Standard 340/360-2007, ``2007 Standard for Performance Rating of
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump
Equipment'' (including Addenda 1 and 2) into part 429 and appendix A to
subpart F of part 431. This testing standard details various provisions
regarding the testing and calculation of results for the equipment
addressed by this rulemaking. The adoption of these provisions are
necessary to ensure consistent and repeatable test results. Copies of
this testing standard are readily available from the Air-Conditioning,
Heating, and Refrigeration Institute, 2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500,
Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or through its Web site at https://www.ahrinet.org.
[[Page 79668]]
DOE is also incorporating by reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-
2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' into appendix A to subpart F of
part 431. This testing standard details test methods for the equipment
addressed by this rulemaking. The adoption of these provisions are
necessary to ensure consistent and repeatable test results. Copies of
this testing standard are readily available from the American Society
of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 1791 Tullie
Circle NE., Atlanta, GA 30329, (800) 527-4723, or through its Web site
at https://www.ashrae.org.
N. Congressional Notification
As required by 5 U.S.C. 801, DOE will report to Congress on the
promulgation of this rule before its effective date. The report will
state that it has been determined that the rule is not a ``major rule''
as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).
O. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this final
rule.
List of Subjects
10 CFR Part 429
Commercial equipment, Confidential business information, Energy
conservation, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
10 CFR Part 431
Administrative practice and procedure, Commercial equipment,
Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Imports,
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Small
businesses.
Issued in Washington, DC, on December 11, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE amends parts 429 and
431 of chapter II, subchapter D, of title 10 the Code of Federal
Regulations as set forth below:
PART 429--CERTIFICATION, COMPLIANCE, AND ENFORCEMENT FOR CONSUMER
PRODUCTS AND COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
1. The authority citation for part 429 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
2. Amend Sec. 429.4 by redesignating paragraph (c) as (d) and adding
paragraph (c) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference.
* * * * *
(c) AHRI. Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute,
2111 Wilson Blvd., Suite 500, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or
go to: https://www.ahrinet.org.
(1) ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, (``AHRI-340/360-2007''), 2007
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, with Addenda 1 and 2, ANSI
approved October 27, 2011, IBR approved for Sec. 429.43.
(2) [Reserved]
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 429.43 by adding paragraph (a)(1)(iv) and revising
paragraphs (a)(2), (b)(2)(i) and (ii), and (b)(4)(i) and (ii) to read
as follows:
Sec. 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC)
equipment.
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) For air-cooled commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, the represented value of cooling capacity must be a self-
declared value corresponding to the nearest appropriate Btu/h multiple
according to Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 429.4) that is no less than 95 percent of the mean
of the capacities measured for the units in the sample selected as
described in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of this section.
(2) Alternative efficiency determination methods. (i) In lieu of
testing, a represented value of efficiency or consumption for a basic
model of commercial HVAC equipment must be determined through the
application of an AEDM pursuant to the requirements of Sec. 429.70 and
the provisions of this section, where:
(A) Any represented value of energy consumption or other measure of
energy use of a basic model for which consumers would favor lower
values shall be greater than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
less than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model; and
(B) Any represented value of energy efficiency or other measure of
energy consumption of a basic model for which consumers would favor
higher values shall be less than or equal to the output of the AEDM and
greater than or equal to the Federal standard for that basic model.
(ii) For air-cooled commercial package air-conditioning and heating
equipment, the represented value of cooling capacity must be the
cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM as described in paragraph
(a)(2) of this section.
(b) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Commercial package air-conditioning equipment (except
commercial package air conditioning equipment that is air-cooled with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):
(A) When certifying compliance with an EER standard: the energy
efficiency ratio (EER in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)),
the rated cooling capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h),
and the type(s) of heating used by the basic model (e.g., electric,
gas, hydronic, none).
(B) When certifying compliance with an IEER standard: the
integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER in British thermal units per
Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)), the rated cooling capacity in British thermal
units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of heating used by the basic
model (e.g., electric, gas, hydronic, none).
(ii) Commercial package heating equipment (except commercial
package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h):
(A) When certifying compliance with an EER standard: the energy
efficiency ratio (EER in British thermal units per Watt-hour (Btu/Wh)),
the coefficient of performance (COP), the rated cooling capacity in
British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of heating used
by the basic model (e.g., electric, gas, hydronic, none).
(B) When certifying compliance an IEER standard: the integrated
energy efficiency ratio (IEER in British thermal units per Watt-hour
(Btu/Wh)), the coefficient of performance (COP), the rated cooling
capacity in British thermal units per hour (Btu/h), and the type(s) of
heating used by the basic model (e.g., electric, gas, hydronic, none).
* * * * *
(4) * * *
(i) Commercial package air-conditioning equipment (except
commercial package air conditioning equipment that is air-cooled with a
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h): rated indoor airflow in
standard cubic feet per minute (SCFM) for each fan coil; water flow
rate in gallons per minute (gpm) for water-cooled units only; rated
external static pressure in inches of water; frequency or control set
[[Page 79669]]
points for variable speed components (e.g., compressors, VFDs);
required dip switch/control settings for step or variable components; a
statement whether the model will operate at test conditions without
manufacturer programming; any additional testing instructions, if
applicable; and if a variety of motors/drive kits are offered for sale
as options in the basic model to account for varying installation
requirements, the model number and specifications of the motor (to
include efficiency, horsepower, open/closed, and number of poles) and
the drive kit, including settings, associated with that specific motor
that were used to determine the certified rating. When certifying
compliance with an IEER standard, rated indoor airflow in SCFM for each
part-load point used in the IEER calculation and any special
instructions required to obtain operation at each part-load point, such
as frequency or control set points for variable speed components (e.g.,
compressors, VFDs), dip switch/control settings for step or variable
components, or any additional applicable testing instructions, are also
required.
(ii) Commercial package heating equipment (except commercial
package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity
less than 65,000 Btu/h): The rated heating capacity in British thermal
units per hour (Btu/h); rated indoor airflow in standard cubic feet per
minute (SCFM) for each fan coil (in cooling mode); rated airflow in
SCFM for each fan coil in heating mode if the unit is designed to
operate with different airflow rates for cooling and heating mode;
water flow rate in gallons per minute (gpm) for water cooled units
only; rated external static pressure in inches of water; frequency or
control set points for variable speed components (e.g., compressors,
VFDs); required dip switch/control settings for step or variable
components; a statement whether the model will operate at test
conditions without manufacturer programming; any additional testing
instructions, if applicable; and if a variety of motors/drive kits are
offered for sale as options in the basic model to account for varying
installation requirements, the model number and specifications of the
motor (to include efficiency, horsepower, open/closed, and number of
poles) and the drive kit, including settings, associated with that
specific motor that were used to determine the certified rating. When
certifying compliance with an IEER standard, rated indoor airflow in
SCFM for each part-load point used in the IEER calculation and any
special instructions required to obtain operation at each part-load
point, such as frequency or control set points for variable speed
components (e.g., compressors, VFDs), dip switch/control settings for
step or variable components, or any additional applicable testing
instructions, are also required.
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec. 429.134 by adding paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions.
* * * * *
(g) Air-cooled small (=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h),
large (=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h), and very large
(=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h) commercial package air
conditioning and heating equipment--verification of cooling capacity.
The cooling capacity of each tested unit of the basic model will be
measured pursuant to the test requirements of part 431 of this chapter.
The mean of the measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable
standards for purposes of compliance.
PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT
0
5. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291-6317.
0
6. Amend Sec. 431.92 by adding a definition of ``Integrated energy
efficiency ratio, or IEER,'' in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and
heat pumps.
* * * * *
Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means a weighted
average calculation of mechanical cooling EERs determined for four load
levels and corresponding rating conditions, as measured in appendix A
of this subpart, expressed in Btu/watt-hour.
* * * * *
Sec. 431.95 [Amended]
0
7. Amend Sec. 431.95 by:
0
a. Removing paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (b)(5) through (8) as (b)(4) through (7),
respectively; and
0
c. Adding ``and appendix A of this subpart'' to the end of newly
redesignated paragraphs (b)(4) and (c)(2).
0
8. Amend Sec. 431.96 by revising paragraphs (b)(1) and (c) and Table 1
to read as follows:
Sec. 431.96 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy
efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Determine the energy efficiency of each type of covered
equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in Table 1 of this
section along with any additional testing provisions set forth in
paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section and appendix A to this
subpart, that apply to the energy efficiency descriptor for that
equipment, category, and cooling capacity. The omitted sections of the
test procedures listed in Table 1 of this section must not be used.
* * * * *
Table 1 to Sec. 431.96--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional test
Use tests, procedure provisions
Equipment type Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency conditions, and as indicated in the
descriptor procedures \1\ in listed paragraphs of
this section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small Commercial Package Air- Air-Cooled, 3-Phase, <65,000 Btu/h......... SEER and HSPF........ AHRI 210/240-2008 Paragraphs (c) and
Conditioning and Heating Equipment. AC and HP. (omit section 6.5). (e).
Air-Cooled AC and HP.. >=65,000 Btu/h and EER, IEER, and COP... Appendix A to this None.
<135,000 Btu/h. subpart.
Water-Cooled and <65,000 Btu/h......... EER.................. AHRI 210/240-2008 Paragraphs (c) and
Evaporatively-Cooled (omit section 6.5). (e).
AC.
[[Page 79670]]
>=65,000 Btu/h and EER.................. AHRI 340/360-2007 Paragraphs (c) and
<135,000 Btu/h. (omit section 6.3). (e).
Water-Source HP....... <135,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... ISO Standard 13256-1 Paragraph (e).
(1998).
Large Commercial Package Air- Air-Cooled AC and HP.. >=135,000 Btu/h and EER, IEER and COP.... Appendix A to this None.
Conditioning and Heating Equipment. <240,000 Btu/h. subpart.
Water-Cooled and >=135,000 Btu/h and EER.................. AHRI 340/360-2007 Paragraphs (c) and
Evaporatively-Cooled <240,000 Btu/h. (omit section 6.3). (e).
AC.
Very Large Commercial Package Air- Air-Cooled AC and HP.. >=240,000 Btu/h and EER, IEER and COP.... Appendix A to this None.
Conditioning and Heating Equipment. <760,000 Btu/h. subpart.
Water-Cooled and >=240,000 Btu/h and EER.................. AHRI 340/360-2007 Paragraphs (c) and
Evaporatively-Cooled <760,000 Btu/h. (omit section 6.3). (e).
AC.
Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners AC and HP............. <760,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... Paragraph (g) of this Paragraphs (c), (e),
and Heat Pumps. section. and (g).
Computer Room Air Conditioners..... AC.................... <65,000 Btu/h......... SCOP................. ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit Paragraphs (c) and
section 5.11). (e).
>=65,000 Btu/h and SCOP................. ASHRAE 127-2007 (omit Paragraphs (c) and
<760,000 Btu/h. section 5.11). (e).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi- AC.................... <65,000 Btu/h (3- SEER................. AHRI 1230-2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d),
split Systems. phase). sections 5.1.2 and (e), and (f).
6.6).
>=65,000 Btu/h and EER.................. AHRI 1230-2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d),
<760,000 Btu/h. sections 5.1.2 and (e), and (f).
6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi- HP.................... <65,000 Btu/h (3- SEER and HSPF........ AHRI 1230-2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d),
split Systems, Air-cooled. phase). sections 5.1.2 and (e), and (f).
6.6).
>=65,000 Btu/h and EER and COP.......... AHRI 1230-2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d),
<760,000 Btu/h. sections 5.1.2 and (e), and (f).
6.6).
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi- HP.................... <760,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... AHRI 1230-2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d),
split Systems, Water-source. sections 5.1.2 and (e), and (f).
6.6).
Single Package Vertical Air AC and HP............. <760,000 Btu/h........ EER and COP.......... AHRI 390-2003 (omit Paragraphs (c) and
Conditioners and Single Package section 6.4). (e).
Vertical Heat Pumps.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.95.
(c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/
240-2008, AHRI 390-2003, AHRI 1230-2010, and ASHRAE 127-2007.
Manufacturers may optionally specify a ``break-in'' period, not to
exceed 20 hours, to operate the equipment under test prior to
conducting the test method specified by AHRI 210/240-2008, AHRI 390-
2003, AHRI 1230-2010, or ASHRAE 127-2007 (incorporated by reference;
see Sec. 431.95). A manufacturer who elects to use an optional
compressor break-in period in its certification testing should record
this information (including the duration) in the test data underlying
the certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR
429.71.
* * * * *
0
9. Add appendix A to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:
Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Air-Cooled Small (>=65,000 Btu/h),
Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating
Equipment
Note: Prior to December 19, 2016, representations with respect
to the energy use or efficiency of air-cooled small, large, and very
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment,
including compliance certifications, must be based on testing
conducted in accordance with either Table 1 to Sec. 431.96 as it
now appears or Table 1 to Sec. 431.96 as it appeared in subpart F
of this part, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as
of January 1, 2015. After December 19, 2016, representations with
respect to energy use or efficiency of air-cooled small, large, and
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating
equipment, including compliance certifications, must be based on
testing conducted in accordance with Table 1 to Sec. 431.96 as it
now appears.
(1) Cooling mode test method. The test method for cooling mode
consists of the methods and conditions in AHRI 340/360-2007 sections
3, 4, and 6 (omitting section
[[Page 79671]]
6.3) (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.95), and in ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.95). In
case of a conflict between AHRI 340/360-2007 or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009
and the CFR, the CFR provisions control.
(2) Heating mode test method. The test method for heating mode
consists of the methods and conditions in AHRI 340/360-2007 sections
3, 4, and 6 (omitting section 6.3) (incorporated by reference; see
Sec. 431.95), and in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 (incorporated by
reference; see Sec. 431.95). In case of a conflict between AHRI
340/360-2007 or ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 and the CFR, the CFR provisions
control.
(3) Minimum external static pressure. Use the certified cooling
capacity for the basic model to choose the minimum external static
pressure found in table 5 of section 6 of AHRI 340/360-2007
(incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.95) for testing.
(4) Optional break-in period. Manufacturers may optionally
specify a ``break-in'' period, not to exceed 20 hours, to operate
the equipment under test prior to conducting the test method in
appendix A of this part. A manufacturer who elects to use an
optional compressor break-in period in its certification testing
must record this information (including the duration) as part of the
information in the supplemental testing instructions under 10 CFR
429.43.
(5) Additional provisions for equipment set-up. The only
additional specifications that may be used in setting up a unit for
test are those set forth in the installation and operation manual
shipped with the unit. Each unit should be set up for test in
accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation manuals.
Paragraphs (5)(i) through (ii) of this section provide
specifications for addressing key information typically found in the
installation and operation manuals.
(i) If a manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-
cooling, and/or refrigerant pressure in its installation and
operation manual for a given basic model, any value(s) within that
range may be used to determine refrigerant charge or mass of
refrigerant, unless the manufacturer clearly specifies a rating
value in its installation and operation manual, in which case the
specified rating value shall be used.
(ii) The airflow rate used for testing must be that set forth in
the installation and operation manuals being shipped to the customer
with the basic model and clearly identified as that used to generate
the DOE performance ratings. If a certified airflow value for
testing is not clearly identified, a value of 400 standard cubic
feet per minute (scfm) per ton shall be used.
(6) Indoor airflow testing and adjustment. (i) When testing
full-capacity cooling operation at the required external static
pressure condition, the full-load indoor airflow rate must be within
+/- 3 percent of the certified-rated airflow at full-capacity
cooling operation. If the indoor airflow rate at the required
minimum external pressure is outside the +/- 3-percent tolerance,
the unit and/or test setup must be adjusted such that both the
airflow and ESP are within the required tolerances. This process may
include, but is not limited to, adjusting any adjustable motor
sheaves, adjusting variable drive settings, or adjusting the code
tester fan.
(ii) When testing other than full-capacity cooling operation
using the full-load indoor airflow rate (e.g., full-load heating),
the full-load indoor airflow rate must be within +/- 3 percent of
the certified-rated full-load cooling airflow (without regard to the
resulting external static pressure), unless the unit is designed to
operate at a different airflow for cooling and heating mode. If
necessary, a test facility setup may be made in order to maintain
airflow within the required tolerance; however, no adjustments to
the unit under test may be made.
(7) Condenser head pressure controls. Condenser head pressure
controls, if typically shipped with units of the basic model by the
manufacturer or available as an option to the basic model, must be
active during testing.
(8) Standard CFM. In the referenced sections of AHRI 340/360-
2007 (incorporated by reference; see Sec. 431.95), all instances of
CFM refer to standard CFM (SCFM). Likewise, all references to
airflow or air quantity refer to standard airflow and standard air
quantity.
(9) Capacity rating at part-load. When testing to determine EER
for the part-load rating points (i.e. 75-percent load, 50-percent
load, and 25-percent load), if the measured capacity expressed as a
percent of full-load capacity for a given part-load test is within
three percent above or below the target part-load percentage, the
EER calculated for the test may be used without any interpolation to
determine IEER.
(10) Condenser air inlet temperature for part-load testing. When
testing to determine EER for the part-load rating points (i.e. 75-
percent load, 50-percent load, and 25-percent load), the condenser
air inlet temperature shall be calculated (using the equation in
Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2007; incorporated by reference; see Sec.
431.95) for the target percent load rather than for the percent load
measured in the test. Table 1 of this appendix shows the condenser
air inlet temperature corresponding with each target percent load,
as calculated using the equation in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2007.
Table 1 to Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431--Condenser Air Inlet
Temperatures for Part-Load Tests
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Condenser air
inlet
Target percent load (%) temperature
([deg]F)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
25..................................................... 65
50..................................................... 68
75..................................................... 81.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2015-31906 Filed 12-22-15; 8:45 a.m.]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
