Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps, 2490-2522 [2021-28553]

Download as PDF 2490 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020] RIN 1904–AD94 Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedure for Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment. AGENCY: The U.S. Department of Energy (‘‘DOE’’) proposes to amend its test procedures for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference the most recent version of the relevant industry test standard, AHRI 390–2021, and to amend certain provisions for representations for the subject equipment. DOE is also proposing definitions for ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioners with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and for ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.’’ The proposed definitions would explicitly define this equipment as subsets of the broader single package vertical air conditioner and single package vertical heat pump equipment categories, and further distinguish such equipment from certain residential central air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE seeks comment from interested parties on this proposal. DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposal no later than March 15, 2022. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for details. Meeting: DOE will hold a webinar on Wednesday, February 9th, 2022, from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. SUMMARY: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020, by any of the following methods: lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 ADDRESSES: VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. 2. Email: To SPVACandHeatPumps2017TP0020@ ee.doe.gov. Include docket number EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020 in the subject line of the message. No telefacsimiles (‘‘faxes’’) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ of this document. Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of the ongoing COVID–19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586– 1445 to discuss the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID–19 pandemic health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail and hand delivery/courier. Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting/webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not be publicly available. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE2017-BT-TP-0020. The docket web page contains instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for information on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Catherine Rivest, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586– 7335. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Mr. Eric Stas, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 586–5827. Email: Eric.Stas@hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in a public meeting/webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287–1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. DOE proposes to maintain a previously approved incorporation by reference and incorporate by reference the following industry standards into parts 429 and 431: AHRI Standard 390–2021 ‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ dated 2021. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92), ‘‘Standard Methods For Laboratory Airflow Measurement,’’ ASHRAE approved October 1, 1987. Copies of AHRI Standard 390–2021 can be obtained from the Airconditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or by going to www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx. Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009 and ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92) can be obtained from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating, and Air-Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092, (404) 636–8400, or by going to https://www.ashrae.org/. See section IV.M for a further discussion of these standards. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Table of Contents I. Authority and Background A. Authority B. Background II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking III. Discussion A. Scope of Applicability B. Updates to Industry Standards 1. Updates to AHRI 390 2. ASHRAE 37 C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU Test Procedure D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor 1. Efficiency Metrics 2. Test Conditions Used for Efficiency Metrics 3. Fan Energy Use E. Test Method E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 1. Unit Set-Up 2. Air Temperature Measurements 3. Defrost Energy Use 4. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method F. Configuration of Unit Under Test 1. Specific Components G. Represented Values 1. Multiple Refrigerants 2. Cooling Capacity H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact I. Reserved Appendices for Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment J. Compliance Dates IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution C. Conduct of the Webinar D. Submission of Comments E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 I. Authority and Background Single package vertical air conditioners (‘‘SPVACs’’) and single package vertical heat pumps (‘‘SPVHPs’’), collectively referred to as single package vertical units (‘‘SPVUs’’), are a category of small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. Accordingly, SPVUs are included in the list of ‘‘covered equipment’’ for which DOE is authorized to establish and amend energy conservation standards and test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D)) DOE’s energy conservation standards and test procedures for SPVUs are currently prescribed at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (‘‘CFR’’) section 97 to subpart F of part 431 and section 96 to subpart F of part 431, respectively. The following sections discuss DOE’s authority to establish test procedures for SPVUs and relevant background information regarding DOE’s consideration of test procedures for SPVUs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 A. Authority The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, as amended (‘‘EPCA’’),1 authorizes DOE to regulate the energy efficiency of a number of consumer products and certain industrial equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317) Title III, Part C 2 of EPCA, added by Public Law 95–619, Title IV, section 441(a), established the Energy Conservation Program for Certain Industrial Equipment, which sets forth a variety of provisions designed to improve energy efficiency. This equipment includes small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, including SPVUs. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)– (D)) The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) Testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA specifically include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6291;42 U.S.C. 6311), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6293; 42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6294; 42 U.S.C. 6315), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6295; 42 U.S.C. 6313), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers. (42 U.S.C. 6296; 42 U.S.C. 6316) The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) Certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). DOE also uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d); 42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)D)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA sets forth the criteria and procedures DOE must 1 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020). 2 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2491 follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. EPCA requires that any test procedures prescribed or amended under this section be reasonably designed to produce test results which measure energy efficiency, energy use, or estimated annual operating cost of a covered product during a representative average use cycle or period of use and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314 (a)(2)) As discussed earlier in this document, SPVUs are a category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by the AirConditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (‘‘AHRI’’) or by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers (‘‘ASHRAE’’), as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1, ‘‘Energy Standard for Buildings Except Low-Rise Residential Buildings’’ (‘‘ASHRAE Standard 90.1’’). (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE must evaluate the test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including SPVUs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) In addition, if the Secretary determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Secretary must publish proposed test procedures in the Federal Register and afford interested persons an opportunity (of not less than 45 days duration) to present oral and written data, views, and arguments on the proposed test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(b)) If DOE determines that test procedure revisions are not appropriate, DOE must publish its determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2492 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules DOE is publishing this NOPR in satisfaction of its obligations under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) B. Background DOE’s existing test procedures for SPVUs are set forth at 10 CFR 431.96. The Federal test procedure currently incorporates ANSI/AHRI Standard 390– 2003 (‘‘ANSI/AHRI 390–2003’’), ‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ (omitting section 6.4), and it also includes additional provisions in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 that provide for an optional break-in period and additional provisions for equipment set-up, respectively. DOE established its test procedure for SPVUs in a final rule for commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment published in the Federal Register on May 16, 2012. 77 FR 28928, 28932. ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 was the SPVU test standard referenced in the edition of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 current at that time. On July 20, 2018, DOE published a request for information (‘‘RFI’’) in the Federal Register to collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE’s test procedures for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499 (‘‘July 2018 RFI’’). As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE identified and requested comment on several issues associated with the currently applicable Federal test procedures, in particular concerning incorporation by reference of the most recent version of the relevant industry standard; efficiency metrics and calculations; and clarification of test methods. Id. at 83 FR 3449. DOE also sought comment on any additional topics that may inform DOE’s decisions in a future test procedure rulemaking, including methods to reduce regulatory burden while ensuring the test procedures’ accuracy. Id. DOE received a number of comments from interested parties in response to the July 2018 RFI. Table I–1 lists each commenter and the abbreviation for each used in this document. DOE considered these comments in the preparation of this NOPR. Discussion of the relevant comments, as well as DOE’s responses, are provided in the appropriate sections of this document. TABLE I–1—INTERESTED PARTIES PROVIDING COMMENT ON THE JULY 2018 RFI Commenter(s) Abbreviation Commenter type Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ..................................................................... Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Natural Resources Defense Council, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. GE Appliances, a Haier Company .................................................................................................. Lennox International Inc .................................................................................................................. Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council .............. Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E), San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), and Southern California Edison (SCE); collectively the California Investor-Owned Utilities. AHRI ................................. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE. GE ..................................... Lennox .............................. NEEA and NWPCC .......... CA IOUs ........................... IR. EA. M. M. EA and Interstate Compact Agency. U. EA: Efficiency/Environmental Advocate; IR: Industry Representative; M: Manufacturer; U: Utility. II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to amend the test procedures for SPVUs to incorporate by reference AHRI 390– 2021. DOE proposes to add a new appendix G, ‘‘Uniform test method for measuring the energy consumption of single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps,’’ (‘‘appendix G’’) that would include the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring the existing efficiency metrics: (1) EER for cooling mode and (2) COP for heating mode. DOE is also proposing add a new appendix G1 that would include the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring with updated efficiency metrics: (1) IEER for cooling mode and (2) COP for heating mode. Appendix G1 would provide the test procedure for representations based on IEER and would be mandatory only at such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards based on IEER, should DOE adopt standards using such metrics. Additionally, DOE is proposing to define ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ as subsets of the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category, in order to clarify what kind of single-phase equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h was contemplated in the broader definitions of SPVAC and SPVHP established by Congress. Single-phase equipment meeting these definitions would be subject to the applicable commercial equipment energy conservation standards for SPVACs and SPVHPs, while single-phase products not meeting these definitions would properly be classified as CAC and subject to the applicable consumer products energy conservation standards. DOE is proposing to establish appendices for the relevant test procedures for SPVUs to better differentiate the specific testing requirements. Currently, the test requirements for all types of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps, including SPVUs, are codified at 10 CFR 431.96. In conjunction, DOE proposes to amend Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 to identify the newly added Appendices G and G1 as the applicable test procedures for testing SPVUs. DOE’s proposed actions are summarized in Table II–1 and addressed in detail in section III of this document. 3 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the docket of DOE’s rulemaking to amend the test procedures for SPVUs (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov/ #!docketDetail;D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020). The references are arranged as follows: (Commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.3 On June 24, 2021, AHRI published updates to its test procedure for SPVUs as AHRI Standard 390–2021, ‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps’’ (‘‘AHRI 390–2021’’). Among other things, AHRI 390–2021 maintains the existing efficiency metrics—energy efficiency ratio (‘‘EER’’) for cooling mode and coefficient of performance (‘‘COP’’) for heating mode—but it also added a seasonal metric that includes part-load cooling performance—the integrated energy efficiency ratio (‘‘IEER’’) metric. AHRI 390–2021 also includes additional specifications regarding the test methods and conditions. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2493 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules TABLE II–1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE Current DOE TP Proposed TP Incorporates by reference ANSI/ AHRI 390–2003 (excluding section 6.4). Incorporates by reference AHRI 390–2021, which includes the following changes ........................ —Includes a new energy efficiency descriptor, IEER, which incorporates part-load performance. —Provides direction and accompanying definitions for determining whether a unit is tested as a ducted or non-ducted unit. —Directs that the outdoor air-side attachments used for testing must be specified by the manufacturer in the supplemental testing instructions. —Includes refrigerant charging instructions for cases where they are not provided by the manufacturer. —Specifies tolerances for achieving the rated airflow and/or minimum external static pressure (‘‘ESP’’) during testing and specifies how to set indoor airflow if airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be simultaneously met. —Incorporates specifications for measuring outdoor air conditions. —Requires data be recorded at equal intervals of 5 minutes or less over a 30-minute measurement period. —Clarifies that test results for outdoor air enthalpy method are based on results without test apparatus connected. —Defines the term ‘‘manufacturer’s installation instructions’’ and includes hierarchy of precedence if multiple instructions are included. Includes additional definitions: ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’. Adopt industry test procedure. Includes provisions for testing when certain components are present ............................................ Establish provisions for testing with certain components. Only includes definitions for the equipment categories; ‘‘Single Package Vertical Air Conditioner’’ and ‘‘Single Package Vertical Heat Pump’’. Does not include provisions for certain components. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments would not be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments described in section III of this NOPR would not alter the measured efficiency of SPVUs or require retesting solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedure, if made final. Use of the updated industry test procedure provisions as proposed in Appendix G1 and the related proposed amendments to representation requirements in 10 CFR 429.43 would not be required until the compliance date of any amended standards denominated in terms of IEER. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments, if made final, would not increase the cost of testing. Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR. III. Discussion lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. Scope of Applicability EPCA, as amended by the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (‘‘EISA 2007’’), Public Law 110–140 (Dec. 19, 2007), defines ‘‘single package vertical air conditioner’’ and ‘‘single package vertical heat pump’’ at 42 U.S.C. 6311(22) and (23), respectively. In particular, these units can be singleor three-phase; must have major components arranged vertically; must be an encased combination of components; and must be intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall. DOE codified VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 Attribution the statutory definitions into its regulations at 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, EPCA established initial equipment classes for SPVUs with a capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h based on phase. (42 U.S.C. 6313(a)(10)(A)(i)– (ii) and (v)–(vi)) DOE currently defines an SPVAC as air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that: (1) Is factory-assembled as a single package that: (i) Has major components that are arranged vertically; (ii) is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating components; and (iii) is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) is powered by a singleor 3-phase current; (3) may contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (4) has heating components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse cycle refrigeration as a heating means. 10 CFR 431.92. Additionally, DOE defines an SPVHP as a single package vertical air conditioner that: (1) Uses reverse cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source; and (2) may include secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas. Id. The Federal test procedures are applicable to SPVUs with a cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h. (42 U.S.C. 6311(8)(D)) DOE is proposing to add specific definitions for ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Explicitly delineate SPVUs from other covered products. and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ to explicitly delineate such equipment from certain covered consumer products, such as central air conditioners, based on design characteristics. On April 24, 2020, DOE published in the Federal Register a request for information (‘‘RFI’’) with regards to SPVU energy conservation standards (85 FR 22958). In response to this RFI, Lennox commented that misunderstanding the distinction between CACs and SPVUs remains an outstanding issue on which DOE should take action. (Docket No. EERE–2019– BT–STD–0033–0008 at pp. 1–2)) EPCA defines a ‘‘central air conditioner’’ as a product, other than a packaged terminal air conditioner,4 which is powered by single-phase electric current, air-cooled, rated below 65,000 Btu per hour, is not contained within the same cabinet as a furnace with a rated capacity above 225,000 Btu per hour, and is a heat pump or a cooling only unit. (42 U.S.C. 6291(21)) DOE has incorporated this definition in 10 CFR 430.2. Reading the two definitions of SPVUs and CACs in isolation, certain singlephase air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000 4 ‘‘Packaged terminal air conditioner’’ is defined in 10 CFR 430.92 as a wall sleeve and a separate un-encased combination of heating and cooling assemblies specified by the builder and intended for mounting through the wall, and that is industrial equipment. It includes a prime source of refrigeration, separable outdoor louvers, forced ventilation, and heating availability by builder’s choice of hot water, steam, or electricity. E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2494 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules Btu/h and with their components arranged vertically could be understood to be SPVUs, as opposed to CACs. DOE has previously explained that the definitions of SPVUs and CACs must be read in the context of DOE’s authority to regulate certain consumer products (i.e., covered products) and certain industrial equipment (i.e., covered equipment). 79 FR 78614, 78625 (April 11, 2014). Industrial equipment under EPCA generally excludes ‘‘covered products.’’ (42 U.S.C. 6311(2)(A)(iii)) ‘‘Covered products’’ are certain consumer products explicitly set forth in the statute, as well as consumer products which have been classified as a covered product under 42 U.S.C. 6292(b). EPCA defines ‘‘consumer product,’’ in part, as an article which, to any significant extent, is distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals. (42 U.S.C. 6291(1)(B)) CACs are covered products. A product can only be classified as an SPVU, and, therefore, industrial equipment under EPCA, if it does not meet the definition of any covered product, including CACs. 79 FR 78614, 78625 (April 11, 2014). To clarify the distinction between SPVUs as industrial equipment and CACs as covered consumer products, DOE proposes to define in 10 CFR 431.92 ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.’’ The current definitions of SPVAC and SPVHP at 10 CFR 431.92 allow for both wallmounted and floor-mounted units, and either may use single-phase or threephase power. DOE proposes to include certain characteristics as part of these definitions that will evidence that these equipment would likely not be distributed to any significant extent in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals. These characteristics would distinguish SPVU equipment from CACs, which are consumer products. DOE has identified specific technical features that differentiate floormounted, single-phase units intended only for commercial applications (i.e., meaning they are SPVUs) from ones intended for consumer applications, such as multi-family type floormounted, single-phase units (i.e., meaning they are CACs). DOE has preliminarily determined that, in order to meet commercial building ventilation requirements 5 (an indication that a unit 5 ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2019 details ventilation standards for a variety of commercial building VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 is industrial equipment and not a consumer product), floor-mounted, single-phase units on the market have the ability for outdoor air intake. This is evidenced by the existence of outdoor air intake dampers and associated controls. These ventilation air provisions make the unit capable of drawing in and conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space (with or without first mixing the outdoor air with return air). Technical specifications for these floor-mounted, single-phase units detail both the incremental and maximum outdoor air flow rates available to meet the specific indoor air quality needs of building occupants. Of the maximum outdoor air flow rates that DOE identified for each unit on the market, the unit with the lowest maximum outdoor air flow rate identified was capable of providing a maximum of 400 cubic feet per minute (‘‘CFM’’) of outdoor air, with the same drive kit and motor settings used to determine the certified efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for submittal to DOE by 10 CFR 429.43(b)(4)(xi)). Conversely, DOE preliminarily has found that the multi-family type floormounted, single-phase units that are consumer products because they are distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals (i.e., CACs) have little to no ability to provide outdoor air to the conditioned space. Based on DOE’s review of manufacturer literature, for those consumer products that do provide outdoor air, none could provide more than 120 CFM of outdoor air to the conditioned space. Building ventilation codes may require specific levels of outdoor air flow for multifamily type structures, but the outdoor ventilation airflow requirements for such living spaces are substantially lower than those for the spaces generally served by the market for floorspaces, including educational spaces, which are the primary market for floor-mounted, single-phase SPVUs. Specifically, for standard classrooms occupied with persons between the ages of 5 and 8, 10 CFM of outdoor air flow per person is required at a default occupancy of 25 individuals per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a requirement of 250 CFM per 1,000 square feet under default occupancy. For standard classrooms occupied by persons 9 years and older, 10 CFM of outdoor air per person is required at a default occupancy of 35 individuals per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a requirement of 350 CFM per 1,000 square feet under default occupancy. For specialty classrooms (lecture rooms, art, science, college laboratories, wood/metal shops, computer labs, media centers, music/theater/dance), specific outdoor air requirements range from 250 CFM to 350 CFM per 1,000 square feet under default occupancy. (For further details, see ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 62.1– 2019, Table 6–1.) PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 mounted, single-phase SPVUs.6 Thus, DOE initially has determined that, at the present time and in most cases, these outdoor ventilation airflow requirements are adequately met using ventilation techniques other than the outdoor air provisions incorporated in single-package units.7 In addition, DOE notes that in other applications in areas where ventilation standards exist specifically for residences, the required outdoor air flow levels for these structures are similar to those for multifamily type structures.8 Based on the discussion in the prior paragraphs, DOE has preliminarily determined that a key physical characteristic demonstrating that floormounted, single-phase SPVUs are not ‘‘of a type’’ distributed in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals is the ability to provide outdoor air sufficient for commercial applications. Equipment with the ability to provide 400 CFM or greater of outdoor air, which significantly exceeds the outdoor air requirements for residences and multi-family applications, would likely not be distributed to any significant extent in commerce for personal use or consumption by individuals and, therefore, is not a consumer product. (See 42 U.S.C. 6291(1)) DOE’s review of the market for wallmounted configurations did not find that there was a threshold capability of providing outdoor air to distinguish between wall-mounted, single-phase units for use in commercial applications 6 For the multi-family applications of hotels, motels, resorts, and dormitories, ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2019 requires outdoor air flow rates of 5 CFM per person at a default occupancy of 10 individuals per 1,000 square feet. This translates to a requirement of 50 CFM per 1,000 square feet under default occupancy. (For further details, see ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2019, Table 6–1.) 7 Ventilation in high-rise multi-family apartment buildings is typically achieved using a combination of natural and mechanical ventilation. The preferred mechanical ventilation method is a central system, which uses ventilation ducts oriented vertically through stacks of apartments, with make-up air sourced from air conditioning/ heating units located on the roof and supplied via vertical ducts. For more information see: A Guide to Energy Efficient Ventilation in Apartment Buildings. U.S. Department of Energy (DOE/EE– 0196). 1999 (Available at: eetd.lbl.gov/node/50537). 8 Table N1104.2 of the ‘‘Minnesota Rules, Chapter 1322 Residential Energy Code’’ specifies ventilation rates for residences based on a range of square footages and numbers of bedrooms. For residences with a conditioned space between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet in area, ventilation rates are similar to those listed in ASHRAE Standard 62.1–2013 per 1,000 square feet for the multi-family applications of hotels, motels, resorts, and dormitories. Specifically, for residences with a conditioned space between 1,000 and 1,500 square feet in area, total ventilation rates range from 60 CFM (for a single-bedroom residence) to 135 CFM (for a sixbedroom residence). E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules (SPVUs) and multi-family-type floormounted, single-phase units (CACs). However, based on DOE’s review, all wall-mounted units marketed for commercial applications identified by DOE were weatherized (i.e., designed for outdoor use) and denoted on their nameplate that they are for ‘‘Outdoor Use’’ or ‘‘Suitable for Outdoor Use.’’ Conversely, all units marketed for multifamily-type floor-mounted applications identified by DOE were nonweatherized units. Based on this review, DOE also proposes that whether a model is weatherized or non-weatherized is a criterion for distinguishing between single-phase SPVUs and consumer CACs. Therefore, DOE proposes to define in 10 CFR 431.92 ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ as SPVACs and SPVHPs, respectively, that are either (1) weatherized, or (2) nonweatherized and have the ability to provide a minimum of 400 CFM of outdoor air. Single-phase single package products with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h not meeting these definitions would be properly classified as CACs, not SPVUs. DOE recognizes that the confusion with the appropriate classification of CACs and SPVUs may have been compounded by DOE’s definition of ‘‘space-constrained’’ CACs and ASHRAE Standard 90.1’s definition of ‘‘nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical unit.’’ Nonetheless, because a spaceconstrained product is a central air conditioner or heat pump, it is properly classified as a consumer product. In 10 CFR 430.2, DOE defines ‘‘space constrained product’’ as a central air conditioner or heat pump with certain characteristics including rated cooling capacity no greater than 30,000 Btu/hr and an outdoor or indoor unit with dimensions or displacement substantially smaller than those of other units and that if increased would increase installation cost or reduce utility, and which was available for purchase in the United States as of December 1, 2000. As with CACs more broadly, if a unit meets DOE’s definition of ‘‘space constrained product,’’ it is not an SPVU. In contrast, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 2013 created a new equipment class for SPVACs and SPVHPs used in spaceconstrained applications, with a definition for ‘‘nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical unit’’ and specified efficiency standards VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 for the associated equipment class. In a Notice of Data Availability addressing energy conservation standards for certain commercial heating, air conditioning, and water heating equipment, including SPVUs, published in the Federal Register on April 11, 2014, DOE explicitly addressed ‘‘nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical units’’ and tentatively concluded that there was no need to establish a separate spaceconstrained class for SPVUs. 79 FR 20114, 20123. In that document, DOE stated that certain models currently listed by manufacturers as SPVUs, most of which would have met the ASHRAE space-constrained definition, were being misclassified and should be classified as central air conditioners (in most cases, space-constrained central air conditioners). Id. DOE reaffirmed this position in a NOPR addressing energy conservation standards for SPVUs, published in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014, emphasizing that a product can only be considered commercial/industrial equipment under EPCA if it does not meet the definition of a consumer product. 79 FR 78614, 78625. In the subsequent final rule addressing energy conversation standards for SPVUs, DOE did not adopt definitions in response to this issue and stated it would consider the matter in a subsequent rulemaking. 80 FR 57438, 57448 (Sept. 23, 2015). DOE has now tentatively determined that the characteristics included in the proposed definitions earlier in this section of ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ appropriately distinguish such equipment from consumer products and address any potential confusion as to the application of the DOE definition of ‘‘space constrained products’’ to SPVUs. In regard to determining if a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM of outdoor air, DOE is proposing to include provisions in 10 CFR 429.134 that specify the method of measurement of the maximum outdoor ventilation airflow rate. DOE is proposing to specify that the outdoor ventilation airflow rate should be set up and measured in accordance with ASHRAE 41.2–1987, ‘‘Standard Methods for Laboratory Airflow Measurement,’’ and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37–2009. DOE notes that the proposed method for measuring outdoor ventilation airflow is generally consistent with the test methods specified in AHRI 390–2021 (i.e., AHRI 390–2021 incorporates by reference PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2495 ASHRAE 37–2009, including Section 6.4, which in turn incorporates by reference ASHRAE 41.2–1987, which specify the method of airflow measurement.) DOE is proposing additional specifications in this NOPR to clarify how these provisions are applied to measure the outdoor ventilation airflow rate. First, DOE is proposing to specify that all references to the inlet in ASHRAE 41.2–1987 and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37–2009 refer to the outdoor air inlet. Second, DOE is proposing to specify that the measurement should take place at the conditions specified for Full Load Standard Rating Capacity Test, Cooling in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021, except for the minimum external static pressure (ESP). The minimum ESP for all validations shall be 0.00 in. H2O measured from inlet to outlet, with a tolerance of ¥0.00/+0.05 in. H2O. Finally, DOE is proposing that the outdoor air inlet pressure shall be 0.00 in. H2O, with a tolerance of ¥0.00/ +0.05 in. H2O when measured against the room ambient. These additional provisions would improve the representativeness, repeatability, and reproducibility of the test methods for validating the outdoor ventilation airflow rate. Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its proposal to define ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ as subsets of the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category. DOE requests feedback on the proposed characteristics that would distinguish this equipment as SPVUs (i.e., ‘‘weatherized’’ or capable of utilizing a maximum of 400 CFM of outdoor air). Additionally, DOE requests comment on the proposed method to validate that a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM of outdoor air. B. Updates to Industry Standards 1. Updates to AHRI 390 As described in section I.A of this NOPR, with respect to SPVUs, EPCA directs DOE to use industry test methods developed or recognized by AHRI or ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended, EPCA requires that DOE amend its test procedure as necessary to be consistent with the amended industry test method unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2496 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules amended test procedure would be unduly burdensome to conduct or would not produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of that equipment during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) As mentioned, the DOE test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96 references ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 (excluding Section 6.4) for testing SPVUs, and ASHRAE Standard 90.1 references this same industry test standard. In response to the July 2018 RFI, GE commented that DOE should continue to incorporate by reference the ASHRAE, ANSI, and AHRI test procedures for SPVUs, including new editions when published by the standards-setting bodies. (GE, No. 3 at p. 1) 9 AHRI and Lennox encouraged DOE’s continued participation in the process to revise AHRI 390. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at pp. 1–2) AHRI and Lennox recommended that DOE adopt the revised industry test standard as the DOE test procedure. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 2; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 1) On June 24, 2021, AHRI published AHRI 390–2021, which supersedes ANSI/AHRI 390–2003. AHRI 390–2021, which was developed as part of an industry consensus process, includes revisions that DOE has initially determined improve the representativeness, repeatability, and reproducibility of the test methods. These revisions include, among other things, the following: (1) A new energy efficiency descriptor, IEER, which incorporates part-load cooling performance; (2) additional specification to the testing requirements for ducted and non-ducted units; (3) refrigerant charging instructions for cases where they are not provided by the manufacturer; (4) additional specification for setting the airflow rates and external static pressure for testing; (5) additional specification for the measurement of air conditions; (6) additional specification for the secondary capacity measurement using the outdoor air enthalpy method; (7) guidance on the filter to be used during test; (8) specification of a maximum compressor break-in period; (9) further specificity for atmospheric pressure measurement requirements; (10) additional detail regarding the installation of outdoor air-side attachments; (11) additional direction 9 A notation in the form ‘‘GE, No. 3 at p. 1’’ identifies a written comment: (1) Made by GE; (2) recorded in document number 3 that is filed in the docket of the SPVU test procedure rulemaking (Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0020) and available for review at www.regulations.gov; and (3) that appears on page 1 of document number 3. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 on the use of applicable manufacturer instructions; and (12) a list of components that must be present for testing. DOE carefully reviewed the changes in AHRI 390–2021 in consideration of this NOPR. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the latest version of the industry test procedure for SPVUs, AHRI 390–2021, per 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A) and (B). 2. ASHRAE 37 ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, a method of test for many categories of air conditioning and heating equipment, is referenced by AHRI 390–2021 for testing SPVUs. In particular, Appendix E of AHRI 390–2021 specifies the method of test for SPVUs, including the use of specified provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. Consistent with AHRI 390– 2021, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 in its test procedure for SPVUs. Specifically, in Section 1.2 of the proposed test procedure for SPVUs in the proposed Appendices G and G1 of subpart F of 10 CFR part 431, DOE is proposing to utilize the applicable sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009—all sections except sections 1, 2 and 4. DOE also is proposing that in the event of any conflicts between the DOE test procedure, AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 37–2009, the DOE test procedure takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 390–2021, followed by ASHRAE 37–2009. C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU Test Procedure DOE is proposing to relocate and centralize the current test procedure for SPVUs to a new Appendix G to subpart F of part 431. Appendix G will incorporate by reference AHRI 390– 2021, but DOE will exclude from use those sections pertaining to the calculation of IEER (section 6.2). Correspondingly, DOE is proposing to update the existing incorporation by reference of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 at 10 CFR 431.95 so that the incorporation by reference applies to Appendix G rather than 10 CFR 431.96. As proposed, SPVUs would be tested according to Appendix G unless and until DOE adopts an amended energy conservation standard that relies on the IEER metric. DOE also is proposing to amend the test procedure for SPVUs by adopting the updated version of AHRI 390–2021, including use of the sections pertaining to IEER (section 6.2) in a new Appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431, as discussed in the following sections. As proposed, SPVUs would not be required to test according to the test procedure in PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 proposed Appendix G1 unless and until DOE adopts an amended energy conservation standard that relies on the IEER metric. D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor For SPVUs, DOE currently prescribes EER as the cooling mode metric and COP as the heating mode metric. 10 CFR 431.96. These energy efficiency descriptors are consistent with those included in ASHRAE 90.1–2019 for SPVUs. EER is the ratio of the produced cooling effect of the SPVU to its net work input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour and measured at standard rating conditions. COP is the ratio of the produced heating effect of the SPVU to its net work input, expressed in W/W, and measured at standard rating conditions. 1. Efficiency Metrics EER measures efficiency at full-load conditions. DOE’s current test procedure for SPVUs does not include a seasonal metric that measures partload performance. A seasonal metric is a weighted average of the performance of cooling or heating systems at different rating points intended to represent average efficiency over a full cooling or heating season. DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that several other categories of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment are rated using a seasonal metric, such as IEER for air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (‘‘CUACs’’), as presented in Section 6.2 of AHRI 340/360–2019, ‘‘Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment.’’ 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). IEER is a weighted average of efficiency at the four load levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent of full-load capacity, each measured at an outdoor air condition representative of field operation at the given load level. DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 includes a seasonal part-load metric for SPVUs (i.e., integrated part-load value (‘‘IPLV’’)). 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). IPLV integrates unit performance at each capacity step provided by the refrigeration system. The IPLV tests are conducted at constant outdoor air conditions of 80 °F dry-bulb temperature and 67 °F wet-bulb temperature. Id. DOE is aware that some manufacturers make representations of part-load performance of SPVUs in product literature using IPLV. DOE has noted that IPLV was formerly used for rating CUACs but has since been removed from AHRI 340/360 in favor of IEER. Id. E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it should consider adopting for SPVUs a cooling-mode metric that integrates part-load performance to better represent full-season efficiency, and whether a part-load metric such as IEER or IPLV would be appropriate for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). AHRI and GE both commented that DOE should not consider adopting a part-load cooling metric at this time, stating that doing so would increase test burden for a specialized product sold in a comparatively small market. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6; GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE noted that for SPVUs with single-speed compressors, the EER test method requires only a single test with an average of 8 hours to complete and validate test data, whereas an IEER test method would require four tests, which entails additional testing time and cost. (GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE stated that for dual-voltage units, the IEER test method would increase test time to approximately 64 hours per unit, and that the time to test 3 units for a given model would increase testing time from 48 hours to 192 hours under the IEER test method. Id. AHRI commented that a part-load metric may be appropriate for some equipment, such as two-stage or variable-capacity SPVUs, but only for certain applications. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) AHRI and Lennox commented that as part of the revisions to AHRI 390, industry is assessing whether IEER or IPLV would better represent part-load performance for units other than singlestage products. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6; Lennox. No. 6 at p. 5) Lennox commented that while a part-load metric may be a favorable option for SPVUs in the long term, there was not sufficient data at that time to evaluate the impacts on performance and the increase in test burden versus potential consumer benefits of optimized partload performance. (Lennox. No. 6 at p. 5) The CA IOUs commented that the IEER metric was developed for CUACs with greater than 65,000 Btu/h cooling capacity using office, retail, and larger permanent school space loads as the basis for the part-load weighting factors. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 3) They noted that SPVUs are generally used in smaller settings, such as electronic sheds and relatively small relocatable classrooms. Id. The CA IOUs stated that, while there may be some shortcomings with the IEER metric, it results in ratings more reflective of annual energy efficiency than those produced by IPLV. Id. The CA IOUs commented that IPLV, on the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 other hand, has a strong potential to misrepresent efficiency ratings because it does not rate all units at identical capacity points, leading to a difference in the weighting factors used for various equipment. Id. In addition, the CA IOUs commented that all part-load ratings are measured at an ambient outdoor temperature of 80 °F. Id. The CA IOUs asserted that these two factors often cause tested units with fewer capacity reduction stages to have higher measured efficiencies than those with more stages, whereas in reality, units with more stages tend to be more efficient. Id. The CA IOUs stated that while the IEER metric provides a valuable measure of annual efficiency, the EER metric is important for achieving reductions in peak loads. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 3) The CA IOUs stated that because the IEER metric uses a low weighting (i.e., 2 percent) of the fullload condition, a standard based only on the IEER metric would incentive manufacturers to optimize equipment at the part-load conditions and could potentially result in equipment that is designed with lower full-load EERs than the current standards for this equipment. Id. The CA IOUs supported using both the IEER metric that measures part-load efficiencies in conjunction with the currently regulated full-load EER metric as a means to prevent poor equipment performance at full-load conditions. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should develop a new cooling efficiency metric for SPVUs that reflects annual energy consumption, including part-load operation. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1–2) They stated that the current EER metric reflects only fullload, steady-state operation, but that SPVUs rarely operate at full-load in the field. Id. at 1. In addition, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE stated that the current metric is not able to demonstrate potential improved efficiency of SPVUs with variable-speed or thermostatic and electronic expansion valve technologies. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE also commented that the IEER metric is not representative of locations and usage patterns for SPVUs and encouraged DOE to investigate a part-load performance metric that better reflects SPVU usage. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at pp. 1–2) They commented that DOE should consider its analysis from the most recent SPVU standards rulemaking, which included building simulation models for modular classrooms, modular offices, and telecommunication shelters, to inform the development of PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2497 load points and weightings for a partload metric. Id. at 2. In response, DOE recognizes that SPVUs often operate at part-load (i.e., less than designed full-load capacity) in the field, depending on the application and location. As discussed in section III.B, AHRI 390–2021 includes a new part-load cooling metric, IEER. To the extent that AHRI expressed concerns regarding the IEER test method in response to the July 2018 TP RFI, DOE presumes that AHRI’s original position on this issue changed during the course of developing AHRI 390–2021. The test conditions and weighting factors for this IEER metric in AHRI 390–2021 were developed specifically for SPVUs based on an annual building load analysis and temperature data for buildings representative of SPVU installations, including modular classrooms, modular offices, and telecommunication shelters.10 The test conditions and weighting factors for the four load levels representing 100, 75, 50, and 25 percent of full-load capacity are different than those used in the IEER metric in AHRI 340/360–2019, which were developed based on CUAC building types. As a result, DOE considers the IEER metric representative of the cooling efficiency for SPVUs on an annual basis, and more representative than the current EER metric. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 390– 2021, which maintains the existing fullload cooling mode metric, EER, and adds the IEER metric for SPVUs. More specifically, DOE is proposing to add a new Appendix G that would include the relevant test procedure requirements for SPVUs for measuring efficiency using the existing efficiency metrics (i.e., EER for cooling mode and COP for heating mode) and to add a new Appendix G1 that would incorporate the provisions for measuring efficiency using IEER and COP. Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the test methods specified in AHRI 390–2021 for calculating IEER for SPVUs. As discussed, DOE’s current standards for SPVUs at 10 CFR 431.97 specify minimum efficiency requirements based on the full-load cooling metric, EER, and the heating metric, COP. The current DOE standards levels are the same as those specified in the current version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (ASHRAE 90.1–2019). 10 Based on EnergyPlus analysis developed for the previous energy conservation standards rulemaking for SPVUs. 80 FR 57438, 57462 (Sept. 23, 2015). EnergyPlus is a whole building energy simulation program (Available at: https://apps1.eere.energy.gov/ buildings/energyplus/). E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2498 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules Any future energy conservation standards based on IEER would evaluate differences in the measured energy efficiency based on the IEER metric relative to EER (i.e., by developing an appropriate ‘‘crosswalk,’’ as necessary), and would consider data and/or analysis that compares the ratings of SPVUs under the two metrics. Issue 3: DOE requests comment and data on ratings under the current EER metric specified in 10 CFR 431.97 and ASHRAE 90.1–2019 based on ANSI/ AHRI 390–2003, as compared to ratings using the IEER metric under AHRI 390– 2021. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA and NWPCC, commented in response to the July 2018 RFI that DOE should consider a dynamic, load-based test procedure to measure both cooling and heating efficiency of SPVUs, similar to the test procedure for residential central air conditioners developed by the Canadian Standards Association (‘‘CSA’’) Group. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC commented that a load-based test procedure, such as the CSA test procedure, could measure energy use of the equipment at 25, 50, 75 and 100percent load without overriding equipment controls, as opposed to the current IEER test specified in AHRI 340/ 360 for CUACs that locks equipment controls to 25, 50, 75 and 100 percent of capacity. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) They commented that a loadbased test would allow manufacturers to design equipment controls and thermostats that would reduce unnecessary cycling and improve humidity control. Id. According to NEEA and NWPCC, the current IEER test method specified in AHRI 340/360 uses an artificially low maximum cycling loss that does not provide incentive for manufacturers to reduce cycling losses. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA and NWPCC, commented that a load-based test would better capture how SPVUs perform in the field under varying loads, including capturing the impact of cycling losses, the potential benefits of variable-speed operation, and the importance of control strategies. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) DOE is currently not aware of data showing that any dynamic load-based test procedure produces repeatable and reproducible test results. Furthermore, DOE is not aware of data showing that the CSA test procedure recommended by NEEA and NWPCC produces repeatable and reproducible results for central air conditioners (‘‘CACs’’) and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 heat pumps, and that procedure has not yet been evaluated for SPVUs. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any dynamic load-based test procedures at this time. 2. Test Conditions Used for Efficiency Metrics Under 42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1), EPCA requires that representations with respect to the energy consumption of SPVUs must be based on the DOE test procedure. DOE notes that the heating mode test used to calculate COP and determine compliance with standards for SPVHPs is conducted at 47 °F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature and 43 °F outdoor air wet-bulb temperature, and is designated as the ‘‘Full Load Standard Rating Capacity Test, Heating’’ in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021. DOE is proposing to also utilize Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021, which includes an optional ‘‘Low Temperature Operation’’ heating application rating test that manufacturers may use to make representations of energy consumption for SPVUs. That test is based on an outdoor air dry-bulb temperature of 17 °F and outdoor air wet-bulb temperature of 15 °F. To allow manufacturers to make voluntary representations at the lower temperature condition, DOE is proposing to specify in Appendices G and G1 that the low temperature operation heating mode test conditions specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are optional. This would clarify that additional representations for SPVHPs at a lower temperature condition are optional, but that if such representations are made, they must be based on testing conducted in accordance with the DOE test procedure using the specified low temperature operation heating mode test conditions in addition to those made at the full-load standard heating conditions. Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify that COP representations using the ‘‘Low Temperature Operation, Heating’’ conditions in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are optional. 3. Fan Energy Use As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether changes to the SPVU test procedure are needed to properly characterize a representative average use cycle, including changes to more accurately represent fan energy use in field applications. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). DOE also requested information as to the extent that accounting for the energy use of fans in commercial equipment such as SPVUs would be additive of other PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 existing accountings of fan energy use. Id. The Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (‘‘ASRAC’’) Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers Working Group (‘‘Working Group’’) had earlier provided recommendations regarding the energy conservation standards, test procedures, and efficiency metrics for commercial and industrial fans and blowers in a term sheet. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD–0006–0179 at p. 1) Specifically, recommendation #3 discussed the need for DOE’s test procedures and related efficiency metrics to account more fully for the energy consumption of fan use in regulated commercial air-conditioning equipment. (Docket No. EERE–2013– BT–STD–0006–0179 at pp. 3–4) The Working Group recommended that DOE consider revising efficiency metrics that include energy use of supply and condenser fans in order to include the energy consumption during all relevant operating modes, including ventilation and part-load operation, in the next round of test procedure rulemakings. The Working Group included SPVUs in its list of regulated equipment for which fan energy use should be considered. (Docket No. EERE–2013–BT–STD– 0006–0179 at pp. 3–4, 16) In response to the 2018 RFI, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, as well as NEEA and NWPCC, commented that DOE should amend the test procedure to account for fan energy use outside of mechanical cooling and heating for fans in regulated equipment to more fully capture fan energy use. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 1–3) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE asserted that by failing to capture fan operation for economizing, ventilation, and other functions outside of cooling mode, the test procedure may be significantly underestimating fan energy consumption. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 1) NEEA and NWPCC added that these amendments would encourage the adoption of features such as variable-speed fans, which provide additional control and flexibility for building owners and operators in addition to reducing energy waste. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) NEEA and NWPCC commented that the commercial prototype building models used in the analysis in support of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 include information on the operation of fans in ventilation mode and economizer mode, and these models could be used to develop national average fan operating hours outside of heating and cooling modes. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 4) NEEA and NWPCC commented that the vast majority of SPVUs are E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules installed in commercial buildings requiring a building permit and that the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 requirements are reflective of building code requirements. Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that, as a result, the energy models used in support of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 are representative of how the equipment is installed and used across the United States. Id. NEEA and NWPCC commented that one potential approach to represent fan energy use in regulated equipment more accurately would be to use IEER to assess the efficiency of the refrigeration cycle of SPVUs, and to use an alternative metric to assess the performance of embedded fans in SPVUs. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 3–4) NEEA and NWPCC suggested that ANSI/AMCA 208–18, ‘‘Calculation of the Fan Energy Index,’’ provides a potential way to measure embedded fan performance in SPVUs by using the fan energy index (‘‘FEI’’). Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that DOE could, therefore, develop a revised IEER-type metric that weights together cooling performance based on the traditional IEER test and an FEI-based metric for fan efficiency. Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that accounting for the energy use of fan operation in SPVUs does not need to alter measured efficiency, and that DOE could align the FEI and IEER metrics such that manufacturers would have multiple viable design option pathways to achieve the minimum IEER efficiency standard without improving the embedded fan efficiency above the minimum FEI efficiency standard. Id. AHRI and Lennox commented that the current metrics for SPVUs (EER and COP) account for fan power and that there is no need to double count fan contribution, asserting that standards based on these metrics will likely already require the need for improved fan motor efficiency. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 6, 7; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI commented that adding a requirement to measure fan energy use during economizing or electric heating would increase testing burden. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) AHRI and Lennox further commented that while most SPVUs can provide some level of ventilation, their primary function is cooling and heating. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 7; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI asserted that DOE is limited to one metric per covered product, and, therefore, the representative average use cycle for SPVUs should concentrate on the bulk of energy used during cooling and heating, rather than the occasional and ancillary fan-only ventilation utility. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 7) In addition, AHRI asserted that a key goal in VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 prohibiting separate component standards was to allow the manufacturer to innovate to meet energy use standards. Id. AHRI commented that DOE has the authority to include certain fans and blowers, by rule, as ‘‘covered equipment’’ if such products meet all the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6311(2), but the commenter stated that it would not be appropriate to apply such standard to fans embedded in regulated equipment. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 8) AHRI asserted that 42 U.S.C. 6312 limits DOE’s authority to regulate as covered industrial equipment certain articles that are also components of consumer products. Id. AHRI commented that because the fans in SPVUs are built only for the product and cannot be purchased on the open market and applied as ‘‘stand alone fans,’’ the fans in SPVUs are protected from double-regulation under EPCA. Id. AHRI also commented that DOE’s authority under 42 U.S.C. 6312(b) and (c) to regulate components is based on necessity, and that adding a fan metric to the current EER requirement is not necessary because SPVUs already have an overall energy efficiency requirement. Id. AHRI and Lennox commented that the fact that Congress was compelled to grant a specific provision of authority for a consumer furnace ventilation metric affirms that DOE lacks general authority to create overlapping ventilation requirements for other regulated products. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 8–9; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) In response to these comments, DOE does not have sufficient information at this time regarding the operation of fans outside of mechanical heating and cooling during an average use cycle (e.g., economizing, ventilation) specific to SPVU installations as would allow it to consider changing the existing efficiency metric(s) to include this aspect of energy use. DOE recognizes that the current metrics for SPVUs do not include fan energy use during all relevant operation modes. Provisions to measure fan energy use when there is no heating or cooling being provided, and when performing ancillary functions (e.g., economizing, ventilation, filtration, and auxiliary heat), are not included in ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 and have not been included in the updated industry consensus standard, AHRI 390–2021. Further, DOE lacks sufficient information on the number of units capable of operating in these modes, total energy use in these operating modes, and information regarding the frequency of operation of these modes during field conditions, which the Department would need to determine PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2499 whether such testing would be appropriate for SPVUs and/or to develop a metric representing the national average fan operating hours for SPVUs. DOE notes further that the commercial prototype building models used in the analysis in support of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 that NEEA and NWPCC recommended do not include information on building types typical to SPVU installations (i.e., modular and telecommunications). If additional information becomes available as would allow DOE to consider incorporation of fan energy use during other relevant SPVU operating modes for all relevant building types into the test method and metric for SPVUs, DOE may consider such information in a subsequent rulemaking proceeding. With regards to comments concerning fan energy use metrics and regulation of fan energy use being double-counting, DOE will consider its authority under EPCA when and if developing such test procedures. E. Test Method This section discusses the various issues that DOE identified in the test methods for SPVUs, including those raised in the July 2018 RFI and considered as part of DOE’s review of AHRI 390–2021. These issues include: (1) Provisions for testing ducted and non-ducted units; (2) outdoor air-side airflow rate; (3) refrigerant charging instructions; (4) voltage requirements; (5) filter requirements; (6) airflow and external static pressure requirements; (7) air temperature measurements; (8) defrost energy use; and (9) provisions for the outdoor air enthalpy method. In addition, in DOE’s existing regulations, Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 specifies the applicable industry test procedure for each category of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, and it identifies additional testing requirements that also apply. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reorganize subpart F to 10 CFR part 431 so that the test procedure requirements for SPVUs are included in separate appendices (Appendix G and G1). DOE proposes that Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 identify only the applicable appendix to use for testing SPVUs (Appendix G or G1) and that 10 CFR 431.96 would no longer include any additional test requirements for SPVUs. 1. Unit Set-Up a. Testing Ducted and Non-Ducted Units DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 specifies different ESP requirements for ducted and nonducted units. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). Specifically, Section 5.2.2 of E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2500 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 requires that nonducted units be tested at zero ESP, and it specifies ESP requirements in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 for ducted equipment. However, whether an SPVU is ducted may depend on the installation rather than the model. A given SPVU model could be installed either with or without a duct, thereby resulting in its status as ducted or nonducted being determined in the field. In the July 2018 RFI, DOE stated that it is not aware of physical characteristics that would readily distinguish SPVUs as either ducted or non-ducted models and that several models advertise the capability for use in both ducted and non-ducted installations. DOE noted that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not specify how to determine whether an SPVU model is to be tested using the ducted or non-ducted provisions. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on characteristics for determining whether SPVU models would be installed as ducted or nonducted and on how equipment sold for both configurations are currently tested. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). AHRI commented that many, if not all, SPVUs on the market allow for installation with or without a duct, and that it is standard practice to test all SPVUs in the ducted configuration. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 2) AHRI stated that the (then-draft) revised version of AHRI 390 sought to standardize industry practice by defining a non-ducted unit as an air conditioner or heat pump that is not designed and marketed to deliver conditioned air to the indoor space through a duct(s), and that a factoryinstalled wall sleeve(s) would not be considered as a duct. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 2–3) AHRI also noted that the draft version of AHRI 390 specified that if a duct cannot be attached and the unit is marketed as non-ducted only, then testing would be performed in the nonducted configuration, and that all other units would be tested as ducted. Id. Lennox commented that any model marketed for ducted applications should be tested in a ducted configuration, and that testing in a non-ducted configuration would be appropriate if a model does not provide provisions for duct attachment and the unit is marketed as non-ducted only. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) DOE notes that the draft definition and provisions referenced by AHRI are included in AHRI 390–2021, along with a definition for ducted units. DOE preliminarily agrees that the definition of a non-ducted unit and associated provisions included in AHRI 390–2021 provide additional specification for testing ducted and non-ducted SPVUs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 DOE understands that these definitions and provisions are consistent with how units are currently classified by industry and tested, as indicated by AHRI’s comments and the inclusion in AHRI 390–2021. DOE is proposing to adopt these definitions found in Sections 3.4 and 3.10 of AHRI 390–2021 and associated provisions specified in section 5.7 of AHRI 390–2021, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1. b. Outdoor Air-Side Airflow Rate The current DOE test procedure for SPVUs requires that the unit be set up for test in accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation manuals. 10 CFR 431.96(e). In addition, Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 specifies that for SPVUs with an outdoor air-side fan drive that is adjustable, standard ratings are determined at the outdoor-side airflow rate specified by the manufacturer. Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 also specifies that, where the outdoor air-side fan drive is non-adjustable, standard ratings are determined at the outdoor airflow rate inherent to the equipment when operated with all of the resistance elements associated with inlets, louvers, and any ductwork and attachments considered by the manufacturer as normal installation practice. However, Section 5.2.3 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not further specify what attachments the manufacturer considers ‘‘normal installation practice.’’ For externally-mounted SPVUs, provisions for transferring outdoor air through an external wall are not necessary, but it may be possible that alternative ‘‘resistance elements’’ could be offered as options (i.e., louvers instead of grills). Furthermore, for internally-mounted SPVUs, there may be multiple options for the specific geometry for external wall pass-through, as well as the option for louvers instead of grills. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comments on the variations in outdoor air-side attachments (e.g., grills, louvers, wall sleeve) that could affect performance during testing and test procedure provisions to standardize outdoor air flow for both externally and internally mounted SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). On this topic, ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should standardize which resistive elements should be present for testing to ensure that the test is representative of field installations and to improve repeatability and reproducibility of test results. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4 at p. 3) AHRI stated that options for different outdoor air-side attachments do exist and could impact the performance during testing. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI and Lennox commented that, to mitigate this issue, the attachments to be used for testing should be specified by the manufacturer in the supplemental testing instructions submitted to DOE. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 2) AHRI added that information regarding the installation of plenums, grills, or other outdoor air-side attachments is provided by manufacturers for testing conducted as part of the AHRI certification program. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) DOE notes that Section 5.8.4 of AHRI 390–2021 explicitly specifies use of the outdoor air-side attachments specified in the manufacturer’s supplemental testing instructions. DOE expects this practice would improve the representativeness in that the unit is tested in a configuration more similar to that of the unit as installed in the field.11 DOE also expects that the more specific test set-up instruction would improve the reproducibility of test results by reducing potential variation in the configuration of the unit when tested. DOE understands that some equipment may be offered for sale with multiple outdoor air-side attachment options, including an option to ship the unit without any attachments. Based on its review of manufacturer materials, DOE has found that in such cases most manufacturer’s instructions or marketing materials indicate that use of outdoor air-side attachments are recommended or necessary for installation. Based on the manufacturer instructions, use of outdoor air-side attachments is standard practice in field use for units for which they are offered for sale. AHRI 390–2021 states that if a unit includes multiple outdoor air-side attachment options, including an option for the unit to ship without any attachments, an outdoor air-side attachment must be specified in the supplemental testing instructions. DOE would expect that this instruction helps ensure testing is representative of how a unit would be installed and operated in the field. DOE is proposing to adopt these provisions regarding the outdoor air-side attachments, as specified in Section 5.8.4 of AHRI 390–2021, 11 Section 3.8.2 of AHRI 390–2021 specifies that the supplemental testing instructions shall include no instructions that deviate from the manufacturer’s installation instructions unless necessary to comply with steady-state requirements (in which case the steady operation must match, to the extent possible, the average performance obtained without deviating from the manufacturer’s installation instructions). E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1. c. Refrigerant Charging Instructions The amount of refrigerant can have a significant impact on the system performance of air conditioners and heat pumps. DOE’s current test procedures for commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps, including the test procedures for SPVUs, require that units be set up for test in accordance with the manufacturer installation and operation manuals. 10 CFR 431.96(e). In addition, the current DOE test procedures state that if the manufacturer specifies a range of superheat, sub-cooling, and/or refrigerant pressures in the installation and operation manual, any value within that range may be used to determine refrigerant charge, unless the manufacturer clearly specifies a rating value in its installation or operation manual, in which case the specified value shall be used. 10 CFR 431.96(e)(1). However, the current DOE test procedures do not provide charging instructions to be used if the manufacturer does not provide instructions in the manual that is shipped with the unit or if the provided instructions are unclear or incomplete. DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not provide any specific guidance on setting and verifying the refrigerant charge of a unit. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE also noted in the July 2018 RFI that the test procedure final rule for central air conditioners and heat pumps (‘‘CAC/ HPs’’) published in the Federal Register on June 8, 2016 (81 FR 36992; ‘‘June 2016 CAC TP final rule’’) established a comprehensive approach for refrigerant charging to improve test reproducibility. Id. The approach specifies which set of installation instructions to use for charging, explains what to do if there are no instructions, specifies that target values of parameters are the centers of the ranges allowed by installation instructions, and specifies tolerances for the measured values. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, section 2.2.5. This approach also requires that refrigerant line pressure gauges be installed for single-package units, unless otherwise specified in manufacturer instructions. Id. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE sought comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt an approach for charging requirements for SPVUs similar to the approach adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE also requested data demonstrating how VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 sensitive the performance of an SPVU is to changes in the various charge indicators used for different charging methods, specifically the method based on sub-cooling. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that while most manufacturers appear to ship SPVUs with the refrigerant already charged, DOE should still develop consistent and comprehensive charging instructions to ensure repeatable and reproducible test results, and to account for the possibility of products offering different charging instructions in the future. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC commented that DOE should review how often SPVUs are charged with refrigerant at the site when installed, and that if refrigerant charge is often modified at installation, they support adopting charging requirements consistent with the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) AHRI commented that the charging requirements adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule are not appropriate for SPVUs. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 3) AHRI stated that SPVUs are shipped charged with refrigerant and no charging should be required. Id. AHRI added that many units do not have service ports, and those that do are charged by weight to the specification on the unit’s nameplate. Id. Lennox stated that all of its models are shipped with a full refrigerant charge, and no further charge adjustments are required. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) Lennox also stated that if there is any discrepancy regarding charge quantity, the unit should be charged by weight to the specification on the unit nameplate. Id. Similarly, the CA IOUs commented that because SPVUs are factory-sealed, package units, many charging requirements that were adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule would not apply to SPVUs. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 1) The CA IOUs did state that some language from the June 2016 CAC TP final rule would be beneficial to adopt; in particular, provisions related to pressure gauges for single-package units and language banning refrigerant charge adjustment during testing. (Id. at pp. 1–2) Based on a review of equipment available on the market, DOE finds that SPVUs are typically shipped from the factory charged with refrigerant, consistent with comments received. DOE observed that while the majority of units are charged by weight, at least one manufacturer’s instructions specified that if the refrigerant charge needs to be adjusted (e.g., due to leaks), the charge should be adjusted based on the PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2501 manufacturer’s specified values for subcooling and superheat. Section 5.6 of AHRI 390–2021 includes instructions for charging to be used if sufficient information is not provided in the manufacturer’s installation instructions, similar to the provisions for CACs adopted in the June 2016 CAC TP final rule. Specifically, AHRI 390–2021 directs that charging be performed at the conditions specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions or, if not specified, at the full-load cooling Standard Rating Conditions. AHRI 390–2021 directs that if the manufacturer’s installation instructions specify a range for superheat, sub-cooling, or refrigerant pressure, the average of the range is used to determine the refrigerant charge. AHRI 390–2021 also specifies a hierarchy of charging parameters to follow (with charge weight being the highest priority) if different requirements provided in the manufacturer’s installation instructions cannot be simultaneously met. DOE proposes to adopt section 5.6 in AHRI 390–2021 for refrigerant charging, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1. The proposed refrigerant charging instructions provide additional specification to the Federal test method that would produce more repeatable and reproducible results. DOE notes that as proposed, these refrigerant charging provisions would only apply if the manufacturer installation instructions do not provide sufficient guidance regarding refrigerant charging. As a result, these provisions would not restrict the flexibility that manufacturers currently have in providing refrigerant charging instructions, so long as the provided instructions are sufficient. d. Voltage Requirements In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that Section 5.2.1 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 requires that, for units rated with 208/ 230 dual nameplate voltages, the test be performed at 230 volts (V). 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). For all other dual nameplate voltage units, the test standard requires that the test be performed at both voltages, or at the lower voltage if only a single rating is to be published. Id. DOE also noted that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of air conditioners, and requested data demonstrating the effect of voltage on air conditioning equipment. Id. DOE requested comment on whether certain voltages within common dual nameplate voltage ratings (e.g., 208/230 V) are more representative of a typical field installation. Id. E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2502 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Lennox commented that the voltage requirements specified in ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 are consistent with other similar industry test procedures and are appropriate for this equipment. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) AHRI acknowledged that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of air conditioners, but it stated that these variations tend to be insignificant and do not correlate to a specific voltage. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 2–3) AHRI also commented that the majority of SPVUs are applied at 230 V, and, therefore, the current test procedure is appropriate. Id. In response, DOE first points out that Section 5.8.1 of AHRI 390–2021 maintains the same voltage requirements for SPVUs as specified in the current DOE test procedure and in ANSI/AHRI 390–2003. DOE notes that these voltage requirements are generally consistent with industry test procedures for other commercial air conditioning and heat pump equipment. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt the voltage requirements in Section 5.8.1 AHRI 390–2021, consistent with the existing voltage requirements, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1. e. Filter Requirements DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that Section 5.2.2.a of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 requires that non-filtered ducted equipment be tested at the minimum ESP specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 plus an additional 0.08 inches of water column (‘‘in H2O’’) of ESP. 83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE further noted that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not define ‘‘non-filtered equipment.’’ Id. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether any SPVUs are designed to be installed without a filter. Id. at 83 FR 34499, 34502. DOE also requested comment on the typical effectiveness (i.e., minimum efficiency reporting value (‘‘MERV’’) rating) of filters provided with SPVUs. Id. DOE requested comment on whether nonducted SPVUs intended for installation with a filter are ever tested without a filter installed and, if so, how such testing has accounted for the filter pressure drop to better represent actual performance. Id. AHRI and Lennox commented that all SPVUs on the market are designed to be installed with a filter, are shipped with a filter, and should be tested with the supplied filter. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 3) AHRI added that the effectiveness of the filter can vary based on application. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI also stated that all SPVUs on VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 the market are tested with a filter. Id. NEEA and NWPCC commented that SPVUs are used primarily in commercial buildings, and that ASHRAE Standard 52.2, ‘‘Method of Testing General Ventilation AirCleaning Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size,’’ recommends MERV 8 filters for commercial buildings. Consequently, NEEA and NWPCC recommended that SPVUs be tested with a MERV 8 filter rating to be representative of equipment use in the field. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) GE commented that any test procedure change requiring the addition of a filter would increase test burden and product development cost. (GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE stated that filter types, sometimes specified by local or State requirements, differ and that there is a risk of unintended test variation depending upon the filter specified. Id. GE stated that such variation could result in erroneous enforcement test results. Id. GE also commented that it opposes any test procedure change that potentially could dictate product design requirements, such as filter selection. Id. Section 3.19 of AHRI 390–2021 includes a definition for the term ‘‘Standard Filter’’ and requires that an SPVU must be tested with the filter designated by the manufacturer in the marketing materials for the model as the ‘‘default’’ or ‘‘standard’’ filter in Table 2, and does not allow for testing without a filter. Section 5.7.3.1 of AHRI 390– 2021 states that if the manufacturer does not specify a ‘‘default’’ or ‘‘standard’’ filter option, then the Standard Filter is the filter with the lowest level of filtration, as specified in the marketing materials for the model. If the marketing materials do not specify a Standard Filter, or do not specify which filter option has the lowest filtration level, then the Standard Filter is any filter shipped by the manufacturer for that model. In light of the above, DOE preliminarily concludes that a 0.08 in H2O increase in the minimum ESP for units tested without a filter is not necessary in the SPVU test procedure because, based on a review of equipment on the market and supported by the comments from AHRI and Lennox, DOE finds that all SPVUs are designed to be installed with a filter, are shipped with a filter, and are tested with a filter. In response to NEEA and NWPCC, DOE identified many SPVUs that offered filters with lower filtration than MERV 8 filters, so requiring them may not be representative of all field applications. In addition, based on a review of equipment on the market, different manufacturers might specify PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 different filters as ‘‘standard’’ (i.e., there is not a single filter type recognized as ‘‘standard’’ by the industry). Manufacturers might also market an SPVU with multiple filter options from which the consumer can choose. DOE has, therefore, initially determined that the requirement to test with a filter and the provisions on filter selection would provide more representative results by testing with a filter that is more likely to be used by a consumer in the field and is consistent with how manufacturers are currently testing. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to adopt the provisions in Section 3.19 and Table 2 in AHRI 390–2021 for testing with the Standard Filter, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1. f. External Static Pressure and Airflow Requirements SPVUs include fans that circulate indoor air over a heat exchanger and provides heating or cooling either through ductwork or directly to the conditioned space. To deliver sufficient conditioned air to the intended space, the airflow provided by the unit must overcome pressure losses throughout duct work (if present), and to a smaller degree, within the unit itself. Pressure losses are the result of directional changes in the ductwork, friction between the moving air and surfaces of the ductwork, and possible appurtenances in the airflow path. Further, different modes of operation may require different amounts of airflow. Therefore, indoor fan speed is typically adjustable to assure that the provided airflow rate is appropriate for the field-installed ductwork system serving the building in which the unit is installed. The performance of an SPVU can be significantly affected by variation in ESP or operation with an indoor airflow that is different from the intended or designed airflow. To ensure that a test procedure provides results that are representative of an average-use cycle, appropriate airflow settings for testing and ESP requirements are needed to reflect the typical pressure losses. Such specifications would also contribute to the repeatability of the test procedure. i. External Static Pressure As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390– 2003 specifies the minimum ESP required for testing ducted SPVUs based on capacity range. DOE sought comments on whether the minimum ESP requirements in ANSI/AHRI 390– 2003 are representative of field E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules operation for ducted SPVUs, and if not, comment and data on what representative minimum ESP levels would be. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). The CA IOUs, as well as ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, commented that the minimum ESP requirements in the test procedure may be significantly lower than typical ESPs in the field, which would significantly underestimate fan power consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2–3; ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should ensure that the minimum ESP requirements specified in the SPVU test procedure adequately reflect conditions in the field. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC added that the ASRAC Working Group for commercial package air conditioners recommended that DOE develop minimum ESP requirements for SPVUs that adequately represent performance in the field and that provide accurate information to consumers to make purchasing decisions. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at pp. 1–2) NEEA and NWPCC stated that for CUACs, there is inconsistency between the range of ESPs specified in the test procedure (0.2 to 0.75 in H2O) compared to the range of ESPs used for the analysis for the standards rulemaking (0.75 and 1.25 in H2O). (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) NEEA and NWPCC stated that if the ESP requirements in the test procedure are lower than those typically found in the field, the ratings of SPVUs will provide neither an adequate representation of actual efficiency nor accurate information to consumers. Id. NEEA and NWPCC added that the ESP requirements should have no impact on test burden since there would be no change to how the test is conducted. Id. The CA IOUs referenced the minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as specified in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M1, ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ and commented that DOE should align all other heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) equipment, including SPVUs, with the values specified in Appendix M1, which increase in ESP based on corresponding increases in cooling capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2–3) AHRI commented that based on conversations with company application engineers, the minimum ESP requirements specified in ANSI/ VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 AHRI 390–2003 are representative of field operation for ducted SPVUs installed with 10 feet of ductwork or less. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox also stated that the current ESP requirements are representative of field operation for ducted SPVUs. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) No commenter provided data as to the ESPs experienced in field operation. In response, DOE notes the range of comments received as to the appropriate ESP for testing. AHRI 390–2021 maintained the same minimum ESP requirements as specified in ANSI/AHRI 390–2003. DOE does not have data indicating that these minimum ESP requirements are unrepresentative of field operation for ducted SPVUs. DOE also recognizes that SPVUs are typically installed in smaller modular buildings with different duct configurations. As a result, DOE notes that minimum ESP requirements for other equipment (e.g., CACs, CUACs) may not be relevant for SPVUs. DOE also notes that in the previous standards rulemaking the ESP values were aligned with the values used in the test procedure. As a result, DOE does not expect there to be inconsistency between the test procedure and the analysis conducted for the standards rulemaking. Based on this, DOE is tentatively not proposing to revise the ESP requirements in the DOE test procedure for SPVUs but to instead remain consistent with AHRI 390–2021. Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and information on ESP conditions experienced in field operation of ducted SPVUs. ii. Airflow Rate Full-Load Cooling Test DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not specify tolerances on achieving the rated airflow or the minimum ESP during testing. As discussed previously, the performance of an air conditioner or heat pump can be affected by variations in airflow and ESP. In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that the current DOE test procedure for CUACs requires that the indoor airflow for the full-load cooling test be within ±3 percent of the rated airflow and specifies a tolerance of ¥0.00/+0.05 in H2O for the ESP requirements. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). DOE also noted that in DOE’s test procedure for CAC/HPs, the method for setting indoor air volume rate for ducted units without variable-speed constant-air-volume-rate indoor fans is a multi-step process that addresses the discrete-step fan speed control of these units. Id. In this method, (a) the air volume rate during testing may not be higher than the certified air volume rate, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2503 but may be up to 10 percent less, and (b) the ESP during testing may not be lower than the minimum specified ESP, but may be higher than the minimum if this is required to avoid having the air volume rate overshoot its certified value. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M, section 3.1.4.2.a. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested information on the different types of indoor air fan drive systems that are used for SPVUs and information on appropriate tolerances for setting airflow and ESP. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). On this topic, AHRI stated that SPVUs use permanent split-capacitor motors with discrete speed settings or electronically-commutated motors with variable speed settings; and that in either case, the unit leaves the factory with the fan and motor set at a specific speed to provide the rated performance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox commented that its equipment uses motors and controls with speed/airflow settings developed for each specific product and mode of operation, which are factory pre-set to optimize performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) Lennox stated that for its equipment, the manufacturer-specified airflow setting should allow the ability to set the airflow to the specified value while meeting the ESP requirements for testing. Id. Lennox further commented that the manufacturer settings should be used for testing. Id. Lennox stated that if the minimum ESP cannot be maintained, the airflow should be set to the maximum airflow while maintaining the required ESP. Id. AHRI commented that the then-draft version of AHRI 390 directed use of the manufacturer-specified fan control settings for all tests for which they are provided. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI also commented that the draft version of AHRI 390 directed use of the full-load cooling fan control settings specified by the manufacturer for all tests for which fan control settings are specified, and if there are no specified fan control settings for any tests, use the as-shipped fan control settings for all tests. Id. AHRI added that for testing, the priority is setting the correct airflow speed, and the ESP is adjusted to match the required airflow. Id. AHRI noted that the draft version of AHRI 390 provided that the airflow-measuring apparatus should be adjusted to maintain ESP within ¥0/+0.05 in H2O of the required minimum ESP and to maintain the airflow within ±3 percent of the manufacturer-specified full-load cooling airflow. Id. DOE notes that AHRI 390–2021 specifies an airflow tolerance of ±3 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2504 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules percent of the full-load cooling airflow. This would be consistent with the test procedure for other commercial air conditioning and heat pump equipment, and it would ensure that the rated airflow remains representative of field use during testing. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the ±3 percent airflow tolerance included in AHRI 390–2021 is appropriate for testing SPVUs. Accordingly, DOE proposes to adopt the full-load cooling airflow tolerance specified in Section 5.7 of AHRI 390–2021. AHRI 390–2021 also includes additional instructions for how to set indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be maintained simultaneously. For non-ducted units, ducting is not installed in the field; therefore, increasing ESP (which simulates the resistance to airflow from longer duct length in the field) beyond the specified tolerance of ¥0/+0.05 in H2O during testing would not be representative of field application. Consequently, if both the ESP and airflow cannot be maintained within tolerance during the test, Section 5.7.3.3.4 of AHRI 390–2021 specifies that the ESP be maintained within the required tolerance and an airflow as close to the certified value as possible be used. For ducted units, if ESP and/or airflow are higher than the tolerance range at the lowest fan control setting (e.g., lowest fan speed), maintaining airflow within tolerance should take precedence over maintaining ESP within tolerance. This is because operating with an airflow higher than the certified value would likely result in an airflow (and thus measured efficiency) that is unrepresentative of field operation. Section 5.7.3.4.1.2 of AHRI 390–2021 specifies that the airflow-measuring apparatus be adjusted to maintain airflow within tolerance and to operate with the lowest possible ESP that meets the minimum requirement. If ESP or airflow are lower than the tolerance range at the maximum fan control setting (e.g., highest fan speed), maintaining ESP at or above the minimum value should take precedence over maintaining airflow within tolerance because operating with an ESP lower than the minimum value does not reflect typical duct lengths (or measured efficiency) in field application. In such a case, Section 5.7.3.4.1.3 of AHRI 390– 2021 specifies that the airflowmeasuring apparatus be adjusted to maintain ESP within tolerance and to operate with an airflow as close as possible to the certified value. DOE understands the provisions regarding tolerances and priority for VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 adjustment of fan speed and ESP in AHRI 390–2021 are consistent with the methodology in the draft version of AHRI 390, as evidenced by the excerpt provided in AHRI’s comments (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 5). DOE preliminarily finds that these provisions would not conflict with any provisions in the current DOE test procedure, and would improve test repeatability and provide test conditions that are more representative of those during operation in the field. Based on this, DOE is proposing to adopt the provisions specified in Section 5.7.3 of AHRI 390–2021 for setting indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be maintained simultaneously, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1. Heating Test DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390–2003 does not distinguish between cooling and heating airflow rates required for testing. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). For SPVHPs with multiple-speed or variable-speed indoor fans, the indoor airflow rate in heating operation could be different from that in cooling operation. Id. Different airflow rates may be used for heating and cooling operation because of different indoor comfort needs in the heating season, and there may be a minimum heating airflow rate for electrical resistance heating safety that exceeds the cooling airflow rate. Id. DOE also noted in the July 2018 RFI that, for CUAC heat pumps, DOE’s current test procedure requires that indoor airflow and ESP first be established within required tolerances for the full-load cooling test condition by adjusting both the unit under test and the test facility’s airflowmeasuring apparatus (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A, section 6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018)) The CUAC test procedure further provides that, unless the unit is designed to operate at different airflow rates for cooling and heating modes, if necessary, the airflow-measuring apparatus (but not the unit under test) may be adjusted to achieve an airflow in heating mode equal to the cooling fullload airflow rate within the specified tolerance, without regard to changes in ESP (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A, section 6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether provisions similar to those required for CUACs would be appropriate for determining airflow rate and minimum ESP for heating mode tests for SPVHPs. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 NEEA and NWPCC commented that if SPVHPs operate at different airflow speeds for heating and cooling, then SPVUs should be tested similar to CUACs, for which the heating efficiency is evaluated at the unique heating airflow rate. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) Lennox commented that SPVHP airflow rates for heating and cooling are generally the same, but that the test procedure should not preclude using different airflow rates that could provide benefits in performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) AHRI added that the draft version of AHRI 390 included procedures that provide for a difference in the manufacturer-specified heating airflow and full-load cooling airflow. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 4–5) In response, DOE notes that AHRI 390–2021 includes provisions for setting the heating airflow rate that are consistent with the excerpt of the draft version of AHRI 390 provided in AHRI’s comments, (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 5), which allows for testing with a manufacturerspecified heating airflow that is different than the full-load cooling airflow. These provisions reflect that units may be designed to operate in the field at a different heating airflow rate as compared to the cooling airflow rate. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt Sections 5.7.2.3 and 5.7.3.4.2 of AHRI 390–2021 with regards to setting the airflow and ESP for heating tests (as applicable), as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G and section 0 of proposed Appendix G1. 2. Air Temperature Measurements Measurement of air conditions is a critical aspect of performance testing for air-conditioning and heat pump equipment generally. The air conditions affect performance (both capacity and power input), and the primary methods for determination of capacity rely on measurements of air temperature and humidity. ANSI/ASHRAE 390–2003 references ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 1988, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment’’ (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988’’) for methods of testing SPVUs. As relevant here, ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–1988 provides specifications for temperature sensors (section 5.1), as well as for ensuring measurement uniformity (section 8.5). DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that, for air-cooled and evaporatively-cooled CUACs, AHRI 340/360–2015 provides more extensive direction for condenser air temperature measurement in its Appendix C, including specifications to use air sampling trees and psychrometers, temperature measurement accuracy requirements, E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules and other specifications to ensure that the measured conditions are representative of average condenser air inlet conditions. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). In the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether requirements similar to AHRI 340/360– 2015 should be adopted for testing SPVUs. Id. DOE also noted in the July 2018 RFI that while Appendix C of AHRI 340/ 360–2015 provides detailed direction for measurement of entering outdoor air temperature, it provides no such direction for measurement of entering indoor air temperature, indoor leaving air temperature, or outdoor leaving air temperature. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). However, these parameters have a significant impact on performance of an SPVU as measured by the indoor air enthalpy method and the outdoor air enthalpy method. Id. Therefore, in the July 2018 RFI, DOE also requested comment on whether the requirements contained in Appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015 would be appropriate for measurement of these parameters when testing SPVUs. Id. The CA IOUs, NEEA and NWPCC supported using provisions similar to Appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015 to measure indoor air entering and leaving temperatures, as well as outdoor air entering and leaving temperatures. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 2; NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC added that this would result in the most accurate and repeatable test measurement. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) AHRI commented that adding measurement requirements for indoor air entering and leaving temperatures, as well as outdoor air entering and leaving temperatures for water slinger systems (i.e., units that use condensate from the evaporator to enhance condenser cooling), similar to those in Appendix C of AHRI Standard 340/360–2015 would be appropriate. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) Lennox commented that further evaluation of various SPVU configurations is needed to determine appropriateness of the provisions in Appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 5) In the interim, AHRI 390–2021 has addressed this issue. Specifically, Appendix D of AHRI 390–2021 includes a comprehensive set of provisions to measure air temperatures, including the measurement of entering indoor temperature, indoor leaving temperature, entering outdoor temperature, and outdoor leaving temperature. DOE notes that these additional requirements were also included in the revised AHRI 340/360– VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 2019. Specifically, AHRI 390–2021 includes the following requirements: • Measurements of indoor and outdoor air entering dry-bulb temperatures and water vapor conditions. In addition, measurement of the indoor air leaving dry-bulb temperatures and water vapor conditions if the indoor air enthalpy method is used, and outdoor air leaving dry-bulb temperatures and water vapor conditions if the outdoor air enthalpy method is used; • Temperature measurement accuracies and display resolutions for dry-bulb and wet-bulb temperatures, as well as thermopile temperatures; • Methods of water vapor measurement using either an aspirating psychrometer or a dew point hygrometer; • Air sampling tree specifications, including construction provisions, hole density requirements, average air velocity of the flow area, and thermopile arrangement; • Description of the test set-up for air sampling trees, which includes defining the arrangement of the face area, the number of aspirating psychrometers per unit side, the location of the air sampling trees and their coverage of the entrance to the unit, and the number of sampling trees per aspirating psychrometer; • Dry-bulb temperature measurement using psychrometer dry-bulb sensors; • Wet-bulb or dew point temperature measurements to determine air water vapor content using psychrometers or hygrometers; • Measurements of temperature change and pressure drop across the conduit used to transfer air from air samplers to psychrometers and, if certain thresholds are exceeded, provisions for determining dry-bulb temperature and atmospheric pressure (used to calculate humidity ratio); • Specifications for dry-bulb and wetbulb temperature uniformity; • Additional specifications for measuring air conditions entering the indoor coil, including provisions for returning sampled air to the room, conditions for temperature uniformity specifications, and directions if air is sampled within a duct; and • Additional specifications for measuring both indoor coil and outdoor coil leaving air conditions, including conditions for temperature uniformity requirements, provisions for returning sampled air to the duct leaving the coil, provisions if the coil has a blow-through fan, and additional requirements for the air sampling tree. DOE has tentatively determined that the air measurement provisions of AHRI PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2505 390–2021 in Appendix D address the lack of specificity in the current DOE test procedure for SPVUs, improve temperature uniformity and ensure accurate and repeatable temperature measurements for SPVUs, and ensure that representative conditions are maintained during testing. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt the provisions for measurement of air conditions in Appendix D of AHRI 390– 2021 both into section 1 of the proposed Appendix G and into section 1 of the proposed Appendix G1. Inclusion in AHRI 390–2021 and AHRI’s comments in support indicate that the proposed air measurement specifications are considered best practice by industry and reflect current industry practice. As such, DOE would expect that adoption of the air measurement specifications in AHRI 390–2021 would present minimal, if any, increase in test burden for manufacturers. 3. Defrost Energy Use In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that SPVHPs generally include a defrost cycle to periodically defrost the outdoor coil when operating in outdoor ambient conditions in which frost collects on it during heating operation. 83 FR 34499, 34504 (July 20, 2018). Based on preliminary DOE review of product literature, the time between defrost cycles can be between 30 and 90 minutes, and typical defrost cycle duration is approximately 10 minutes. Id. During the defrost cycle, the SPVHP is consuming energy but is not providing heat to the conditioned space, unless it also energizes auxiliary heat during defrost. Id. The current Federal test procedure for SPVUs is based on testing in outdoor air conditions for which defrost is not necessary (i.e., 47 °F outdoor air drybulb temperature). This means that any differences in defrost cycle performance between different SPVHP models is not reflected in the heating mode metric (i.e., COP). DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that the DOE test procedure for CACs/HPs includes measurement of average delivered heat and total energy use (including for defrost cycles) during operation in outdoor conditions for which frost forms on the outdoor coil. Id. In contrast, DOE’s test procedures for commercial heat pumps do not include consideration of defrost. Id. In the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested information regarding the types of buildings most commonly served by SPVHPs, as well as the annual heating and cooling loads for such buildings. Id. DOE also requested information on the impact on heating mode efficiency associated with the defrost cycle for SPVHPs, including E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2506 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 impacts associated with the potential use of resistance heating during defrost. Id. On this topic, the CA IOUs stated that relocatable classrooms commonly utilize SPVUs. The CA IOUs suggested that DOE should consider the CA Public Utilities Commission building prototype for relocatable classrooms.12 This prototype provides typical dimensions, plug loads, lighting, occupancy schedule, envelope characteristics, and thermostat set points of relocatable classrooms which allows for the modeling of annual cooling and heating loads. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 4) The CA IOUs stated that this building prototype was based on the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory study titled ‘‘HighPerformance Commercial Buildings Project’’ from 2003.13 Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that DOE should incorporate defrost and performance at lower ambient temperatures in the heating efficiency metric. (ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 2) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE stated that incorporating defrost would allow the test procedure to better reflect actual heating capacity and efficiency in the field, thereby providing better information to consumers and encouraging manufacturers to develop innovative defrost strategies. Id. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE also encouraged DOE to incorporate performance at lower ambient temperatures into the metric for heating efficiency. Id. SPVHPs typically include back-up electric resistance heating, which is used when the heat pump cannot meet the heating load. ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE stated that because the test procedure only requires testing SPVHPs at 47 °F outdoor air dry-bulb temperature for heating mode, it does not differentiate the ability of equipment to maintain good heating capacity using the heat pump cycle at low ambient temperatures, as opposed to shutting the heat pump cycle off and switching to electric resistance heating. Id. According to ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, incorporating performance at lower ambient temperatures in the heating efficiency metric would encourage equipment designs that maintain efficiency performance at low 12 The CA Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) building prototype for relocation classrooms is available as part of the CPUC’s Database for Energy Efficiency Resources, available at: https:// www.deeresources.com/. 13 Selkowitz, Stephen, High Performance Commercial Building Systems. Prepared by the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory for the California Energy Commission. LBNL–53538 (October 2003) (Available at: https://www.osti.gov/ servlets/purl/821762). VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 ambient temperatures, which will ultimately benefit consumers. Id. NEEA and NWPCC commented that the frequency of defrost cycles varies between manufacturers and that the defrost cycle typically stays on for approximately 10 minutes. (NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 4) NEEA and NWPCC recommended decreasing the efficiency rating by a given increment based on average annual defrost energy use for the default defrost cycle frequency setting. Id. NEEA and NWPCC stated that this would likely lead to manufacturers reducing the frequency of their default defrost cycles, which would result in energy savings for building applications that do not need frequent defrost cycles. Id. AHRI and Lennox commented that they respectively estimated that fewer than 30 and 20 percent of SPVUs are heat pumps, and they argued that DOE’s proposal to include provisions to measure the average delivered heat and total energy use, including for defrost cycles, during operation in outdoor conditions for which frost forms on the outdoor coil is not necessary for this equipment. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 9; Lennox, No. 6 at p. 6) AHRI added that the electric heat used during defrost is small in comparison to electric heat use when the heat pump cannot keep up to meet the heating load. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 9) DOE notes that AHRI 390–2021 does not include provisions for measuring defrost energy for SPVHPs. Consistent with ANSI/AHRI 390–2003, AHRI 390– 2021, and DOE’s test procedures for other commercial heat pumps, DOE is not proposing to include provisions for including the defrost energy of SPVHPs. DOE notes that the study the CA IOUs cited only monitored relocatable classrooms within the State of California and does not encompass the different types of SPVU installations or operating conditions. At this time, DOE lacks sufficient information on the number of SPVHP installations by building type and geographical region, as well as information regarding the frequency of operation of defrost cycles or representative low ambient conditions during field use and the annual heating and cooling loads in those installations, which would be needed to determine whether such testing conditions would be appropriate for SPVUs and to develop a metric representing the national average for SPVUs. Issue 6: DOE requests comment and data on the number of SPVHP installations by building type and geographical region and the annual heating and cooling loads for such buildings. DOE also requests data on the PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 frequency of operation of defrost cycles and representative low ambient conditions for those buildings and installations. 4. Outdoor Air Enthalpy Method As discussed previously, the current DOE test procedure, which incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 390–2003, also references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 for methods of testing SPVUs. Section 7.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies primary and secondary capacity measurements for equipment with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h. Specifically, the indoor air enthalpy method must be used as the primary method for capacity measurement, and Table 3 of ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies the applicable options for selecting a secondary method. The two test methods must agree within 6 percent (see Section 10.1.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988). DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that the outdoor air enthalpy test method is commonly used as the secondary test method for determining capacity for SPVUs. 83 FR 34499, 34502–34503 (July 20, 2018). The outdoor air enthalpy method specified in ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 1988 specified the use of an air-side test apparatus that is connected to the unit under test. However, the airflow and operating conditions achieved with the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected may differ from those achieved without the apparatus connected. Therefore, Section 8.5 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 (which is referenced by ANSI/AHRI 390–2003) specifies testing both with and without the air-side test apparatus connected. Id. at 83 FR 34503. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 specifies first conducting a one-hour preliminary test without the outdoor airside test apparatus connected, followed by a second one-hour test with the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. Id. The second test (with the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected) serves as the official test. Id. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–1988 further provides that there must be agreement of the evaporating and condensing temperatures between the two tests for a valid test. Id. DOE further noted in the July 2018 RFI that in a test procedure final rule for CACs/HPs (82 FR 1426 (Jan. 5, 2017)), DOE amended its test procedure requirements for use of the outdoor air enthalpy method as the secondary test method for capacity measurement for CAC/HPs. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). DOE’s test procedure for CAC/ HPs had previously included provisions similar to those in ANSI/ASHRAE 37– E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules 1988: The preliminary test was conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected, and the official test was conducted with the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected, with a requirement to achieve agreement of the evaporating and condensing temperatures between the two tests. For CAC/HPs, DOE determined that testing with the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected introduced more variability to the test results when compared to testing without the apparatus connected, and that test variability could be reduced by shifting to an approach in which the official test is the one without the apparatus connected. See 82 FR 1426, 1508–1509 (Jan. 5. 2017). As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether modifications to the requirements for using the outdoor air enthalpy method as the secondary method for testing SPVUs (similar to those made for CAC/HPs) would be appropriate, including that the official test be conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. 83 FR 34499, 34503 (July 20, 2018). The CA IOUs commented that the outdoor air enthalpy method should be used as the secondary method for testing SPVUs and agreed that the official test should be conducted without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at p. 2) AHRI commented that the AHRI 390 committee was reviewing the secondary capacity measurement methods. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 6) AHRI stated that after that evaluation is complete, it would recommend conducting the official test without the outdoor air-side test apparatus connected. Id. Lennox commented that further evaluation of the secondary capacity measurements is needed, but it stated that secondary methods using refrigerant flow require altering the system to place the flowmeter into the refrigerant system and, therefore, could significantly alter performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 5) Since the time of the July 2018 RFI, AHRI 390–2021 was adopted, and that test method includes provisions in Section E5 consistent with those adopted in the January 2017 CAC/HP TP final rule. More specifically, AHRI 390– 2021 requires that the official test be the one in which the outdoor air side test apparatus is not connected. For the same reasons DOE presented in the January 2017 CAC/HP TP final rule and discussed previously, DOE has preliminarily determined that the provisions in AHRI 390–2021 would better represent field use of SPVUs and improve test repeatability and VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 reproducibility. For these reasons, DOE proposes to adopt the capacity measurements specified in Section E5 of AHRI 390–2021, into section 1 of the proposed Appendix G and into section 1 of the proposed Appendix G1. DOE has tentatively determined that this proposal would impose only minimal additional burden to manufacturers and would not require retesting of units because the existing test results contain the data necessary for the capacity measurements as specified in Section E5 of AHRI 390–2021. F. Configuration of Unit Under Test 1. Specific Components An ASRAC working group for certain commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (‘‘HVAC’’) equipment (‘‘Commercial HVAC Working Group’’),14 which included SPVUs, submitted a term sheet (‘‘Commercial HVAC Term Sheet’’) providing the Commercial HVAC Working Group’s recommendations. (Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–NOC–0023, No. 52) 15 The Commercial HVAC Working Group recommended that DOE issue guidance under current regulations on how to test certain equipment features when included in a basic model, until such time as the testing of such features can be addressed through a test procedure rulemaking. The Commercial HVAC Term Sheet listed the subject features under the heading ‘‘Equipment Features Requiring Test Procedure Action.’’ (Id at pp. 3–9) The Commercial HVAC Working Group also recommended that DOE issue an enforcement policy stating that DOE would exclude certain equipment with specified features from Departmental testing, but only when the manufacturer offers for sale at all times a model that is identical in all other features; otherwise, the model with that feature would be eligible for Departmental testing. These features were listed under the heading ‘‘Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy.’’ (Id. at pp. 9–15) On January 30, 2015, DOE issued a Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy addressing the treatment of specific features during Departmental testing of commercial HVAC equipment. (See www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/ commercial-equipment-testing14 In 2013, ASRAC formed the Commercial HVAC Working Group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort regarding the certification of certain commercial HVAC equipment, including SPVUs. The Commercial HVAC Working Group’s recommendations are available at www.regulations.gov under Docket No. EERE–2013– BT–NOC–0023–0052. 15 Available at www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052. PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2507 enforcement-policies.) The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy stated that— for the purposes of assessment testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.104, verification testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.70(c)(5), and enforcement testing pursuant to 10 CFR 429.110—DOE would not test a unit with one of the optional features listed for a specified equipment type if a manufacturer distributes in commerce an otherwise identical unit that does not include one of the optional features. (Id at p. 1) The objective of the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy is to ensure that each basic model has a commercially-available version eligible for DOE testing, meaning that each basic model includes either a model without the optional feature(s) or a model with the optional features that is eligible for testing. Id. The features in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy for SPVUs (Id. at pp. 3–4) align with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet’s list designated ‘‘Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy.’’ AHRI 390–2021 includes Appendix F, ‘‘Unit Configuration for Standard Efficiency Determination—Informative.’’ Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 includes a list of features that are optional for testing. Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 further specifies the following general provisions regarding testing of units with optional features: • If an otherwise identical model (within the basic model) without the feature is not distributed in commerce, conduct tests with the feature according to the individual provisions specified in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021. • For each optional feature, Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 includes explicit instructions on how to conduct testing for equipment with the optional feature present. The optional features provisions in AHRI 390–2021 are generally consistent with DOE’s Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, but the optional features in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390– 2021 do not entirely align with the list of features included for SPVUs in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy. The list of optional features in section F1.3 includes five features that are not present in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy for SPVUs: (1) Fresh air dampers; (2) barometric relief dampers; (3) power correction capacitors; (4) hail guards, and (5) UV lights. All five of these features in Section F1.3 are included for SPVUs in the ‘‘Equipment Features Requiring Test Procedure Action’’ section of the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that their inclusion as E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2508 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 optional features for SPVUs is appropriate. DOE notes that the list of features and provisions in Section F1.3 of Appendix F of AHRI 390–2021 conflates features that can be addressed by testing provisions with features that warrant enforcement relief (i.e., features that, if present on a unit under test, could have a substantive impact on test results and that cannot be disabled or otherwise mitigated). This differentiation was central to the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet, which as noted previously, included separate lists for ‘‘Equipment Features Requiring Test Procedure Action’’ and ‘‘Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy,’’ and remains central to providing clarity in DOE’s regulations. Further, provisions more explicit than included in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 are warranted to clarify the differences between how specific components must be treated when manufacturers are making representations as opposed to when DOE is conducting enforcement testing. In order to provide clarity between test procedure provisions (i.e., how to test a specific unit) and certification and enforcement provisions (e.g., which model to test), DOE is not proposing to adopt Appendix F of AHRI 390–2021 and instead is proposing related provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, Appendix G1. Specifically, in Appendix G1, DOE proposes test provisions for specific components, including all of the components listed in Section F1.3 which there is a neutralizing test procedure action (i.e., test procedure provisions specific to the component that are not addressed by general provisions in AHRI 390–2021 that negates the components impact on performance).16 These provisions would specify how to test a unit with such a component—i.e., for a unit with hail guards, remove hail guards for testing. These proposed test provisions are consistent with the provision in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021, but include revisions for further clarity and specificity (e.g., adding clarifying provisions for how to test units with modular economizers as opposed to units shipped with economizers installed). 16 For the following components listed in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021, DOE has tentatively concluded that there is not a neutralizing test procedure action specified in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021 for testing a unit with the component present, and is, therefore, not proposing to include test procedure actions specific to these components in Appendix G1: Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans and Hot Gas Bypass. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 Consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions that would allow determination of represented values of a model equipped with a particular component to be based on an individual model distributed in commerce without the component in specific cases. The provisions apply to certain components for which the test provisions for testing a unit with the component may result in differences in ratings compared to testing a unit without the component.17 For these such components, DOE proposes in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4) that: • If a basic model includes only individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component, or does not include any otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, the manufacturer must determine represented values for the basic model based on performance of an individual model with the component present (and consistent with any relevant proposed test procedure provisions in Appendix G1). • If a basic model includes both individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component and otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, the manufacturer may determine represented values for the basic model based on performance of an individual model either with the component present (and consistent with any relevant proposed test procedure provisions in Appendix G1) or without the component present. DOE notes that in some cases, individual models may include more than one of the specified components (i.e., both an economizer and dehumidification components) or there may be individual models within a basic model that include various dehumidification components that result in more or less energy use. In these cases, the represented values of performance must be representative of the lowest efficiency found within the basic model. Also consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions in 10 CFR 429.134(s)(1) regarding how DOE would assess compliance for basic models that 17 DOE has tentatively concluded that for the following features included in Section F1.3 of AHRI 390–2021, testing a unit with these components in accordance with the proposed test provisions would not result in differences in ratings compared to testing a unit without these components; therefore, DOE is not proposing to include these features in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(4): UV lights, Power Correction Capacitors, Hail Guards, Barometric Relief Dampers, and Fresh Air Dampers. PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 include individual models distributed in commerce with air economizers or dehumidification components. Specifically: • If a basic model includes only individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component, or does not include any otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, DOE may assess compliance for the basic model based on testing an individual model with the component present (and consistent with any relevant proposed test procedure provisions in Appendix G1). • If a basic model includes both individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component and otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, DOE will assess compliance for the basic model based on testing of an otherwise identical model within the basic model that does not include the component; except if DOE is not able to obtain such a model for testing. In such a case, DOE will assess compliance for the basic model based on testing of an individual model with the specific component present (and consistent with any relevant proposed test procedure provisions in Appendix G1). Were DOE to adopt the provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix G1 as proposed, DOE would rescind the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy to the extent it is applicable to SPVUs. In a separate certification rulemaking, DOE may consider certification reporting requirements such that manufacturers would be required to certify which otherwise identical models are used for making representations of basic models that include individual models with specific components. Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding specific components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, Appendices G and G1. G. Represented Values 1. Multiple Refrigerants DOE recognizes that some commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment may be sold with more than one refrigerant option (e.g., R–410A or R–407C). Typically, manufacturers specify a single refrigerant in their literature for each unique model, but in its review, DOE has identified at least one commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment manufacturer that provides two refrigerant options under the same model number. The refrigerant chosen E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 by the customer in the field installation may impact the energy efficiency of a unit. For this reason, DOE is proposing representation requirements specific for models approved for use with multiple refrigerants. So that the proposals in this NOPR would only require manufacturers to update representations once, DOE proposes to align the compliance date for these representation requirements with the proposed metric change (i.e., these proposals would only be required when certifying to amended standards denominated in terms of IEER, if adopted). Use of a refrigerant (such as R–407C as compared to R–410A) that requires different hardware (i.e., compressors, heat exchangers, or air moving systems that are not the same or comparably performing) would represent a different basic model, and according to the current CFR, separate representations of energy efficiency are required for each basic model. 10 CFR 429.43(a). On the other hand, some refrigerants (such as R–422D and R–427A) would not require different hardware, and a manufacturer may consider them to be the same basic model, per DOE’s current definition for ‘‘basic model at 10 CFR 431.92. In the latter case of an SPVU with multiple refrigerant options that do not require different hardware, DOE proposes that a manufacturer determine the represented values (for example, IEER, COP, and cooling capacity) based on the refrigerant(s)—among all refrigerants listed on the unit’s nameplate—that results in the lowest cooling efficiency. These represented values would apply to the basic model with the use of all refrigerants specified by the manufacturer. Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding representations for SPVU models approved for use with multiple refrigerants. 2. Cooling Capacity For SPVUs, cooling capacity determines equipment class, which in turn determines the applicable energy conservation standard. 10 CFR 431.97. While cooling capacity is a required represented value for SPVUs, DOE does not currently specify provisions for SPVUs regarding how close the represented value of cooling capacity must be to the tested or alternative energy-efficiency determination method (‘‘AEDM’’) simulated cooling capacity, or whether DOE will use measured or certified cooling capacity to determine equipment class for enforcement testing. In contrast, at paragraphs (a)(1)(iv) and (a)(2)(ii) of 10 CFR 429.43 and paragraph (g) of 10 CFR 429.134, DOE specifies such provisions regarding the VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 cooling capacity for air-cooled CUACs. Again, because energy conservation standards for SPVUs are dependent on cooling capacity, inconsistent approaches to the application of cooling capacity between basic models could result in inconsistent determinations of equipment class and, in turn, inconsistent applications of the energy conservation standards. For these reasons, DOE is proposing to add to its regulations the following provisions regarding cooling capacity for SPVUs: (1) A requirement that the represented cooling capacity be between 95 percent and 100 percent of the tested or AEDM-simulated cooling capacity; and (2) an enforcement provision stating that DOE would use the mean of measured cooling capacity values from testing, rather than the certified cooling capacity, to determine the applicable standards. First, DOE proposes to require in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(B) that the represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 percent and 100 percent of the mean of the cooling capacity values measured for the units in the sample (if determined through testing), or between 95 percent and 100 percent of the cooling capacity output simulated by an AEDM. This tolerance would help to ensure that equipment is capable of performing at the cooling capacity for which it is represented to commercial consumers, while also enabling manufacturers to conservatively rate the cooling capacity to allow for minor variations in the capacity measurements from different units tested at different laboratories. Second, DOE is proposing in its product-specific enforcement provisions at 10 CFR 429.134(s)(1) that the cooling capacity of each tested unit of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test requirements of part 431 and that the mean of the measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable standard with which the model must comply. As discussed in this section, applicable energy conservation standards for SPVUs are dependent on the rated cooling capacity. DOE has tentatively concluded that these proposals would result in more accurate ratings of cooling capacity, and ensure appropriate application of the energy conservation standards, while still providing flexibility for manufacturers to conservatively rate cooling capacity so that they can be confident the equipment is capable of delivering the cooling capacity represented to commercial consumers. Issue 9: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to represented values PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2509 and verification testing of cooling capacity for SPVUs. H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact As stated, EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes SPVUs, be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for SPVUs by: (1) Incorporating by reference the updated version of the applicable industry test method, AHRI 390–2021, including the energy efficiency descriptors; (2) adding definitions for ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ to clarify which single-phase equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are properly classified as SPVU rather than CAC; (3) specifying provisions for specific components; and (4) further specifying the requirements for determination of represented values for cooling capacity and for models approved for use with multiple refrigerants. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amended test procedures would be representative of an average use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. Based on review of AHRI 390–2021, DOE expects that the proposed test procedure in Appendix G for measuring EER and COP would not increase testing costs per unit compared to the current DOE test procedure, which DOE estimates to be $3,100 for SPVACs and $3,700 for SPVHPs per unit for third-party lab testing. DOE estimates that the cost for third-party lab testing according to the proposed Appendix G1 for measuring IEER and COP to be $4,900 for SPVACs and $5,500 for SPVHPs per unit. DOE further notes that manufacturers are not required to perform laboratory testing on all basic models. In E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2510 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules accordance with 10 CFR 429.70 of DOE’s regulations, SPVU manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs. An AEDM is a computer modeling or mathematical tool that predicts the performance of non-tested basic models. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, when properly developed, can provide a means to predict the energy usage or efficiency characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing. DOE estimates the per-manufacturer cost to develop and validate an AEDM for SPVU equipment to be $15,800. DOE estimates an additional cost of approximately $50 per basic model 18 for determining energy efficiency using the validated AEDM. As discussed in section II of this NOPR, the proposed test procedure provisions regarding IEER would not be mandatory unless and until DOE adopts energy conservation standards that specify IEER as the regulatory metric and compliance with such standards is required. Given that most SPVU manufacturers are AHRI members and that DOE is referencing the prevailing industry test procedure that was established for use in AHRI’s certification program (which DOE presumes will be updated to include IEER), DOE expects that manufacturers will already be testing using the IEER test method. Based on this, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed test procedure amendments would not be expected to increase the testing burden on most SPVU manufacturers. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the test procedure amendments, if finalized, would not require manufacturers to redesign any of the covered equipment, would not require changes to how the equipment is manufactured, and would not impact the utility of the equipment. Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically DOE’s initial conclusion that the proposed DOE test procedure amendments, if finalized, would not increase testing burden on SPVU manufacturers, as compared to current lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 18 DOE estimated initial costs to validate an AEDM assuming 80 hours of general time to develop an AEDM based on existing simulation tools and 16 hours to validate two basic models within that AEDM at the cost of an engineering technician wage of $50 per hour plus the cost of third-party physical testing of two units per validation class (as required in 10 CFR 429.70(c)(2)(iv)). DOE estimated the additional per basic model cost to determine efficiency using an AEDM assuming 1 hour per basic model at the cost of an engineering technician wage of $50 per hour. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 industry practice indicated by AHRI 390–2021. I. Reserved Appendices for Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment DOE proposes to amend its test procedures for SPVUs and to relocate those test procedures to new Appendix G and Appendix G1 to 10 CFR part 431, subpart F. This proposed reorganization of the SPVU test procedures would be consistent with the organization of the test procedures for other covered equipment and covered products. DOE has tentatively concluded that providing the test procedures for specific equipment in a designated appendix would improve the readability of the test procedure. Further, DOE proposes to make the provisions currently in 10 CFR 431.96(c) and (e) specific to SPVUs in 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, Appendices G and G1, thereby eliminating the references to test procedures for other equipment. To provide for future consideration of a similar reorganization for other commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment test procedures, DOE is proposing to reserve Appendices B through F under 10 CFR part 431, subpart F. The reserved appendices are presented to facilitate any future reorganization of the regulations and are not an indication of any substantive changes to the respective test procedures at this time. Any such reorganization of test procedures for the equipment identified in the proposed reserved appendices would be addressed in separate rulemakings. J. Compliance Dates EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends its test procedure for covered commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (including SPVUs), all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Order 12866 The Office of Management and Budget (‘‘OMB’’) has determined that this test procedure rulemaking does not constitute ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ under section 3(f) of Executive Order (‘‘E.O.’’) 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735 (Oct. PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 4, 1993). Accordingly, this action was not subject to review under the Executive order by the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (‘‘OIRA’’) in OMB. B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (‘‘IRFA’’) for any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. As required by Executive Order 13272, ‘‘Proper Consideration of Small Entities in Agency Rulemaking,’’ 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General Counsel’s website: www.energy.gov/gc/ office-general-counsel. DOE reviewed this proposed rule to amend the test procedures for SPVUs under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the policies and procedures published on February 19, 2003. The following sections detail DOE’s IRFA for this test procedure rulemaking. 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for SPVUs. DOE must update the Federal test procedures to be consistent with the updated industry consensus test procedure, unless DOE determines by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that the industry update would not be representative of an average use cycle or would be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) 2. Objective of, and Legal Basis for, Rule EPCA, as amended, requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes SPVUs, be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by AHRI or by ASHRAE, as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) Further, if such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must amend its test procedure to be consistent with the amended industry test procedure, unless DOE determines, E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules by rule published in the Federal Register and supported by clear and convincing evidence, that such amended test procedure would not meet the requirements in 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) and (3) related to representative use and test burden. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every 7 years, DOE must evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment including SPVUs, to determine whether amended test procedures would more accurately or fully comply with the requirements for the test procedures to not be unduly burdensome to conduct and be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs during a representative average use cycle. (42 U.S.C. 614(a)(1)(A)) Once completed, the current rulemaking will satisfy both of these legal requirements of EPCA. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 3. Description and Estimate of Small Entities Regulated DOE uses the Small Business Administration (‘‘SBA’’) small business size standards to determine whether manufacturers qualify as ‘‘small businesses,’’ which are listed by the North American Industry Classification System (‘‘NAICS’’).19 The SBA considers a business entity to be small business if, together with its affiliates, it employs less than a threshold number of workers specified in 13 CFR part 121. SPVU manufacturers, who produce the equipment covered by this rule, are classified under NAICS code 333415, ‘‘Air-Conditioning and Warm Air Heating Equipment and Commercial and Industrial Refrigeration Equipment Manufacturing.’’ In 13 CFR 121.201, the SBA sets a threshold of 1,250 employees or fewer for an entity to be considered as a small business for this category. This employee threshold includes all employees in a business’s parent company and any other subsidiaries. DOE reviewed the test procedures proposed in this NOPR under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. The Department conducted a focused inquiry into small business manufacturers of the equipment covered by this rulemaking. DOE used publicly available information to identify potential small businesses that manufacture SPVUs domestically. DOE identified manufacturers using DOE’s Compliance Certification Database 19 Available at: www.sba.gov/document/supporttable-size-standards. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 (‘‘CCD’’),20 the California Energy Commission’s Modernized Appliance Efficiency Database System (‘‘MAEDbS’’),21 and prior rulemakings. Additionally, DOE used publiclyavailable information and subscriptionbased market research tools (e.g., reports from Dun & Bradstreet 22). As a result of this inquiry, DOE identified a total of eight companies that are manufacturers or private labelers of SPVUs in the United States. DOE screened out companies that do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small business’’ or are foreign-owned and operated. Of these eight SPVU manufacturers or private labelers, DOE identified three potential small businesses. Two of the three small businesses are original equipment manufacturers (‘‘OEM’’) of the SPVUs each small business sells. The third small business is not an OEM of the SPVUs they sell. Instead, it rebrands its SPVU models which are supplied by a different OEM (i.e., making the small business a private labeler). Of the two OEM small businesses, one is a member of AHRI and the other is not a member of AHRI. The private labeler small business is not a member of AHRI. 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements DOE assumed each small business would have different potential regulatory costs depending on if they are an OEM and if they are a member of AHRI. DOE assumed all AHRI members, including small businesses, will be testing their SPVU models in accordance with AHRI 390–2021, the industry test procedure DOE is proposing to reference, and using AHRI’s certification program, which DOE presumes will be updated to include the IEER metric. Therefore, the proposed test procedure amendments would not add testing burden to SPVU manufacturers that are or will be using the AHRI 390–2021 test procedure for their SPVU models, including one of the identified small businesses. DOE assumed the small business that is not an OEM of the SPVU models they sell (i.e., the private labeler) does not pay for the testing costs for the rebranded SPVU models they sell because the test performance of the 20 DOE’s Compliance Certification Database is available at: www.regulations.doe.gov/ccms (last accessed September 1, 2021). 21 California Energy Commission’s MAEDbS is available at cacertappliances.energy.ca.gov/Pages/ ApplianceSearch.aspx (last accessed September 1, 2021). 22 Dun & Bradstreet reports are available at: app.dnbhoovers.comI (last access September 1, 2021). PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2511 rebranded SPVU models is identical to the SPVU models the OEM sells. Therefore, DOE does not anticipate that any non-OEMs, including this small business, incur any testing burden to sell rebranded SPVU models. Lastly, while DOE assumed that all SPVU manufacturers will be using the industry test procedure, AHRI 390– 2021, DOE estimated the potential testing costs for the small business that is an OEM but is not an AHRI member. This small business would only incur additional testing costs if that small business will not be using the AHRI 390–2021 to test their SPVU models. This one small business manufactures six SPVU basic models. As previously stated in section III.H of this NOPR, DOE estimated that the cost for third-party lab testing according to the proposed appendix G1 for measuring IEER and COP to be $4,900 for SPVACs and $5,500 for SPVHPs per unit. If SPVU manufacturers conduct physical testing to certify a SPVU basic model, two units are required to be tested per basic model. However, manufacturers are not required to perform laboratory testing on all basic models, as SPVU manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs.23 An AEDM is a computer modeling or mathematical tool that predicts the performance of non-tested basic models. These computer modeling and mathematical tools, when properly developed, can provide a means to predict the energy usage or efficiency characteristics of a basic model of a given covered product or equipment and reduce the burden and cost associated with testing. When developing cost estimates, DOE considered the cost to develop an AEDM, the costs to validate the AEDM through physical testing, and the cost per model to determine ratings using the AEDM. DOE estimated the cost to develop and validate an AEDM for SPVUs to be approximately $15,800, which includes physical testing of two models per validation class.24 Additionally, DOE estimated a cost of approximately $50 per basic model for determining energy efficiency using the validated AEDM. In the case of the single small, non-AHRI member, the estimated cost to rate the remaining four basic models with the AEDM would be 23 In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70. (AEDM development and validation costs) + $5,500 (per-unit physical testing costs) × (units required for physical testing per validation class) = $15,800. AEDM development ad validation costs are based on 96 hours of development and testing using an engineering technician wage of $50 per hour. This estimate utilizes the more costly SPVHP testing cost of $5,500 per unit. 24 $4,800 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2512 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules $200.25 Based on these estimates, the small SPVU manufacturer that is an OEM and not a member of AHRI would incur $16,000 to test and rate all six of its SPVU models. Market research tools report that company’s annual revenue to be approximately $1.3 million. The cost to re-rate all model would be approximately 1.2 percent of annual revenue for that small manufacturer.26 Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses DOE identified. DOE also requests comment on the potential cost estimates for each small business identified, compared to current industry practice, as indicated by AHRI 390–2021. 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic models. The use of AEDMs is less costly than physical testing for SPVUs. Without AEDMs, the cost for the small, nonAHRI-member to rate all basic models would increase to $66,000.27 Additionally, DOE considered alternative test methods and modifications to the AHRI 390–2021 test procedure for SPVUs. However, DOE has tentatively determined that there are no better alternatives than the existing industry test procedures, in terms of both meeting the agency’s objectives and reducing burden on manufacturers. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedure for SPVUs through incorporation by reference of AHRI 390–2021. Additional compliance flexibilities may be available through other means. Manufacturers subject to DOE’s energy efficiency standards may apply to DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals for exception relief under certain circumstances. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Manufacturers of SPVUs must certify to DOE that their products comply with 25 $50 (per-unit rating cost) × 4 (remaining units) = $200. 26 $16,000 (costs) ÷ $1,300,000 (annual revenue) = 1.2% of annual revenue. 27 $5,500 (per-unit test cost) × 2 (units tested per model) × 6 (number of SPVU models) = $66,000. This estimate utilizes the more costly SPVHP testing cost of $5,500 per unit. VerDate Sep<11>2014 19:15 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 any applicable energy conservation standards. To certify compliance, manufacturers must first obtain test data for their products according to the DOE test procedures, including any amendments adopted for those test procedures. DOE has established regulations for the certification and recordkeeping requirements for all covered consumer products and commercial equipment, including SPVUs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (‘‘PRA’’). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910–1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 DOE is analyzing this proposed regulation in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (‘‘NEPA’’) and DOE’s NEPA implementing regulations (10 CFR part 1021). DOE’s regulations include a categorical exclusion for rulemakings interpreting or amending an existing rule or regulation that does not change the environmental effect of the rule or regulation being amended. 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A5. DOE anticipates that this rulemaking qualifies for categorical exclusion A5 because it is an interpretive rulemaking that does not change the environmental effects of the rule and otherwise meets the requirements for application of a categorical exclusion. See 10 CFR 1021.410. DOE will complete its NEPA review before issuing the final rule. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (August 10, 1999), imposes certain requirements for agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The Executive order requires agencies to examine the constitutional and statutory PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 authority supporting any action that would limit the policymaking discretion of the States and to carefully assess the necessity for such actions. The Executive order also requires agencies to have an accountable process to ensure meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications. On March 14, 2000, DOE published a statement of policy describing the intergovernmental consultation process it will follow in the development of such regulations. 65 FR 13735. DOE has examined this proposed rule and has determined that it would not have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. EPCA governs and prescribes Federal preemption of State regulations as to energy conservation for the products that are the subject of this proposed rule. States can petition DOE for exemption from such preemption to the extent, and based on criteria, set forth in EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6297(d)) No further action is required by Executive Order 13132. F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 Regarding the review of existing regulations and the promulgation of new regulations, section 3(a) of Executive Order 12988, ‘‘Civil Justice Reform,’’ 61 FR 4729 (Feb. 7, 1996), imposes on Federal agencies the general duty to adhere to the following requirements: (1) Eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity; (2) write regulations to minimize litigation; (3) provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct rather than a general standard, and (4) promote simplification and burden reduction. Section 3(b) of Executive Order 12988 specifically requires that Executive agencies make every reasonable effort to ensure that the regulation: (1) Clearly specifies the preemptive effect, if any; (2) clearly specifies any effect on existing Federal law or regulation; (3) provides a clear legal standard for affected conduct while promoting simplification and burden reduction; (4) specifies the retroactive effect, if any; (5) adequately defines key terms, and (6) addresses other important issues affecting clarity and general draftsmanship under any guidelines issued by the Attorney General. Section 3(c) of Executive Order 12988 requires Executive agencies to review regulations in light of applicable standards in sections 3(a) and 3(b) to determine whether they are met or it is unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (‘‘UMRA’’) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Public Law 104–4, sec. 201 (codified at 2 U.S.C. 1531). For a proposed regulatory action likely to result in a rule that may cause the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector of $100 million or more in any one year (adjusted annually for inflation), section 202 of UMRA requires a Federal agency to publish a written statement that estimates the resulting costs, benefits, and other effects on the national economy. (2 U.S.C. 1532(a), (b)) The UMRA also requires a Federal agency to develop an effective process to permit timely input by elected officers of State, local, and Tribal governments on a proposed ‘‘significant intergovernmental mandate,’’ and requires an agency plan for giving notice and opportunity for timely input to potentially affected small governments before establishing any requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. On March 18, 1997, DOE published a statement of policy on its process for intergovernmental consultation under UMRA. 62 FR 12820; also available at www.energy.gov/gc/office-generalcounsel. DOE examined this proposed rule according to UMRA and its statement of policy and determined that the rule contains neither an intergovernmental mandate, nor a mandate that may result in the expenditure of $100 million or more in any year, so these requirements do not apply. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 (Pub. L. 105–277) requires Federal agencies to issue a Family Policymaking Assessment for any rule that may affect family well-being. This proposed rule would not have any impact on the autonomy or integrity of the family as an institution. Accordingly, DOE has concluded that it is not necessary to prepare a Family Policymaking Assessment. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 DOE has determined, under Executive Order 12630, ‘‘Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally Protected Property Rights,’’ 53 FR 8859 (March 18, 1988), that this proposed regulation would not result in any takings that might require compensation under the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 (44 U.S.C. 3516 note) provides for agencies to review most disseminations of information to the public under guidelines established by each agency pursuant to general guidelines issued by OMB. OMB’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 8452 (Feb. 22, 2002), and DOE’s guidelines were published at 67 FR 62446 (Oct. 7, 2002). Pursuant to OMB Memorandum M–19–15, Improving Implementation of the Information Quality Act (April 24, 2019), DOE published updated guidelines which are available at www.energy.gov/sites/prod/ files/2019/12/f70/DOE%20Final %20Updated%20IQA% 20Guidelines%20Dec%202019.pdf. DOE has reviewed this proposed rule under the OMB and DOE guidelines and has concluded that it is consistent with applicable policies in those guidelines. K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 Executive Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use,’’ 66 FR 28355 (May 22, 2001), requires Federal agencies to prepare and submit to OMB, a Statement of Energy Effects for any proposed significant energy action. A ‘‘significant energy action’’ is defined as any action by an agency that promulgated or is expected to lead to promulgation of a final rule, and that: (1) Is a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866, or any successor order; and (2) is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy; or (3) is designated by the Administrator of OIRA as a significant energy action. For any proposed significant energy action, the agency must give a detailed statement of any adverse effects on energy supply, distribution, or use should the proposal be implemented, and of reasonable alternatives to the action and their expected benefits on energy supply, distribution, and use. The proposed regulatory action to amend the test procedure for measuring PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2513 the energy efficiency of SPVUs is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy Effects. L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; ‘‘FEAA’’) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (‘‘FTC’’) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The proposed amendments to the Federal test procedure for SPVUs are primarily in response to modifications to the applicable industry consensus test standards (i.e., AHRI 390–2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009). DOE has evaluated these standards and is unable to conclude whether they fully comply with the requirements of section 32(b) of the FEAA (i.e., whether it was developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review).DOE will consult with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition, prior to prescribing a final rule. M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by AHRI, titled ‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ AHRI Standard 390–2021. Specifically, the Federal test procedure proposed in this NOPR would adopt sections 3 (except 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, and 3.15), 5 (except section 5.8.5), 6 (except 6.1.1, 6.2, 6.3, 6.4, and 6.5), Appendices A, D, and E of the industry test method. AHRI 390–2021 is an industry-accepted E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2514 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules test procedure for measuring the performance of SPVUs. AHRI Standard 390–2021 is available online at www.ahrinet.org/search-standards.aspx. In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ASHRAE, titled ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37– 2009 is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring the performance of electrically driven unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009 is available on ANSI’s website at https://webstore.ansi.org/ RecordDetail.aspx?sku=ANSI% 2FASHRAE+Standard+37-2009. In this NOPR, DOE also proposes to incorporate by reference the test standard published by ASHRAE, titled ‘‘Standard Methods For Laboratory Airflow Measurement,’’ ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92). ANSI/ ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92) is an industry-accepted test procedure for consistent measurement procedures for use in the preparation of other ASHRAE standards. Procedures described are used in testing air-moving, air-handling, and air-distribution equipment and components. ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 41.2–1987 (RA 92) is available on ANSI’s website at https://webstore. ansi.org/Standards/ASHRAE/ ANSIASHRAE411987RA92. The following standards, which appear in the regulatory text, were previously approved for IBR and no changes are proposed: AHRI 210/240– 2008, AHRI 340/360–2007, AHRI 1230– 2010, ASHRAE 127–2007, and ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). V. Public Participation lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 A. Participation in the Webinar The time and date of the webinar are listed in the DATES section at the beginning of this document. Webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants will be published on DOE’s website: www.energy.gov/eere/ buildings/public-meetings-andcomment-deadlines. Participants are responsible for ensuring their systems are compatible with the webinar software. B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for Distribution Any person who has an interest in the topics addressed in this notice, or who is representative of a group or class of VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 persons that has an interest in these issues, may request an opportunity to make an oral presentation at the webinar/public meeting. Such persons may submit requests to speak via email to the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program at: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Persons who wish to speak should include with their request a computer file in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or text (ASCII) file format that briefly describes the nature of their interest in this rulemaking and the topics they wish to discuss. Such persons should also provide a daytime telephone number where they can be reached. DOE requests persons selected to make an oral presentation to submit an advance copy of their statements at least two weeks before the webinar/public meeting. At its discretion, DOE may permit persons who cannot supply an advance copy of their statement to participate, if those persons have made advance alternative arrangements with the Building Technologies Office. As necessary, requests to give an oral presentation should ask for such alternative arrangements. C. Conduct of the Webinar DOE will designate a DOE official to preside at the webinar/public meeting and may also use a professional facilitator to aid discussion. The meeting will not be a judicial or evidentiary-type public hearing, but DOE will conduct it in accordance with section 336 of EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6306). A court reporter will be present to record the proceedings and prepare a transcript. DOE reserves the right to schedule the order of presentations and to establish the procedures governing the conduct of the webinar/public meeting. There shall not be discussion of proprietary information, costs or prices, market share, or other commercial matters regulated by U.S. anti-trust laws. After the webinar/public meeting and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the rulemaking. The webinar will be conducted in an informal, conference style. DOE will present summaries of comments received before the webinar/public meeting, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this rulemaking. Each participant will be allowed to make a general statement (within time limits determined by DOE), before the discussion of specific topics. PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 DOE will permit, as time permits, other participants to comment briefly on any general statements. At the end of all prepared statements on a topic, DOE will permit participants to clarify their statements briefly and comment on statements made by others. Participants should be prepared to answer questions posed by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar/public meeting will accept additional comments or questions from those attending, as time permits. The presiding official will announce any further procedural rules or modification of the above procedures that may be needed for the proper conduct of the webinar/public meeting. A transcript of the webinar/public meeting will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this document. In addition, any person may buy a copy of the transcript from the transcribing reporter. D. Submission of Comments DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this proposed rule no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the beginning of this proposed rule. Interested parties may submit comments using any of the methods described in the ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this document. DOE has historically provided a 75day comment period for test procedure NOPRs pursuant to the North American Free Trade Agreement, U.S.-CanadaMexico (‘‘NAFTA’’), Dec. 17, 1992, 32 I.L.M. 289 (1993); the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Public Law 103–182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified as amended at 10 U.S.C.A. 2576) (1993) (‘‘NAFTA Implementation Act’’); and Executive Order 12889, ‘‘Implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement,’’ 58 FR 69681 (Dec. 30, 1993). However, on July 1, 2020, the Agreement between the United States of America, the United Mexican States, and the United Canadian States (‘‘USMCA’’), Nov. 30, 2018, 134 Stat. 11 (i.e., the successor to NAFTA), went into effect, and Congress’s action in replacing NAFTA through the USMCA Implementation Act, 19 U.S.C. 4501 et seq. (2020), implies the repeal of E.O. 12889 and its 75-day comment period requirement for technical regulations. Thus, the controlling laws are EPCA and the USMCA Implementation Act. Consistent with EPCA’s public comment E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs. Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment. However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any documents submitted with the comments. Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as Confidential Business Information (‘‘CBI’’)). Comments submitted through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business Information section. DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment. Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal contact information to be VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 publicly viewable, do not include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author. Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters’ names compiled into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting time. Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person submitting information that he or she believes to be confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked ‘‘confidential’’ including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy of the document marked ‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make its own determination about the confidential status of the information and treat it according to its determination. It is DOE’s policy that all comments may be included in the public docket, without change and as received, including any personal information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be exempt from public disclosure). E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of interested parties concerning the following issues: Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its proposal to define ‘‘single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘single-phase single package PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 2515 vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ as subsets of the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category. DOE requests feedback on the proposed characteristics that would distinguish this equipment as SPVUs (i.e., ‘‘weatherized’’ or capable of utilizing a maximum of 400 CFM of outdoor air). Additionally, DOE requests comment on the proposed method to validate that a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM of outdoor air. Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the test methods specified in AHRI 390–2021 for calculating IEER for SPVUs. Issue 3: DOE requests comment and data on ratings under the current EER metric specified in 10 CFR 431.97 and ASHRAE 90.1–2019 based on ANSI/ AHRI 390–2003 as compared to ratings using the IEER metric under AHRI 390– 2021. Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify that COP representations using the ‘‘Low Temperature Operation, Heating’’ conditions in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are optional. Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and information on ESP conditions experienced in field operation of ducted SPVUs. Issue 6: DOE requests comment and data on the number of SPVHP installations by building type and geographical region and the annual heating and cooling loads for such buildings. DOE also requests data on the frequency of operation of defrost cycles and representative low ambient conditions for those buildings and installations. Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding specific components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices G and G1. Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding representations for SPVU models approved for use with multiple refrigerants. Issue 9: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity for SPVUs. Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically DOE’s initial conclusion that the proposed DOE test procedure amendments, if finalized, would not increase testing burden on SPVU manufacturers, as compared to current industry practice indicated by AHRI 390–2021. Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses DOE E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2516 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules identified. DOE also requests comment on the potential cost estimates for each small business identified, compared to current industry practice, as indicated by AHRI 390–2021. DOE also seeks comment on any other matter concerning the proposed test procedures for SPVUs not already addressed by the specific areas identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that would ensure that the test procedure measures energy efficiency during a representative average use cycle, as well as information that would help DOE create a procedure that is not unduly burdensome to conduct. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, 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: ■ VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed rule. ■ ■ ■ List of Subjects 10 CFR Part 429 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses. 10 CFR Part 431 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Signing Authority lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Signed in Washington, DC, on December 30, 2021. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 28, 2021, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the document in electronic format for publication, as an official document of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the Federal Register. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 2. Amend § 429.4 by: a. Revising paragraph (a); b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(3); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (c)(2); ■ d. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), and (g); and ■ e. Adding new paragraph (d). The revisions and additions read as follows. § 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference. (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https:// www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ building-technologies-office, and may be obtained from the other sources in this section. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@ nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) AHRI Standard 390–2021, (‘‘AHRI 390–2021’’), 2021 Standard for Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-conditioners and Heat Pumps, IBR approved for § 429.134. * * * * * PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (d) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and AirConditioning Engineers. 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092, (404) 636–8400, https://www.ashrae.org. (1) ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment’’, ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009. IBR approved for § 429.134. (2) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2–1987 (RA 92), ‘‘Standard Methods For Laboratory Airflow Measurement’’, ASHRAE approved October 1, 1987. IBR approved for § 429.134. * * * * * ■ 3. Amend § 429.43 by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as follows: § 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) equipment. (a) * * * (3) Product-specific provisions for determination of represented values. (i)–(vi) [Reserved] (vii) Single Package Vertical Units. When certifying to standards in terms of IEER, the following provisions apply. (A) If a basic model is distributed in commerce and approved for use with multiple refrigerants, a manufacturer must determine all represented values for that basic model (for example, IEER, COP and cooling capacity) based on the refrigerant that results in the lowest cooling efficiency. A refrigerant is considered approved for use if it is listed on the nameplate of the outdoor unit. Per the definition of basic model in 10 CFR 431.92 of this chapter, use of a refrigerant that requires different hardware (i.e., compressors, heat exchangers, or air moving systems that are not the same or comparably performing), would represent a different basic model, and separate representations would be required for each basic model. (B) The represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 percent and 100 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, or between 95 percent and 100 percent of the net sensible cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (C) Represented values must be based on performance (either through testing or by applying an AEDM) of individual models with components and features that are selected in accordance with section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter. E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules (4) Determination of represented values for individual models with specific components for SPVUs. (i) If a manufacturer distributes in commerce individual models with one of the components listed in the following table, determination of represented values is dependent on the selected grouping of individual models into a basic model, as indicated in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) through (a)(4)(v) of 2517 this section. For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘otherwise identical’’ means differing only in the presence of specific components listed in table 1 to this paragraph (a)(4)(i). TABLE 1—TO PARAGRAPH (a)(4)(i) Component Description Desiccant Dehumidification Components ........... An assembly that reduces the moisture content of the supply air through moisture transfer with solid or liquid desiccants. An automatic system that enables a cooling system to supply outdoor air to reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling during mid or cold weather. An assembly that preconditions outdoor air entering the equipment through direct or indirect thermal and/or moisture exchange with the exhaust air, which is defined as the building air being exhausted to the outside from the equipment. Coils used to provide supplemental heating. A heat exchanger located downstream of the indoor coil that heats the Supply Air during cooling operation using high pressure refrigerant in order to increase the ratio of moisture removal to Cooling Capacity provided by the equipment. A damper assembly including means to open and close the damper mounted at the supply or return duct opening of the equipment. A powered exhaust fan is a fan that transfers directly to the outside a portion of the building air that is returning to the unit, rather than allowing it to recirculate to the indoor coil and back to the building. A powered return fan is a fan that draws building air into the equipment. An assembly of structures through which the supply air passes before leaving the equipment or through which the return air from the building passes immediately after entering the equipment for which the sound insertion loss is at least 6 dB for the 125 Hz octave band frequency range. A method to adjust the cooling delivered by the equipment in which some portion of the hot high-pressure refrigerant from the discharge of the compressor(s) is diverted from its normal flow to the outdoor coil and is instead allowed to enter the indoor coil to modulate the capacity of a refrigeration circuit or to prevent evaporator coil freezing. Air Economizers .................................................. Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS) .... Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils ................................ Hot Gas Reheat .................................................. Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers ........................... Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans ...... Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators ........................ lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Hot Gas Bypass .................................................. (ii) If a basic model includes only individual models distributed in commerce without a specific component listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, the manufacturer must determine represented values for the basic model based on performance of an individual model distributed in commerce without the component. (iii) If a basic model includes only individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section, the manufacturer must determine represented values for the basic model based on performance of an individual model with the component present (and consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). (iv) If a basic model includes both individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component listed in paragraph (4)(i) of this section and individual models distributed in commerce without that specific component, and none of the individual models distributed in commerce without the specific component are otherwise identical to any individual model distributed in commerce with the specific component, the manufacturer VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 must consider the performance of individual models with the component present when determining represented values for the basic model (and consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). (v) If a basic model includes both individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of this section and individual models distributed in commerce without that specific component, and at least one of the individual models distributed in commerce without the specific component is otherwise identical to any given individual model distributed in commerce with the specific component, the manufacturer may determine represented values for the basic model either: (A) Based on performance of an individual model distributed in commerce without the specific component, or (B) Based on performance of an individual model with the specific component present (and consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (vi) In any of the cases specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) through (a)(4)(v) of this section, the represented values for a basic model must be determined through either testing (paragraph (a)(1) of this section) or an AEDM (paragraph(a)(2) of this section). * * * * * ■ 4. Amend § 429.134 by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows: § 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions. * * * * * (s) Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps. The following provisions apply for assessment and enforcement testing of models subject to standards in terms of IEER. (1) Verification of cooling capacity. The cooling capacity of each tested unit of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test requirements of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter. The mean of the measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable standards for purposes of compliance. (2) Specific Components. For basic models that include individual models distributed in commerce with any of the specific components listed at E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 2518 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules § 429.43(a)(4)(i), the following provisions apply. For the purposes of this paragraph, ‘‘otherwise identical’’ means differing only in the presence of specific components listed at § 429.43(a)(4)(i). (i) If the basic model includes only individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component, or does not include any otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, DOE may assess compliance for the basic model based on testing of an individual model with the component present (and consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). (ii) If the basic model includes both individual models distributed in commerce with a specific component and otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, DOE will assess compliance for the basic model based on testing an otherwise identical model within the basic model that does not include the component, unless DOE is not able to obtain an individual model for testing that does not include the component. In such a situation, DOE will assess compliance for the basic model based on testing of an individual model with the specific component present (and consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter). (3) Validation of outdoor ventilation airflow rate. The outdoor ventilation airflow rate in cubic feet per minute (‘‘CFM’’) of the basic model will be measured in accordance with ASHRAE 41.2–1987 (incorporated by reference, see § 429.4) and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37–2009. All references to the inlet shall be determined to mean the outdoor air inlet. (i) The outdoor ventilation airflow rate validation shall be conducted at the conditions specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 (incorporated by reference, see § 429.4), Full Load Standard Rating Capacity Test, Cooling, except for the following: (A) The outdoor ventilation airflow rate shall be determined at 0 in. H2O external static pressure with a tolerance of ¥0.00/+0.05 in. H2O. (B) Reserved. (ii) When validating the outdoor ventilation airflow rate, the outdoor air inlet pressure shall be 0.00 in. H2O, with a tolerance of ¥0.00/+0.05 in. H2O when measured against the room ambient pressure. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 5. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 6. Amend § 431.92 by: a. Revising the definitions of ‘‘Single package vertical air conditioner’’ and ‘‘Single package vertical heat pump.’’ ■ b. Adding the definitions of ‘‘Singlephase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ and ‘‘Single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h’’ in alphabetical order; and The additions and revisions read as follows: ■ ■ § 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. * * * * * Single package vertical air conditioner means: (1) Air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that— (i) Is factory-assembled as a single package that— (A) Has major components that are arranged vertically; (B) Is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating components; and (C) Is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (ii) Is powered by a single-or 3-phase current; (iii) May contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air discharges, ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and (iv) Has heating components that may include electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse-cycle refrigeration as a heating means; and (2) Includes single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, as defined in this section. Single package vertical heat pump means: (1) A single package vertical air conditioner that— (i) Uses reverse-cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source; and— (ii) May include secondary supplemental heating by means of electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas; (2) Includes single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, as defined in this section. Single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h means air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that meets the criteria in paragraphs (1)(i) through (iv) of the definition of a single package vertical air conditioner; that is singlephase; has a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and that: (1) Is weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for ‘‘Outdoor Use’’ or marked as ‘‘Suitable for Outdoor Use’’ on the equipment nameplate; or (2) Is non-weatherized and is a model that has optional ventilation air provisions available. When such ventilation air provisions are present on the unit, the unit must be capable of drawing in and conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space at a rate of at least 400 cubic feet per minute, as determined in accordance with § 429.134(s)(3), while the equipment is operating with the same drive kit and motor settings used to determine the certified efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for submittal to DOE by § 429.43(b)(4)(xi)). Single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h means air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that meets the criteria in paragraphs (1)(i) through (ii) of the definition of a single package vertical heat pump; that is single-phase; has a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and that: (1) Is weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for ‘‘Outdoor Use’’ or marked as ‘‘Suitable for Outdoor Use’’ on the equipment nameplate; or (2) Is non-weatherized and is a model that has optional ventilation air provisions available. When such ventilation air provisions are present on the unit, the unit must be capable of drawing in and conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space at a rate of at least 400 cubic feet per minute, as determined in accordance with § 429.134(s)(3), while the equipment is operating with the same drive kit and motor settings used to determine the certified efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for submittal to DOE by § 429.43(b)(4)(xii)). * * * * * ■ 7. Amend § 431.95 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(5) and (c)(2) to read as follows: § 431.95 Materials incorporated by reference. (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part with the E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2519 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, (202) 586–9127, Buildings@ee.doe.gov, https:// www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/ building-technologies-office, and may be obtained from the other sources in this section. It is also available for inspection at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: fr.inspection@ nara.gov, or go to: www.archives.gov/ federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html. (b) * * * (5) AHRI Standard 390–2021, ‘‘2021 Standard for Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical AirConditioners and Heat Pumps,’’ dated 2021, (AHRI 390–2021), IBR approved for appendices G and G1 to this subpart. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, (‘‘ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009’’), ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009, IBR approved for § 431.96 and appendices A, G, and G1 to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 8. Amend § 431.96 by revising paragraph (b)(1), table 1 to § 431.96, and paragraph (c) to read as follows: § 431.96 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. * * * * * (b) Testing and calculations. (1) Determine the energy efficiency and capacity of each category of covered equipment by conducting the test procedure(s) listed in Table 1 of this paragraph (b) along with any additional testing provisions set forth in paragraphs (c) through (g) of this section and appendices A through G1 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 must not be used. For equipment with multiple appendices listed in Table 1, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to determine the applicable appendix to use for testing. (2) * * * TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)(2)—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS 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 ... ≥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). AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). Appendix A to this subpart. AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). Appendix A to this subpart. AHRI 340/360–2007 (omit section 6.3). Paragraph (g) of this section. None. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. Water-Source HP ........... Large Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment. Very Large Commercial Package Air-Conditioning and Heating Equipment. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. Computer Room Air Conditioners. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems. lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems, Aircooled. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems, Water-source. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps. ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h. <135,000 Btu/h ............... EER ................................ EER ................................ EER and COP ................ Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. AC and HP ..................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h. ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ AC ................................... <65,000 Btu/h ................. SCOP ............................. SCOP ............................. AC ................................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. <65,000 Btu/h (3-phase) HP ................................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. <65,000 Btu/h (3-phase) HP ................................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ AC and HP ..................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ Air-Cooled AC and HP ... Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. Air-Cooled AC and HP ... EER, IEER and COP ..... EER ................................ EER, IEER and COP ..... EER ................................ SEER .............................. EER ................................ SEER and HSPF ............ EER and COP ................ EER, IEER, and COP .... Use tests, conditions, and procedures 1 in Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed paragraphs of this section Equipment type 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). Paragraphs (c) and (e). Paragraphs (c) and (e). Paragraph (e). None. Paragraphs (c) and (e). None. Paragraphs (c) and (e). Paragraphs (c), (e), and (g). Paragraphs (c) and (e). Paragraphs (c) and (e). Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f). AHRI 1230–2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), sections 5.1.2 and 6.6). and (f). AHRI 1230–2010 (omit Paragraphs (c), (d), (e), sections 5.1.2 and 6.6). and (f). Appendix G to this subpart 2. Appendix G1 to this subpart 2. 1 Incorporated None. None. by reference; see § 431.95. 2 For equipment with multiple appendices listed in Table 1, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to determine the applicable appendix to use for testing. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2520 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules (c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/240–2008, 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 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 certified ratings that is required to be maintained under 10 CFR 429.71. * * * * * Appendix B to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved] 9. Add and reserve appendix B to subpart F of part 431. ■ Appendix C to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved] 10. Add and reserve appendix C to subpart F of part 431. ■ Appendix D to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved] 11. Add and reserve appendix D to subpart F of part 431. ■ Appendix E to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved] 12. Add and reserve appendix E to subpart F of part 431. ■ Appendix F to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved] 13. Add and reserve appendix F to subpart F of part 431. ■ 14. Add appendix G to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows: ■ lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Appendix G to Subpart F of Part 431— Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps Note: Prior to [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] manufacturers must use the results of testing under either this appendix or § 431.96 as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of January 1, 2021, to determine compliance with the relevant standard from § 431.97 as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. On or after [date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] manufacturers must use the results of testing generated under this appendix to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standard from § 431.97 as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021 edition of 10 CFR parts 200–499. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 Beginning [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if manufacturers make voluntary representations with respect to the integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) of single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, such representations must be based on testing conducted in accordance with appendix G1 of this subpart. For any amended standards for single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps based on IEER published after January 1, 2021, manufacturers must use the results of testing under appendix G1 to determine compliance. Representations related to energy consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., this appendix or appendix G1) when determining compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use appendix G1 to certify compliance with any amended standards prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards. 0. DOE incorporated by reference the entire standard for AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 37–2009 in § 431.95. However, only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 37–2009 apply to this appendix, as follows: 0.1 AHRI 390–2021: (a) Section 3—Definitions (omitting sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, and 3.15) (b) Section 5—Test Requirements (omitting section 5.8.5) (c) Section 6—Rating Requirements (omitting sections 6.1.1 and 6.2 through 6.5) (d) Appendix A. ‘‘References—Normative’’ (e) Appendix D. ‘‘Indoor and Outdoor Air Condition Measurement—Normative’’ (f) Appendix E. ‘‘Method of Testing Single Package Vertical Units—Normative’’ 0.2 All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 2009 apply except for the following provisions: (a) Section 1—Purpose (b) Section 2—Scope (c) Section 4—Classifications 1. General. Determine cooling capacity (Btu/h) and energy efficiency ratio (EER) for all single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps and coefficient of performance (COP) for all single package vertical heat pumps, in accordance with the specified sections of AHRI 390–2021 ‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-conditioners And Heat Pumps’’ and the specified sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Electronically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat-Pump Equipment’’. Only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390– 2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 are applicable, as set forth in section 0 of this appendix. In addition, the instructions in section 2 of this appendix apply to determining EER and COP. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 390–2021, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced document by a standard-setting organization will not affect the test procedure in this PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 appendix, unless and until the test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in the incorporation will be published in the Federal Register. 2. Test Conditions. The ‘‘Standard Rating Full Load Capacity Test, Cooling’’ conditions for cooling mode tests and ‘‘Standard Rating Full Load Capacity Test, Heating’’ conditions for heat pump heating mode tests specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 shall be used. 2.1 Optional Representations. Representations of COP for single package vertical heat pumps made using the ‘‘Low Temperature Operation, Heating’’ condition specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are optional and are determined according to the applicable provisions in section 1 of this appendix. 15. Add appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows: ■ Appendix G1 to Subpart F of Part 431— Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy Consumption of Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps Note: Beginning [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if manufacturers make voluntary representations with respect to the integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) of single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps, such representations must be based on testing conducted in accordance with this appendix. Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this appendix to determine compliance with any amended standards for single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps based on IEER provided in § 431.97 that are published after January 1, 2021. Representations related to energy consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., appendix G or this appendix) when determining compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use this appendix to certify compliance with any amended standards prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards. 0. DOE incorporated by reference the entire standard for AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 37–2009 in § 431.95. However, only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390–2021 and ASHRAE 37–2009 apply to this appendix, as follows: 0.1 AHRI 390–2021: (a) Section 3—Definitions (omitting sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, and 3.15) (b) Section 5—Test Requirements (omitting section 5.8.5) (c) Section 6—Rating Requirements (omitting sections 6.1.1 and 6.3 through 6.5) (d) Appendix A. ‘‘References—Normative’’ (e) Appendix D. ‘‘Indoor and Outdoor Air Condition Measurement—Normative’’ (f) Appendix E. ‘‘Method of Testing Single Package Vertical Units—Normative’’ 0.2 All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 2009 apply except for the following provisions: E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules (a) Section 1—Purpose (b) Section 2—Scope (c) Section 4—Classifications 1. General. Determine cooling capacity (Btu/h) and integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) for all single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps and coefficient of performance (COP) for all single package vertical heat pumps, in accordance with the specified sections of AHRI 390–2021 ‘‘Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-conditioners And Heat Pumps’’ and the specified sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 ‘‘Methods of Testing for Rating Electronically Driven Unitary AirConditioning and Heat-Pump Equipment’’. Only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390– 2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 are applicable, as set forth in section 0 of this appendix. In addition, the instructions in section 2 of this appendix apply to determining IEER and COP. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 390–2021, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced document by a standard-setting organization will not affect the test procedure in this appendix, unless and until the test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and a notice of any change in the incorporation will be published in the Federal Register. 2. Test Conditions. The ‘‘Part-Load Standard Rating Conditions’’ conditions for 2521 cooling mode tests and ‘‘Standard Rating Full Load Capacity Test, Heating’’ conditions for heat pump heating mode tests specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 shall be used. 2.1 Optional Representations. Representations of COP for single package vertical heat pumps made using the ‘‘Low Temperature Operation, Heating’’ condition specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390–2021 are optional and are determined according to the applicable provisions in section 1 of this appendix. 3. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components. When testing an SPVU that includes any of the features listed in Table 3.1 of this appendix, test in accordance with the set-up and test provisions specified in Table 3.1. TABLE 3.1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS Component Desiccant Dehumidification Components. Air Economizers ................... Test provisions An assembly that reduces the moisture content of the supply air through moisture transfer with solid or liquid desiccants. An automatic system that enables a cooling system to supply outdoor air to reduce or eliminate the need for mechanical cooling during mid or cold weather. Disable desiccant dehumidification components for testing. Fresh Air Dampers ............... An assembly with dampers and means to set the damper position in a closed and one open position to allow air to be drawn into the equipment when the indoor fan is operating. Hail Guards .......................... A grille or similar structure mounted to the outside of the unit covering the outdoor coil to protect the coil from hail, flying debris and damage from large objects. A capacitor that increases the power factor measured at the line connection to the equipment. An assembly that preconditions outdoor air entering the equipment through direct or indirect thermal and/or moisture exchange with the exhaust air, which is defined as the building air being exhausted to the outside from the equipment. Power Correction Capacitors Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS). Barometric Relief Dampers .. UV Lights ............................. Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils .. Hot Gas Reheat ................... lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 Description Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators. VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 An assembly with dampers and means to automatically set the damper position in a closed position and one or more open positions to allow venting directly to the outside a portion of the building air that is returning to the unit, rather than allowing it to recirculate to the indoor coil and back to the building. A lighting fixture and lamp mounted so that it shines light on the indoor coil, that emits ultraviolet light to inhibit growth of organisms on the indoor coil surfaces, the condensate drip pan, and/other locations within the equipment. Coils used to provide supplemental heating ................... A heat exchanger located downstream of the indoor coil that heats the Supply Air during cooling operation using high pressure refrigerant in order to increase the ratio of moisture removal to Cooling Capacity provided by the equipment. An assembly of structures through which the Supply Air passes before leaving the equipment or through which the return air from the building passes immediately after entering the equipment for which the sound insertion loss is at least 6 dB for the 125 Hz octave band frequency range. Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 For any air economizer that is factory-installed, place the economizer in the 100% return position and close and seal the outside air dampers for testing. For any modular air economizer shipped with the unit but not factory-installed, do not install the economizer for testing. For any fresh air dampers that are factory-installed, close and seal the dampers for testing. For any modular fresh air dampers shipped with the unit but not factory-installed, do not install the dampers for testing. Remove hail guards for testing. Remove power correction capacitors for testing. For any VERS that is factory-installed, place the VERS in the 100% return position and close and seal the outside air dampers and exhaust air dampers for testing, and do not energize any VERS subcomponents (e.g., energy recovery wheel motors). For any VERS module shipped with the unit but not factoryinstalled, do not install the VERS for testing. For any barometric relief dampers that are factory-installed, close and seal the dampers for testing. For any modular barometric relief dampers shipped with the unit but not factory-installed, do not install the dampers for testing. Turn off UV lights for testing. Test with steam/hydronic heat coils in place but providing no heat. De-activate refrigerant reheat coils for testing so as to provide the minimum (none if possible) reheat achievable by the system controls. Removable sound traps/sound attenuators shall be removed for testing. Otherwise, test with sound traps/ attenuators in place. E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2 2522 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 10 / Friday, January 14, 2022 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3.1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS—Continued Component Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers. Description Test provisions A damper assembly including means to open and close the damper mounted at the supply or return duct opening of the equipment. For any fire/smoke/isolation dampers that are factoryinstalled, set the dampers in the fully open position for testing. For any modular fire/smoke/isolation dampers shipped with the unit but not factory-installed, do not install the dampers for testing. [FR Doc. 2021–28553 Filed 1–13–22; 8:45 am] lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS2 BILLING CODE 6450–01–P VerDate Sep<11>2014 18:24 Jan 13, 2022 Jkt 256001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\14JAP2.SGM 14JAP2

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 87, Number 10 (Friday, January 14, 2022)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 2490-2522]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-28553]



[[Page 2489]]

Vol. 87

Friday,

No. 10

January 14, 2022

Part II





 Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





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

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

[[Page 2490]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

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


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

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

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

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

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons 
may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020, 
by any of the following methods:
    1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the 
instructions for submitting comments.
    2. Email: To [email protected]. Include docket 
number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020 in the subject line of the message.
    No telefacsimiles (``faxes'') will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section V, ``Public Participation,'' of this document.
    Although DOE has routinely accepted public comment submissions 
through a variety of mechanisms, including postal mail and hand 
delivery/courier, the Department has found it necessary to make 
temporary modifications to the comment submission process in light of 
the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. DOE is currently suspending receipt of 
public comments via postal mail and hand delivery/courier. If a 
commenter finds that this change poses an undue hardship, please 
contact Appliance Standards Program staff at (202) 586-1445 to discuss 
the need for alternative arrangements. Once the COVID-19 pandemic 
health emergency is resolved, DOE anticipates resuming all of its 
regular options for public comment submission, including postal mail 
and hand delivery/courier.
    Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public 
meeting/webinar attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other 
supporting documents/materials, is available for review at 
www.regulations.gov. All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. However, some documents listed in the index, 
such as those containing information that is exempt from public 
disclosure, may not be publicly available.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket?D=EERE-2017-BT-TP-0020. The docket web page contains 
instructions on how to access all documents, including public comments, 
in the docket. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for information 
on how to submit comments through www.regulations.gov.

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

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

Table of Contents

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

[[Page 2491]]

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

I. Authority and Background

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

A. Authority

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

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

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

[[Page 2492]]

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

B. Background

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

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

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

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

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

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

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

[[Page 2493]]



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

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

III. Discussion

A. Scope of Applicability

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

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

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

[[Page 2494]]

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 2495]]

(SPVUs) and multi-family-type floor-mounted, single-phase units (CACs). 
However, based on DOE's review, all wall-mounted units marketed for 
commercial applications identified by DOE were weatherized (i.e., 
designed for outdoor use) and denoted on their nameplate that they are 
for ``Outdoor Use'' or ``Suitable for Outdoor Use.'' Conversely, all 
units marketed for multi-family-type floor-mounted applications 
identified by DOE were non-weatherized units. Based on this review, DOE 
also proposes that whether a model is weatherized or non-weatherized is 
a criterion for distinguishing between single-phase SPVUs and consumer 
CACs.
    Therefore, DOE proposes to define in 10 CFR 431.92 ``single-phase 
single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical heat pump 
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as SPVACs and SPVHPs, 
respectively, that are either (1) weatherized, or (2) non-weatherized 
and have the ability to provide a minimum of 400 CFM of outdoor air. 
Single-phase single package products with cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h not meeting these definitions would be properly classified 
as CACs, not SPVUs.
    DOE recognizes that the confusion with the appropriate 
classification of CACs and SPVUs may have been compounded by DOE's 
definition of ``space-constrained'' CACs and ASHRAE Standard 90.1's 
definition of ``nonweatherized space constrained single-package 
vertical unit.'' Nonetheless, because a space-constrained product is a 
central air conditioner or heat pump, it is properly classified as a 
consumer product. In 10 CFR 430.2, DOE defines ``space constrained 
product'' as a central air conditioner or heat pump with certain 
characteristics including rated cooling capacity no greater than 30,000 
Btu/hr and an outdoor or indoor unit with dimensions or displacement 
substantially smaller than those of other units and that if increased 
would increase installation cost or reduce utility, and which was 
available for purchase in the United States as of December 1, 2000. As 
with CACs more broadly, if a unit meets DOE's definition of ``space 
constrained product,'' it is not an SPVU.
    In contrast, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2013 created a new equipment 
class for SPVACs and SPVHPs used in space-constrained applications, 
with a definition for ``nonweatherized space constrained single-package 
vertical unit'' and specified efficiency standards for the associated 
equipment class. In a Notice of Data Availability addressing energy 
conservation standards for certain commercial heating, air 
conditioning, and water heating equipment, including SPVUs, published 
in the Federal Register on April 11, 2014, DOE explicitly addressed 
``nonweatherized space constrained single-package vertical units'' and 
tentatively concluded that there was no need to establish a separate 
space-constrained class for SPVUs. 79 FR 20114, 20123. In that 
document, DOE stated that certain models currently listed by 
manufacturers as SPVUs, most of which would have met the ASHRAE space-
constrained definition, were being misclassified and should be 
classified as central air conditioners (in most cases, space-
constrained central air conditioners). Id. DOE reaffirmed this position 
in a NOPR addressing energy conservation standards for SPVUs, published 
in the Federal Register on December 30, 2014, emphasizing that a 
product can only be considered commercial/industrial equipment under 
EPCA if it does not meet the definition of a consumer product. 79 FR 
78614, 78625. In the subsequent final rule addressing energy 
conversation standards for SPVUs, DOE did not adopt definitions in 
response to this issue and stated it would consider the matter in a 
subsequent rulemaking. 80 FR 57438, 57448 (Sept. 23, 2015).
    DOE has now tentatively determined that the characteristics 
included in the proposed definitions earlier in this section of 
``single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package 
vertical heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' 
appropriately distinguish such equipment from consumer products and 
address any potential confusion as to the application of the DOE 
definition of ``space constrained products'' to SPVUs.
    In regard to determining if a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM 
of outdoor air, DOE is proposing to include provisions in 10 CFR 
429.134 that specify the method of measurement of the maximum outdoor 
ventilation airflow rate. DOE is proposing to specify that the outdoor 
ventilation airflow rate should be set up and measured in accordance 
with ASHRAE 41.2-1987, ``Standard Methods for Laboratory Airflow 
Measurement,'' and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE notes that the 
proposed method for measuring outdoor ventilation airflow is generally 
consistent with the test methods specified in AHRI 390-2021 (i.e., AHRI 
390-2021 incorporates by reference ASHRAE 37-2009, including Section 
6.4, which in turn incorporates by reference ASHRAE 41.2-1987, which 
specify the method of airflow measurement.) DOE is proposing additional 
specifications in this NOPR to clarify how these provisions are applied 
to measure the outdoor ventilation airflow rate. First, DOE is 
proposing to specify that all references to the inlet in ASHRAE 41.2-
1987 and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 37-2009 refer to the outdoor air inlet. 
Second, DOE is proposing to specify that the measurement should take 
place at the conditions specified for Full Load Standard Rating 
Capacity Test, Cooling in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021, except for the 
minimum external static pressure (ESP). The minimum ESP for all 
validations shall be 0.00 in. H2O measured from inlet to 
outlet, with a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in. H2O. Finally, 
DOE is proposing that the outdoor air inlet pressure shall be 0.00 in. 
H2O, with a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in. H2O when 
measured against the room ambient. These additional provisions would 
improve the representativeness, repeatability, and reproducibility of 
the test methods for validating the outdoor ventilation airflow rate.
    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its proposal to define ``single-
phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical 
heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as subsets of 
the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category. DOE requests feedback 
on the proposed characteristics that would distinguish this equipment 
as SPVUs (i.e., ``weatherized'' or capable of utilizing a maximum of 
400 CFM of outdoor air). Additionally, DOE requests comment on the 
proposed method to validate that a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM 
of outdoor air.

B. Updates to Industry Standards

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

[[Page 2496]]

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

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

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

C. Proposed Organization of the SPVU Test Procedure

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

D. Energy Efficiency Descriptor

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

[[Page 2497]]

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

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

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

[[Page 2498]]

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

[[Page 2499]]

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

E. Test Method

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

[[Page 2500]]

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

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

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

[[Page 2501]]

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

[[Page 2502]]

    Lennox commented that the voltage requirements specified in ANSI/
AHRI 390-2003 are consistent with other similar industry test 
procedures and are appropriate for this equipment. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 
3) AHRI acknowledged that voltage can affect the measured efficiency of 
air conditioners, but it stated that these variations tend to be 
insignificant and do not correlate to a specific voltage. (AHRI, No. 5 
at pp. 2-3) AHRI also commented that the majority of SPVUs are applied 
at 230 V, and, therefore, the current test procedure is appropriate. 
Id.
    In response, DOE first points out that Section 5.8.1 of AHRI 390-
2021 maintains the same voltage requirements for SPVUs as specified in 
the current DOE test procedure and in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003. DOE notes 
that these voltage requirements are generally consistent with industry 
test procedures for other commercial air conditioning and heat pump 
equipment. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt the voltage 
requirements in Section 5.8.1 AHRI 390-2021, consistent with the 
existing voltage requirements, as enumerated in section 0 of the 
proposed Appendix G and in section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
e. Filter Requirements
    DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that Section 5.2.2.a of ANSI/AHRI 
390-2003 requires that non-filtered ducted equipment be tested at the 
minimum ESP specified in Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 plus an 
additional 0.08 inches of water column (``in H2O'') of ESP. 
83 FR 34499, 34501 (July 20, 2018). DOE further noted that ANSI/AHRI 
390-2003 does not define ``non-filtered equipment.'' Id. As part of the 
July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether any SPVUs are designed 
to be installed without a filter. Id. at 83 FR 34499, 34502. DOE also 
requested comment on the typical effectiveness (i.e., minimum 
efficiency reporting value (``MERV'') rating) of filters provided with 
SPVUs. Id. DOE requested comment on whether non-ducted SPVUs intended 
for installation with a filter are ever tested without a filter 
installed and, if so, how such testing has accounted for the filter 
pressure drop to better represent actual performance. Id.
    AHRI and Lennox commented that all SPVUs on the market are designed 
to be installed with a filter, are shipped with a filter, and should be 
tested with the supplied filter. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4; Lennox, No. 6 at 
p. 3) AHRI added that the effectiveness of the filter can vary based on 
application. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI also stated that all SPVUs on 
the market are tested with a filter. Id. NEEA and NWPCC commented that 
SPVUs are used primarily in commercial buildings, and that ASHRAE 
Standard 52.2, ``Method of Testing General Ventilation Air-Cleaning 
Devices for Removal Efficiency by Particle Size,'' recommends MERV 8 
filters for commercial buildings. Consequently, NEEA and NWPCC 
recommended that SPVUs be tested with a MERV 8 filter rating to be 
representative of equipment use in the field. (NEEA, NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 
2) GE commented that any test procedure change requiring the addition 
of a filter would increase test burden and product development cost. 
(GE, No. 3 at p. 2) GE stated that filter types, sometimes specified by 
local or State requirements, differ and that there is a risk of 
unintended test variation depending upon the filter specified. Id. GE 
stated that such variation could result in erroneous enforcement test 
results. Id. GE also commented that it opposes any test procedure 
change that potentially could dictate product design requirements, such 
as filter selection. Id.
    Section 3.19 of AHRI 390-2021 includes a definition for the term 
``Standard Filter'' and requires that an SPVU must be tested with the 
filter designated by the manufacturer in the marketing materials for 
the model as the ``default'' or ``standard'' filter in Table 2, and 
does not allow for testing without a filter. Section 5.7.3.1 of AHRI 
390-2021 states that if the manufacturer does not specify a ``default'' 
or ``standard'' filter option, then the Standard Filter is the filter 
with the lowest level of filtration, as specified in the marketing 
materials for the model. If the marketing materials do not specify a 
Standard Filter, or do not specify which filter option has the lowest 
filtration level, then the Standard Filter is any filter shipped by the 
manufacturer for that model.
    In light of the above, DOE preliminarily concludes that a 0.08 in 
H2O increase in the minimum ESP for units tested without a 
filter is not necessary in the SPVU test procedure because, based on a 
review of equipment on the market and supported by the comments from 
AHRI and Lennox, DOE finds that all SPVUs are designed to be installed 
with a filter, are shipped with a filter, and are tested with a filter. 
In response to NEEA and NWPCC, DOE identified many SPVUs that offered 
filters with lower filtration than MERV 8 filters, so requiring them 
may not be representative of all field applications. In addition, based 
on a review of equipment on the market, different manufacturers might 
specify different filters as ``standard'' (i.e., there is not a single 
filter type recognized as ``standard'' by the industry). Manufacturers 
might also market an SPVU with multiple filter options from which the 
consumer can choose.
    DOE has, therefore, initially determined that the requirement to 
test with a filter and the provisions on filter selection would provide 
more representative results by testing with a filter that is more 
likely to be used by a consumer in the field and is consistent with how 
manufacturers are currently testing. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to 
adopt the provisions in Section 3.19 and Table 2 in AHRI 390-2021 for 
testing with the Standard Filter, as enumerated in section 0 of the 
proposed Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
f. External Static Pressure and Airflow Requirements
    SPVUs include fans that circulate indoor air over a heat exchanger 
and provides heating or cooling either through ductwork or directly to 
the conditioned space. To deliver sufficient conditioned air to the 
intended space, the airflow provided by the unit must overcome pressure 
losses throughout duct work (if present), and to a smaller degree, 
within the unit itself. Pressure losses are the result of directional 
changes in the ductwork, friction between the moving air and surfaces 
of the ductwork, and possible appurtenances in the airflow path. 
Further, different modes of operation may require different amounts of 
airflow. Therefore, indoor fan speed is typically adjustable to assure 
that the provided airflow rate is appropriate for the field-installed 
ductwork system serving the building in which the unit is installed. 
The performance of an SPVU can be significantly affected by variation 
in ESP or operation with an indoor airflow that is different from the 
intended or designed airflow. To ensure that a test procedure provides 
results that are representative of an average-use cycle, appropriate 
airflow settings for testing and ESP requirements are needed to reflect 
the typical pressure losses. Such specifications would also contribute 
to the repeatability of the test procedure.
i. External Static Pressure
    As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 
390-2003 specifies the minimum ESP required for testing ducted SPVUs 
based on capacity range. DOE sought comments on whether the minimum ESP 
requirements in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 are representative of field

[[Page 2503]]

operation for ducted SPVUs, and if not, comment and data on what 
representative minimum ESP levels would be. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 
20, 2018).
    The CA IOUs, as well as ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE, commented that the 
minimum ESP requirements in the test procedure may be significantly 
lower than typical ESPs in the field, which would significantly 
underestimate fan power consumption. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2-3; ASAP, 
NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) ASAP, NRDC, and ACEEE commented that 
DOE should ensure that the minimum ESP requirements specified in the 
SPVU test procedure adequately reflect conditions in the field. (ASAP, 
NRDC, and ACEEE, No. 4 at p. 3) NEEA and NWPCC added that the ASRAC 
Working Group for commercial package air conditioners recommended that 
DOE develop minimum ESP requirements for SPVUs that adequately 
represent performance in the field and that provide accurate 
information to consumers to make purchasing decisions. (NEEA and NWPCC, 
No. 7 at pp. 1-2)
    NEEA and NWPCC stated that for CUACs, there is inconsistency 
between the range of ESPs specified in the test procedure (0.2 to 0.75 
in H2O) compared to the range of ESPs used for the analysis 
for the standards rulemaking (0.75 and 1.25 in H2O). (NEEA 
and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 2) NEEA and NWPCC stated that if the ESP 
requirements in the test procedure are lower than those typically found 
in the field, the ratings of SPVUs will provide neither an adequate 
representation of actual efficiency nor accurate information to 
consumers. Id. NEEA and NWPCC added that the ESP requirements should 
have no impact on test burden since there would be no change to how the 
test is conducted. Id.
    The CA IOUs referenced the minimum ESP requirement of 0.5 in 
H2O for residential central air conditioners and heat pumps 
with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as specified in 10 CFR part 
430, subpart B, appendix M1, ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the 
Energy Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' and 
commented that DOE should align all other heating, ventilating, and air 
conditioning (``HVAC'') equipment, including SPVUs, with the values 
specified in Appendix M1, which increase in ESP based on corresponding 
increases in cooling capacity. (CA IOUs, No. 2 at pp. 2-3)
    AHRI commented that based on conversations with company application 
engineers, the minimum ESP requirements specified in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 
are representative of field operation for ducted SPVUs installed with 
10 feet of ductwork or less. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox also stated 
that the current ESP requirements are representative of field operation 
for ducted SPVUs. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) No commenter provided data as 
to the ESPs experienced in field operation.
    In response, DOE notes the range of comments received as to the 
appropriate ESP for testing. AHRI 390-2021 maintained the same minimum 
ESP requirements as specified in ANSI/AHRI 390-2003. DOE does not have 
data indicating that these minimum ESP requirements are 
unrepresentative of field operation for ducted SPVUs. DOE also 
recognizes that SPVUs are typically installed in smaller modular 
buildings with different duct configurations. As a result, DOE notes 
that minimum ESP requirements for other equipment (e.g., CACs, CUACs) 
may not be relevant for SPVUs. DOE also notes that in the previous 
standards rulemaking the ESP values were aligned with the values used 
in the test procedure. As a result, DOE does not expect there to be 
inconsistency between the test procedure and the analysis conducted for 
the standards rulemaking. Based on this, DOE is tentatively not 
proposing to revise the ESP requirements in the DOE test procedure for 
SPVUs but to instead remain consistent with AHRI 390-2021.
    Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and information on ESP conditions 
experienced in field operation of ducted SPVUs.
ii. Airflow Rate
Full-Load Cooling Test
    DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not 
specify tolerances on achieving the rated airflow or the minimum ESP 
during testing. As discussed previously, the performance of an air 
conditioner or heat pump can be affected by variations in airflow and 
ESP. In the July 2018 RFI, DOE noted that the current DOE test 
procedure for CUACs requires that the indoor airflow for the full-load 
cooling test be within 3 percent of the rated airflow and 
specifies a tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in H2O for the ESP 
requirements. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). DOE also noted that 
in DOE's test procedure for CAC/HPs, the method for setting indoor air 
volume rate for ducted units without variable-speed constant-air-
volume-rate indoor fans is a multi-step process that addresses the 
discrete-step fan speed control of these units. Id. In this method, (a) 
the air volume rate during testing may not be higher than the certified 
air volume rate, but may be up to 10 percent less, and (b) the ESP 
during testing may not be lower than the minimum specified ESP, but may 
be higher than the minimum if this is required to avoid having the air 
volume rate overshoot its certified value. 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix M, section 3.1.4.2.a. As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE 
requested information on the different types of indoor air fan drive 
systems that are used for SPVUs and information on appropriate 
tolerances for setting airflow and ESP. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 
2018).
    On this topic, AHRI stated that SPVUs use permanent split-capacitor 
motors with discrete speed settings or electronically-commutated motors 
with variable speed settings; and that in either case, the unit leaves 
the factory with the fan and motor set at a specific speed to provide 
the rated performance. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) Lennox commented that its 
equipment uses motors and controls with speed/airflow settings 
developed for each specific product and mode of operation, which are 
factory pre-set to optimize performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) Lennox 
stated that for its equipment, the manufacturer-specified airflow 
setting should allow the ability to set the airflow to the specified 
value while meeting the ESP requirements for testing. Id. Lennox 
further commented that the manufacturer settings should be used for 
testing. Id. Lennox stated that if the minimum ESP cannot be 
maintained, the airflow should be set to the maximum airflow while 
maintaining the required ESP. Id.
    AHRI commented that the then-draft version of AHRI 390 directed use 
of the manufacturer-specified fan control settings for all tests for 
which they are provided. (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 4) AHRI also commented that 
the draft version of AHRI 390 directed use of the full-load cooling fan 
control settings specified by the manufacturer for all tests for which 
fan control settings are specified, and if there are no specified fan 
control settings for any tests, use the as-shipped fan control settings 
for all tests. Id. AHRI added that for testing, the priority is setting 
the correct airflow speed, and the ESP is adjusted to match the 
required airflow. Id. AHRI noted that the draft version of AHRI 390 
provided that the airflow-measuring apparatus should be adjusted to 
maintain ESP within -0/+0.05 in H2O of the required minimum 
ESP and to maintain the airflow within 3 percent of the 
manufacturer-specified full-load cooling airflow. Id.
    DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 specifies an airflow tolerance of 
3

[[Page 2504]]

percent of the full-load cooling airflow. This would be consistent with 
the test procedure for other commercial air conditioning and heat pump 
equipment, and it would ensure that the rated airflow remains 
representative of field use during testing. Therefore, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the 3 percent airflow tolerance 
included in AHRI 390-2021 is appropriate for testing SPVUs. 
Accordingly, DOE proposes to adopt the full-load cooling airflow 
tolerance specified in Section 5.7 of AHRI 390-2021.
    AHRI 390-2021 also includes additional instructions for how to set 
indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be maintained 
simultaneously. For non-ducted units, ducting is not installed in the 
field; therefore, increasing ESP (which simulates the resistance to 
airflow from longer duct length in the field) beyond the specified 
tolerance of -0/+0.05 in H2O during testing would not be 
representative of field application. Consequently, if both the ESP and 
airflow cannot be maintained within tolerance during the test, Section 
5.7.3.3.4 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that the ESP be maintained within 
the required tolerance and an airflow as close to the certified value 
as possible be used.
    For ducted units, if ESP and/or airflow are higher than the 
tolerance range at the lowest fan control setting (e.g., lowest fan 
speed), maintaining airflow within tolerance should take precedence 
over maintaining ESP within tolerance. This is because operating with 
an airflow higher than the certified value would likely result in an 
airflow (and thus measured efficiency) that is unrepresentative of 
field operation. Section 5.7.3.4.1.2 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that 
the airflow-measuring apparatus be adjusted to maintain airflow within 
tolerance and to operate with the lowest possible ESP that meets the 
minimum requirement. If ESP or airflow are lower than the tolerance 
range at the maximum fan control setting (e.g., highest fan speed), 
maintaining ESP at or above the minimum value should take precedence 
over maintaining airflow within tolerance because operating with an ESP 
lower than the minimum value does not reflect typical duct lengths (or 
measured efficiency) in field application. In such a case, Section 
5.7.3.4.1.3 of AHRI 390-2021 specifies that the airflow-measuring 
apparatus be adjusted to maintain ESP within tolerance and to operate 
with an airflow as close as possible to the certified value.
    DOE understands the provisions regarding tolerances and priority 
for adjustment of fan speed and ESP in AHRI 390-2021 are consistent 
with the methodology in the draft version of AHRI 390, as evidenced by 
the excerpt provided in AHRI's comments (AHRI, No. 5 at p. 5). DOE 
preliminarily finds that these provisions would not conflict with any 
provisions in the current DOE test procedure, and would improve test 
repeatability and provide test conditions that are more representative 
of those during operation in the field. Based on this, DOE is proposing 
to adopt the provisions specified in Section 5.7.3 of AHRI 390-2021 for 
setting indoor airflow if the airflow and ESP tolerances cannot be 
maintained simultaneously, as enumerated in section 0 of the proposed 
Appendix G and section 0 of the proposed Appendix G1.
Heating Test
    DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 does not 
distinguish between cooling and heating airflow rates required for 
testing. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). For SPVHPs with multiple-
speed or variable-speed indoor fans, the indoor airflow rate in heating 
operation could be different from that in cooling operation. Id. 
Different airflow rates may be used for heating and cooling operation 
because of different indoor comfort needs in the heating season, and 
there may be a minimum heating airflow rate for electrical resistance 
heating safety that exceeds the cooling airflow rate. Id. DOE also 
noted in the July 2018 RFI that, for CUAC heat pumps, DOE's current 
test procedure requires that indoor airflow and ESP first be 
established within required tolerances for the full-load cooling test 
condition by adjusting both the unit under test and the test facility's 
airflow-measuring apparatus (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix 
A, section 6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018)) The CUAC test 
procedure further provides that, unless the unit is designed to operate 
at different airflow rates for cooling and heating modes, if necessary, 
the airflow-measuring apparatus (but not the unit under test) may be 
adjusted to achieve an airflow in heating mode equal to the cooling 
full-load airflow rate within the specified tolerance, without regard 
to changes in ESP (see 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A, section 
6(ii)). 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018).
    As part of the July 2018 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether 
provisions similar to those required for CUACs would be appropriate for 
determining airflow rate and minimum ESP for heating mode tests for 
SPVHPs. 83 FR 34499, 34502 (July 20, 2018). NEEA and NWPCC commented 
that if SPVHPs operate at different airflow speeds for heating and 
cooling, then SPVUs should be tested similar to CUACs, for which the 
heating efficiency is evaluated at the unique heating airflow rate. 
(NEEA and NWPCC, No. 7 at p. 3) Lennox commented that SPVHP airflow 
rates for heating and cooling are generally the same, but that the test 
procedure should not preclude using different airflow rates that could 
provide benefits in performance. (Lennox, No. 6 at p. 4) AHRI added 
that the draft version of AHRI 390 included procedures that provide for 
a difference in the manufacturer-specified heating airflow and full-
load cooling airflow. (AHRI, No. 5 at pp. 4-5)
    In response, DOE notes that AHRI 390-2021 includes provisions for 
setting the heating airflow rate that are consistent with the excerpt 
of the draft version of AHRI 390 provided in AHRI's comments, (AHRI, 
No. 5 at p. 5), which allows for testing with a manufacturer-specified 
heating airflow that is different than the full-load cooling airflow. 
These provisions reflect that units may be designed to operate in the 
field at a different heating airflow rate as compared to the cooling 
airflow rate. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt Sections 5.7.2.3 and 
5.7.3.4.2 of AHRI 390-2021 with regards to setting the airflow and ESP 
for heating tests (as applicable), as enumerated in section 0 of the 
proposed Appendix G and section 0 of proposed Appendix G1.
2. Air Temperature Measurements
    Measurement of air conditions is a critical aspect of performance 
testing for air-conditioning and heat pump equipment generally. The air 
conditions affect performance (both capacity and power input), and the 
primary methods for determination of capacity rely on measurements of 
air temperature and humidity. ANSI/ASHRAE 390-2003 references ANSI/
ASHRAE Standard 37-1988, ``Methods of Testing for Rating Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'' (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988'') for 
methods of testing SPVUs. As relevant here, ANSI/ASHRAE 37-1988 
provides specifications for temperature sensors (section 5.1), as well 
as for ensuring measurement uniformity (section 8.5).
    DOE noted in the July 2018 RFI that, for air-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled CUACs, AHRI 340/360-2015 provides more extensive 
direction for condenser air temperature measurement in its Appendix C, 
including specifications to use air sampling trees and psychrometers, 
temperature measurement accuracy requirements,

[[Page 2505]]

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

[[Page 2506]]

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

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

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

[[Page 2507]]

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

F. Configuration of Unit Under Test

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

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

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

[[Page 2508]]

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

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

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

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

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

G. Represented Values

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

[[Page 2509]]

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

H. Test Procedure Costs and Impact

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

[[Page 2510]]

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

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

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

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

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

J. Compliance Dates

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

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Order 12866

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

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

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

[[Page 2511]]

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

    \19\ Available at: www.sba.gov/document/support-table-size-standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

[[Page 2512]]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

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

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

[[Page 2513]]

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

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

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

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

I. Review Under Executive Order 12630

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

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

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

K. Review Under Executive Order 13211

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

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

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

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

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

[[Page 2514]]

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

V. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

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

B. Procedure for Submitting Prepared General Statements for 
Distribution

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

C. Conduct of the Webinar

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

D. Submission of Comments

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

[[Page 2515]]

period requirements for consumer products, the USMCA only requires a 
minimum comment period of 60 days. Consequently, DOE now provides a 60-
day public comment period for test procedure NOPRs.
    Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The 
www.regulations.gov web page will require you to provide your name and 
contact information. Your contact information will be viewable to DOE 
Building Technologies staff only. Your contact information will not be 
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization 
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your 
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties, 
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
    However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you 
include it in the comment or in any documents attached to your comment. 
Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable should not 
be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to your 
comment. Persons viewing comments will see only first and last names, 
organization names, correspondence containing comments, and any 
documents submitted with the comments.
    Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which 
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and 
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as 
Confidential Business Information (``CBI'')). Comments submitted 
through www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received 
through the website will waive any CBI claims for the information 
submitted. For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential 
Business Information section.
    DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before 
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being 
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed 
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several 
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov 
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
    Submitting comments via email. Comments and documents submitted via 
email also will be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want 
your personal contact information to be publicly viewable, do not 
include it in your comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, 
provide your contact information in a cover letter. Include your first 
and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing 
address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it 
does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will 
be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, written in English, and free of any defects or 
viruses. Documents should not contain special characters or any form of 
encryption, and, if possible, they should carry the electronic 
signature of the author.
    Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the 
originating organization in batches of between 50 to 500 form letters 
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled 
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting 
time.
    Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any 
person submitting information that he or she believes to be 
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit via 
email two well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked 
``confidential'' including all the information believed to be 
confidential, and one copy of the document marked ``non-confidential'' 
with the information believed to be confidential deleted. DOE will make 
its own determination about the confidential status of the information 
and treat it according to its determination.
    It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public 
docket, without change and as received, including any personal 
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be 
exempt from public disclosure).

E. Issues on Which DOE Seeks Comment

    Although DOE welcomes comments on any aspect of this proposal, DOE 
is particularly interested in receiving comments and views of 
interested parties concerning the following issues:
    Issue 1: DOE requests comment on its proposal to define ``single-
phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and ``single-phase single package vertical 
heat pump with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' as subsets of 
the broader SPVAC and SPVHP equipment category. DOE requests feedback 
on the proposed characteristics that would distinguish this equipment 
as SPVUs (i.e., ``weatherized'' or capable of utilizing a maximum of 
400 CFM of outdoor air). Additionally, DOE requests comment on the 
proposed method to validate that a unit is capable of providing 400 CFM 
of outdoor air.
    Issue 2: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the test 
methods specified in AHRI 390-2021 for calculating IEER for SPVUs.
    Issue 3: DOE requests comment and data on ratings under the current 
EER metric specified in 10 CFR 431.97 and ASHRAE 90.1-2019 based on 
ANSI/AHRI 390-2003 as compared to ratings using the IEER metric under 
AHRI 390-2021.
    Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to clarify that COP 
representations using the ``Low Temperature Operation, Heating'' 
conditions in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 are optional.
    Issue 5: DOE welcomes data and information on ESP conditions 
experienced in field operation of ducted SPVUs.
    Issue 6: DOE requests comment and data on the number of SPVHP 
installations by building type and geographical region and the annual 
heating and cooling loads for such buildings. DOE also requests data on 
the frequency of operation of defrost cycles and representative low 
ambient conditions for those buildings and installations.
    Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding specific 
components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart F, appendices G and G1.
    Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its proposal regarding 
representations for SPVU models approved for use with multiple 
refrigerants.
    Issue 9: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to 
represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity for 
SPVUs.
    Issue 10: DOE requests comment on its understanding of the impact 
of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, specifically DOE's 
initial conclusion that the proposed DOE test procedure amendments, if 
finalized, would not increase testing burden on SPVU manufacturers, as 
compared to current industry practice indicated by AHRI 390-2021.
    Issue 11: DOE requests comment on the number of small businesses 
DOE

[[Page 2516]]

identified. DOE also requests comment on the potential cost estimates 
for each small business identified, compared to current industry 
practice, as indicated by AHRI 390-2021.
    DOE also seeks comment on any other matter concerning the proposed 
test procedures for SPVUs not already addressed by the specific areas 
identified in this document. DOE particularly seeks information that 
would ensure that the test procedure measures energy efficiency during 
a representative average use cycle, as well as information that would 
help DOE create a procedure that is not unduly burdensome to conduct.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this proposed 
rule.

List of Subjects

10 CFR Part 429

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Household appliances, Imports, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Small businesses.

10 CFR Part 431

    Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business 
information, Energy conservation, Incorporation by reference, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on December 
28, 2021, by Kelly J. Speakes-Backman, Principal Deputy Assistant 
Secretary for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, pursuant to 
delegated authority from the Secretary of Energy. That document with 
the original signature and date is maintained by DOE. For 
administrative purposes only, and in compliance with requirements of 
the Office of the Federal Register, the undersigned DOE Federal 
Register Liaison Officer has been authorized to sign and submit the 
document in electronic format for publication, as an official document 
of the Department of Energy. This administrative process in no way 
alters the legal effect of this document upon publication in the 
Federal Register.

    Signed in Washington, DC, on December 30, 2021.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE is proposing to amend 
parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, 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; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
2. Amend Sec.  429.4 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (a);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (c)(2) as paragraph (c)(3);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c)(2);
0
d. Redesignating paragraphs (d), (e), and (f) as paragraphs (e), (f), 
and (g); and
0
e. Adding new paragraph (d).
    The revisions and additions read as follows.


Sec.  429.4  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance 
with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other 
than that specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the 
Federal Register and the material must be available to the public. All 
approved material is available for inspection at the U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, 
DC 20024, (202) 586-9127, [email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office, and may be obtained from 
the other sources in this section. It is also available for inspection 
at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: 
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) AHRI Standard 390-2021, (``AHRI 390-2021''), 2021 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-conditioners and Heat 
Pumps, IBR approved for Sec.  429.134.
* * * * *
    (d) ASHRAE. The American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-
Conditioning Engineers. 180 Technology Parkway NW, Peachtree Corners, 
GA 30092, (404) 636-8400, https://www.ashrae.org.
    (1) ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, ``Methods of Testing for Rating 
Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment'', 
ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009. IBR approved for Sec.  429.134.
    (2) ANSI/ASHRAE 41.2-1987 (RA 92), ``Standard Methods For 
Laboratory Airflow Measurement'', ASHRAE approved October 1, 1987. IBR 
approved for Sec.  429.134.
* * * * *
0
3. Amend Sec.  429.43 by adding paragraphs (a)(3) and (4) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  429.43   Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) 
equipment.

    (a) * * *
    (3) Product-specific provisions for determination of represented 
values.
    (i)-(vi) [Reserved]
    (vii) Single Package Vertical Units. When certifying to standards 
in terms of IEER, the following provisions apply.
    (A) If a basic model is distributed in commerce and approved for 
use with multiple refrigerants, a manufacturer must determine all 
represented values for that basic model (for example, IEER, COP and 
cooling capacity) based on the refrigerant that results in the lowest 
cooling efficiency. A refrigerant is considered approved for use if it 
is listed on the nameplate of the outdoor unit. Per the definition of 
basic model in 10 CFR 431.92 of this chapter, use of a refrigerant that 
requires different hardware (i.e., compressors, heat exchangers, or air 
moving systems that are not the same or comparably performing), would 
represent a different basic model, and separate representations would 
be required for each basic model.
    (B) The represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 
percent and 100 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, or between 95 percent and 100 percent of the net sensible 
cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM as described in paragraph 
(a)(2) of this section.
    (C) Represented values must be based on performance (either through 
testing or by applying an AEDM) of individual models with components 
and features that are selected in accordance with section 3 of appendix 
G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter.

[[Page 2517]]

    (4) Determination of represented values for individual models with 
specific components for SPVUs.
    (i) If a manufacturer distributes in commerce individual models 
with one of the components listed in the following table, determination 
of represented values is dependent on the selected grouping of 
individual models into a basic model, as indicated in paragraphs 
(a)(4)(ii) through (a)(4)(v) of this section. For the purposes of this 
paragraph, ``otherwise identical'' means differing only in the presence 
of specific components listed in table 1 to this paragraph (a)(4)(i).

                     Table 1--to Paragraph (a)(4)(i)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component                           Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiccant Dehumidification     An assembly that reduces the moisture
 Components.                    content of the supply air through
                                moisture transfer with solid or liquid
                                desiccants.
Air Economizers..............  An automatic system that enables a
                                cooling system to supply outdoor air to
                                reduce or eliminate the need for
                                mechanical cooling during mid or cold
                                weather.
Ventilation Energy Recovery    An assembly that preconditions outdoor
 System (VERS).                 air entering the equipment through
                                direct or indirect thermal and/or
                                moisture exchange with the exhaust air,
                                which is defined as the building air
                                being exhausted to the outside from the
                                equipment.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils....  Coils used to provide supplemental
                                heating.
Hot Gas Reheat...............  A heat exchanger located downstream of
                                the indoor coil that heats the Supply
                                Air during cooling operation using high
                                pressure refrigerant in order to
                                increase the ratio of moisture removal
                                to Cooling Capacity provided by the
                                equipment.
Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers.  A damper assembly including means to open
                                and close the damper mounted at the
                                supply or return duct opening of the
                                equipment.
Powered Exhaust/Powered        A powered exhaust fan is a fan that
 Return Air Fans.               transfers directly to the outside a
                                portion of the building air that is
                                returning to the unit, rather than
                                allowing it to recirculate to the indoor
                                coil and back to the building. A powered
                                return fan is a fan that draws building
                                air into the equipment.
Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators  An assembly of structures through which
                                the supply air passes before leaving the
                                equipment or through which the return
                                air from the building passes immediately
                                after entering the equipment for which
                                the sound insertion loss is at least 6
                                dB for the 125 Hz octave band frequency
                                range.
Hot Gas Bypass...............  A method to adjust the cooling delivered
                                by the equipment in which some portion
                                of the hot high-pressure refrigerant
                                from the discharge of the compressor(s)
                                is diverted from its normal flow to the
                                outdoor coil and is instead allowed to
                                enter the indoor coil to modulate the
                                capacity of a refrigeration circuit or
                                to prevent evaporator coil freezing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (ii) If a basic model includes only individual models distributed 
in commerce without a specific component listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) 
of this section, the manufacturer must determine represented values for 
the basic model based on performance of an individual model distributed 
in commerce without the component.
    (iii) If a basic model includes only individual models distributed 
in commerce with a specific component listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of 
this section, the manufacturer must determine represented values for 
the basic model based on performance of an individual model with the 
component present (and consistent with any component-specific test 
provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 
431 of this chapter).
    (iv) If a basic model includes both individual models distributed 
in commerce with a specific component listed in paragraph (4)(i) of 
this section and individual models distributed in commerce without that 
specific component, and none of the individual models distributed in 
commerce without the specific component are otherwise identical to any 
individual model distributed in commerce with the specific component, 
the manufacturer must consider the performance of individual models 
with the component present when determining represented values for the 
basic model (and consistent with any component-specific test provisions 
specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this 
chapter).
    (v) If a basic model includes both individual models distributed in 
commerce with a specific component listed in paragraph (a)(4)(i) of 
this section and individual models distributed in commerce without that 
specific component, and at least one of the individual models 
distributed in commerce without the specific component is otherwise 
identical to any given individual model distributed in commerce with 
the specific component, the manufacturer may determine represented 
values for the basic model either:
    (A) Based on performance of an individual model distributed in 
commerce without the specific component, or
    (B) Based on performance of an individual model with the specific 
component present (and consistent with any component-specific test 
provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 
431 of this chapter).
    (vi) In any of the cases specified in paragraphs (a)(4)(ii) through 
(a)(4)(v) of this section, the represented values for a basic model 
must be determined through either testing (paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section) or an AEDM (paragraph(a)(2) of this section).
* * * * *
0
4. Amend Sec.  429.134 by adding paragraph (s) to read as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (s) Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps. The 
following provisions apply for assessment and enforcement testing of 
models subject to standards in terms of IEER.
    (1) Verification of cooling capacity. The cooling capacity of each 
tested unit of the basic model will be measured pursuant to the test 
requirements of appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter. 
The mean of the measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable 
standards for purposes of compliance.
    (2) Specific Components. For basic models that include individual 
models distributed in commerce with any of the specific components 
listed at

[[Page 2518]]

Sec.  429.43(a)(4)(i), the following provisions apply. For the purposes 
of this paragraph, ``otherwise identical'' means differing only in the 
presence of specific components listed at Sec.  429.43(a)(4)(i).
    (i) If the basic model includes only individual models distributed 
in commerce with a specific component, or does not include any 
otherwise identical individual models without the specific component, 
DOE may assess compliance for the basic model based on testing of an 
individual model with the component present (and consistent with any 
component-specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix 
G1 to subpart F of part 431 of this chapter).
    (ii) If the basic model includes both individual models distributed 
in commerce with a specific component and otherwise identical 
individual models without the specific component, DOE will assess 
compliance for the basic model based on testing an otherwise identical 
model within the basic model that does not include the component, 
unless DOE is not able to obtain an individual model for testing that 
does not include the component. In such a situation, DOE will assess 
compliance for the basic model based on testing of an individual model 
with the specific component present (and consistent with any component-
specific test provisions specified in section 3 of appendix G1 to 
subpart F of part 431 of this chapter).
    (3) Validation of outdoor ventilation airflow rate. The outdoor 
ventilation airflow rate in cubic feet per minute (``CFM'') of the 
basic model will be measured in accordance with ASHRAE 41.2-1987 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  429.4) and Section 6.4 of ASHRAE 
37-2009. All references to the inlet shall be determined to mean the 
outdoor air inlet.
    (i) The outdoor ventilation airflow rate validation shall be 
conducted at the conditions specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 
(incorporated by reference, see Sec.  429.4), Full Load Standard Rating 
Capacity Test, Cooling, except for the following:
    (A) The outdoor ventilation airflow rate shall be determined at 0 
in. H2O external static pressure with a tolerance of -0.00/
+0.05 in. H2O.
    (B) Reserved.
    (ii) When validating the outdoor ventilation airflow rate, the 
outdoor air inlet pressure shall be 0.00 in. H2O, with a 
tolerance of -0.00/+0.05 in. H2O when measured against the 
room ambient pressure.

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; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note.

0
6. Amend Sec.  431.92 by:
0
a. Revising the definitions of ``Single package vertical air 
conditioner'' and ``Single package vertical heat pump.''
0
b. Adding the definitions of ``Single-phase single package vertical air 
conditioner with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h'' and 
``Single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h'' in alphabetical order; and
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  431.92  Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and 
heat pumps.

* * * * *
    Single package vertical air conditioner means:
    (1) Air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment that--
    (i) Is factory-assembled as a single package that--
    (A) Has major components that are arranged vertically;
    (B) Is an encased combination of cooling and optional heating 
components; and
    (C) Is intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or 
through an outside wall;
    (ii) Is powered by a single-or 3-phase current;
    (iii) May contain 1 or more separate indoor grilles, outdoor 
louvers, various ventilation options, indoor free air discharges, 
ductwork, well plenum, or sleeves; and
    (iv) Has heating components that may include electrical resistance, 
steam, hot water, or gas, but may not include reverse-cycle 
refrigeration as a heating means; and
    (2) Includes single-phase single package vertical air conditioner 
with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, as defined in this 
section.
    Single package vertical heat pump means:
    (1) A single package vertical air conditioner that--
    (i) Uses reverse-cycle refrigeration as its primary heat source; 
and--
    (ii) May include secondary supplemental heating by means of 
electrical resistance, steam, hot water, or gas;
    (2) Includes single-phase single package vertical heat pump with 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, as defined in this section.
    Single-phase single package vertical air conditioner with cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h means air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment that meets the criteria in 
paragraphs (1)(i) through (iv) of the definition of a single package 
vertical air conditioner; that is single-phase; has a cooling capacity 
less than 65,000 Btu/h, and that:
    (1) Is weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for 
``Outdoor Use'' or marked as ``Suitable for Outdoor Use'' on the 
equipment nameplate; or
    (2) Is non-weatherized and is a model that has optional ventilation 
air provisions available. When such ventilation air provisions are 
present on the unit, the unit must be capable of drawing in and 
conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space at a 
rate of at least 400 cubic feet per minute, as determined in accordance 
with Sec.  429.134(s)(3), while the equipment is operating with the 
same drive kit and motor settings used to determine the certified 
efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for submittal to DOE by 
Sec.  429.43(b)(4)(xi)).
    Single-phase single package vertical heat pump with cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h means air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment that meets the criteria in 
paragraphs (1)(i) through (ii) of the definition of a single package 
vertical heat pump; that is single-phase; has a cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h, and that:
    (1) Is weatherized, determined by a model being denoted for 
``Outdoor Use'' or marked as ``Suitable for Outdoor Use'' on the 
equipment nameplate; or
    (2) Is non-weatherized and is a model that has optional ventilation 
air provisions available. When such ventilation air provisions are 
present on the unit, the unit must be capable of drawing in and 
conditioning outdoor air for delivery to the conditioned space at a 
rate of at least 400 cubic feet per minute, as determined in accordance 
with Sec.  429.134(s)(3), while the equipment is operating with the 
same drive kit and motor settings used to determine the certified 
efficiency rating of the equipment (as required for submittal to DOE by 
Sec.  429.43(b)(4)(xii)).
* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  431.95 by revising paragraphs (a), (b)(5) and (c)(2) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  431.95  Materials incorporated by reference.

    (a) Certain material is incorporated by reference into this part 
with the

[[Page 2519]]

approval of the Director of the Federal Register in accordance with 5 
U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part 51. To enforce any edition other than that 
specified in this section, DOE must publish a document in the Federal 
Register and the material must be available to the public. All approved 
material is available for inspection at the U.S. Department of Energy, 
Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies 
Program, Sixth Floor, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Washington, DC 20024, 
(202) 586-9127, [email protected], https://www.energy.gov/eere/buildings/building-technologies-office, and may be obtained from the 
other sources in this section. It is also available for inspection at 
the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For 
information on the availability of this material at NARA, email: 
[email protected], or go to: www.archives.gov/federal-register/cfr/ibr-locations.html.
    (b) * * *
    (5) AHRI Standard 390-2021, ``2021 Standard for Performance Rating 
of Single Package Vertical Air- Conditioners and Heat Pumps,'' dated 
2021, (AHRI 390-2021), IBR approved for appendices G and G1 to this 
subpart.
* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, (``ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009''), 
``Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' ASHRAE approved June 24, 2009, 
IBR approved for Sec.  431.96 and appendices A, G, and G1 to this 
subpart.
* * * * *
0
8. Amend Sec.  431.96 by revising paragraph (b)(1), table 1 to Sec.  
431.96, and paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  431.96  Uniform test method for the measurement of energy 
efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps.

* * * * *
    (b) Testing and calculations. (1) Determine the energy efficiency 
and capacity of each category of covered equipment by conducting the 
test procedure(s) listed in Table 1 of this paragraph (b) along with 
any additional testing provisions set forth in paragraphs (c) through 
(g) of this section and appendices A through G1 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 must not be used. For equipment with multiple 
appendices listed in Table 1, consult the notes at the beginning of 
those appendices to determine the applicable appendix to use for 
testing.
    (2) * * *

                               Table 1 to Paragraph (b)(2)--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.
                                                             >=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..........  Appendix G to this     None.
 Conditioners and Single Package                                                     .....................   subpart \2\.          .....................
 Vertical Heat Pumps.                                                                EER, IEER, and COP...  Appendix G1 to this    None.
                                                                                                             subpart \2\.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference; see Sec.   431.95.
\2\ For equipment with multiple appendices listed in Table 1, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to determine the applicable
  appendix to use for testing.


[[Page 2520]]

    (c) Optional break-in period for tests conducted using AHRI 210/
240-2008, 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 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.
* * * * *

Appendix B to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved]

0
9. Add and reserve appendix B to subpart F of part 431.

Appendix C to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved]

0
10. Add and reserve appendix C to subpart F of part 431.

Appendix D to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved]

0
11. Add and reserve appendix D to subpart F of part 431.

Appendix E to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved]

0
12. Add and reserve appendix E to subpart F of part 431.

Appendix F to Subpart F of Part 431 [Reserved]

0
13. Add and reserve appendix F to subpart F of part 431.
0
14. Add appendix G to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:

Appendix G to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and 
Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps

    Note: Prior to [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER] manufacturers must use the 
results of testing under either this appendix or Sec.  431.96 as it 
appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January 
1, 2021, to determine compliance with the relevant standard from 
Sec.  431.97 as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021 
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499. On or after [date 360 days after 
date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] 
manufacturers must use the results of testing generated under this 
appendix to demonstrate compliance with the relevant standard from 
Sec.  431.97 as that standard appeared in the January 1, 2021 
edition of 10 CFR parts 200-499.
    Beginning [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 
RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if manufacturers make voluntary 
representations with respect to the integrated energy efficiency 
ratio (IEER) of single packaged vertical air conditioners and single 
package vertical heat pumps, such representations must be based on 
testing conducted in accordance with appendix G1 of this subpart.
    For any amended standards for single packaged vertical air 
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps based on IEER 
published after January 1, 2021, manufacturers must use the results 
of testing under appendix G1 to determine compliance. 
Representations related to energy consumption must be made in 
accordance with the appropriate appendix that applies (i.e., this 
appendix or appendix G1) when determining compliance with the 
relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use appendix G1 to certify 
compliance with any amended standards prior to the applicable 
compliance date for those standards.
    0. DOE incorporated by reference the entire standard for AHRI 
390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009 in Sec.  431.95. However, only 
enumerated provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009 apply to 
this appendix, as follows:
    0.1 AHRI 390-2021:

(a) Section 3--Definitions (omitting sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, 
and 3.15)
(b) Section 5--Test Requirements (omitting section 5.8.5)
(c) Section 6--Rating Requirements (omitting sections 6.1.1 and 6.2 
through 6.5)
(d) Appendix A. ``References--Normative''
(e) Appendix D. ``Indoor and Outdoor Air Condition Measurement--
Normative''
(f) Appendix E. ``Method of Testing Single Package Vertical Units--
Normative''

    0.2 All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 apply except for the 
following provisions:

(a) Section 1--Purpose
(b) Section 2--Scope
(c) Section 4--Classifications

    1. General.

    Determine cooling capacity (Btu/h) and energy efficiency ratio 
(EER) for all single package vertical air conditioners and heat 
pumps and coefficient of performance (COP) for all single package 
vertical heat pumps, in accordance with the specified sections of 
AHRI 390-2021 ``Performance Rating of Single Package Vertical Air-
conditioners And Heat Pumps'' and the specified sections of ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009 ``Methods of Testing for Rating Electronically Driven 
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat-Pump Equipment''. Only enumerated 
provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 are applicable, 
as set forth in section 0 of this appendix.
    In addition, the instructions in section 2 of this appendix 
apply to determining EER and COP. In cases where there is a 
conflict, the language of this appendix takes highest precedence, 
followed by AHRI 390-2021, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Any 
subsequent amendment to a referenced document by a standard-setting 
organization will not affect the test procedure in this appendix, 
unless and until the test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is 
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and a notice 
of any change in the incorporation will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    2. Test Conditions. The ``Standard Rating Full Load Capacity 
Test, Cooling'' conditions for cooling mode tests and ``Standard 
Rating Full Load Capacity Test, Heating'' conditions for heat pump 
heating mode tests specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 shall be 
used.
    2.1 Optional Representations. Representations of COP for single 
package vertical heat pumps made using the ``Low Temperature 
Operation, Heating'' condition specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 
are optional and are determined according to the applicable 
provisions in section 1 of this appendix.

0
15. Add appendix G1 to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:

Appendix G1 to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for Measuring 
the Energy Consumption of Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and 
Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps

    Note: Beginning [DATE 360 DAYS AFTER DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE 
FINAL RULE IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER], if manufacturers make voluntary 
representations with respect to the integrated energy efficiency 
ratio (IEER) of single packaged vertical air conditioners and single 
package vertical heat pumps, such representations must be based on 
testing conducted in accordance with this appendix.
    Manufacturers must use the results of testing under this 
appendix to determine compliance with any amended standards for 
single packaged vertical air conditioners and single package 
vertical heat pumps based on IEER provided in Sec.  431.97 that are 
published after January 1, 2021. Representations related to energy 
consumption must be made in accordance with the appropriate appendix 
that applies (i.e., appendix G or this appendix) when determining 
compliance with the relevant standard. Manufacturers may also use 
this appendix to certify compliance with any amended standards prior 
to the applicable compliance date for those standards.
    0. DOE incorporated by reference the entire standard for AHRI 
390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009 in Sec.  431.95. However, only 
enumerated provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and ASHRAE 37-2009 apply to 
this appendix, as follows:
    0.1 AHRI 390-2021:

(a) Section 3--Definitions (omitting sections 3.1, 3.2, 3.5, 3.12, 
and 3.15)
(b) Section 5--Test Requirements (omitting section 5.8.5)
(c) Section 6--Rating Requirements (omitting sections 6.1.1 and 6.3 
through 6.5)
(d) Appendix A. ``References--Normative''
(e) Appendix D. ``Indoor and Outdoor Air Condition Measurement--
Normative''
(f) Appendix E. ``Method of Testing Single Package Vertical Units--
Normative''

    0.2 All provisions of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 apply except for the 
following provisions:


[[Page 2521]]


(a) Section 1--Purpose
(b) Section 2--Scope
(c) Section 4--Classifications

    1. General.
    Determine cooling capacity (Btu/h) and integrated energy 
efficiency ratio (IEER) for all single package vertical air 
conditioners and heat pumps and coefficient of performance (COP) for 
all single package vertical heat pumps, in accordance with the 
specified sections of AHRI 390-2021 ``Performance Rating of Single 
Package Vertical Air-conditioners And Heat Pumps'' and the specified 
sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 ``Methods of Testing for Rating 
Electronically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat-Pump 
Equipment''. Only enumerated provisions of AHRI 390-2021 and ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009 are applicable, as set forth in section 0 of this 
appendix.
    In addition, the instructions in section 2 of this appendix 
apply to determining IEER and COP. In cases where there is a 
conflict, the language of this appendix takes highest precedence, 
followed by AHRI 390-2021, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Any 
subsequent amendment to a referenced document by a standard-setting 
organization will not affect the test procedure in this appendix, 
unless and until the test procedure is amended by DOE. Material is 
incorporated as it exists on the date of the approval, and a notice 
of any change in the incorporation will be published in the Federal 
Register.
    2. Test Conditions. The ``Part-Load Standard Rating Conditions'' 
conditions for cooling mode tests and ``Standard Rating Full Load 
Capacity Test, Heating'' conditions for heat pump heating mode tests 
specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 shall be used.
    2.1 Optional Representations. Representations of COP for single 
package vertical heat pumps made using the ``Low Temperature 
Operation, Heating'' condition specified in Table 3 of AHRI 390-2021 
are optional and are determined according to the applicable 
provisions in section 1 of this appendix.
    3. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components. When 
testing an SPVU that includes any of the features listed in Table 
3.1 of this appendix, test in accordance with the set-up and test 
provisions specified in Table 3.1.

           Table 3.1--Test Provisions for Specific Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component                Description         Test provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Desiccant Dehumidification    An assembly that      Disable desiccant
 Components.                   reduces the           dehumidification
                               moisture content of   components for
                               the supply air        testing.
                               through moisture
                               transfer with solid
                               or liquid
                               desiccants.
Air Economizers.............  An automatic system   For any air
                               that enables a        economizer that is
                               cooling system to     factory-installed,
                               supply outdoor air    place the
                               to reduce or          economizer in the
                               eliminate the need    100% return
                               for mechanical        position and close
                               cooling during mid    and seal the
                               or cold weather.      outside air dampers
                                                     for testing. For
                                                     any modular air
                                                     economizer shipped
                                                     with the unit but
                                                     not factory-
                                                     installed, do not
                                                     install the
                                                     economizer for
                                                     testing.
Fresh Air Dampers...........  An assembly with      For any fresh air
                               dampers and means     dampers that are
                               to set the damper     factory-installed,
                               position in a         close and seal the
                               closed and one open   dampers for
                               position to allow     testing. For any
                               air to be drawn       modular fresh air
                               into the equipment    dampers shipped
                               when the indoor fan   with the unit but
                               is operating.         not factory-
                                                     installed, do not
                                                     install the dampers
                                                     for testing.
Hail Guards.................  A grille or similar   Remove hail guards
                               structure mounted     for testing.
                               to the outside of
                               the unit covering
                               the outdoor coil to
                               protect the coil
                               from hail, flying
                               debris and damage
                               from large objects.
Power Correction Capacitors.  A capacitor that      Remove power
                               increases the power   correction
                               factor measured at    capacitors for
                               the line connection   testing.
                               to the equipment.
Ventilation Energy Recovery   An assembly that      For any VERS that is
 System (VERS).                preconditions         factory-installed,
                               outdoor air           place the VERS in
                               entering the          the 100% return
                               equipment through     position and close
                               direct or indirect    and seal the
                               thermal and/or        outside air dampers
                               moisture exchange     and exhaust air
                               with the exhaust      dampers for
                               air, which is         testing, and do not
                               defined as the        energize any VERS
                               building air being    subcomponents
                               exhausted to the      (e.g., energy
                               outside from the      recovery wheel
                               equipment.            motors). For any
                                                     VERS module shipped
                                                     with the unit but
                                                     not factory-
                                                     installed, do not
                                                     install the VERS
                                                     for testing.
Barometric Relief Dampers...  An assembly with      For any barometric
                               dampers and means     relief dampers that
                               to automatically      are factory-
                               set the damper        installed, close
                               position in a         and seal the
                               closed position and   dampers for
                               one or more open      testing. For any
                               positions to allow    modular barometric
                               venting directly to   relief dampers
                               the outside a         shipped with the
                               portion of the        unit but not
                               building air that     factory-installed,
                               is returning to the   do not install the
                               unit, rather than     dampers for
                               allowing it to        testing.
                               recirculate to the
                               indoor coil and
                               back to the
                               building.
UV Lights...................  A lighting fixture    Turn off UV lights
                               and lamp mounted so   for testing.
                               that it shines
                               light on the indoor
                               coil, that emits
                               ultraviolet light
                               to inhibit growth
                               of organisms on the
                               indoor coil
                               surfaces, the
                               condensate drip
                               pan, and/other
                               locations within
                               the equipment.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils...  Coils used to         Test with steam/
                               provide               hydronic heat coils
                               supplemental          in place but
                               heating.              providing no heat.
Hot Gas Reheat..............  A heat exchanger      De-activate
                               located downstream    refrigerant reheat
                               of the indoor coil    coils for testing
                               that heats the        so as to provide
                               Supply Air during     the minimum (none
                               cooling operation     if possible) reheat
                               using high pressure   achievable by the
                               refrigerant in        system controls.
                               order to increase
                               the ratio of
                               moisture removal to
                               Cooling Capacity
                               provided by the
                               equipment.
Sound Traps/Sound             An assembly of        Removable sound
 Attenuators.                  structures through    traps/sound
                               which the Supply      attenuators shall
                               Air passes before     be removed for
                               leaving the           testing. Otherwise,
                               equipment or          test with sound
                               through which the     traps/attenuators
                               return air from the   in place.
                               building passes
                               immediately after
                               entering the
                               equipment for which
                               the sound insertion
                               loss is at least 6
                               dB for the 125 Hz
                               octave band
                               frequency range.

[[Page 2522]]

 
Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers  A damper assembly     For any fire/smoke/
                               including means to    isolation dampers
                               open and close the    that are factory-
                               damper mounted at     installed, set the
                               the supply or         dampers in the
                               return duct opening   fully open position
                               of the equipment.     for testing. For
                                                     any modular fire/
                                                     smoke/isolation
                                                     dampers shipped
                                                     with the unit but
                                                     not factory-
                                                     installed, do not
                                                     install the dampers
                                                     for testing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2021-28553 Filed 1-13-22; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.