Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps, 56392-56458 [2023-15857]

Download as PDF 56392 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules Participation,’’ for webinar registration information, participant instructions, and information about the capabilities available to webinar participants. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 10 CFR Parts 429 and 431 [EERE–2023–BT–TP–0014] Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air-Cooled, Evaporatively-Cooled, and WaterCooled Commercial Package Air Conditioners and 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 the Federal test procedures for air-cooled commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners, and watercooled commercial package air conditioners to incorporate by reference the latest versions of the applicable industry test standards. Specifically, DOE proposes: to amend the current test procedure for this equipment for measuring the current cooling and heating metrics—integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) and coefficient of performance (COP), respectively; and to establish a new test procedure for this equipment that would adopt two new metrics—integrated ventilation, economizer, and cooling (IVEC) and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency (IVHE). Testing to the IVEC and IVHE metrics would not be required until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy conservation standard based on the new metrics. Additionally, DOE proposes to amend certain provisions of DOE’s regulations related to representations and enforcement for the subject equipment. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this proposal), as well as the submission of data and other relevant information. SUMMARY: ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 DATES: Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than October 16, 2023. See section V, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for further details. Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday, September 7, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ‘‘Public VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket number EERE–2023–BT–TP–0014. Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, identified by docket number EERE– 2023–BT–TP–0014 and/or RIN 1904– AD93, by any of the following methods: Email: CUACHP2023TP0014@ ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number EERE–2023–BT–TP–0014 and/or RIN 1904–AD93 in the subject line of the message. Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. If possible, please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L’Enfant Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287–1445. If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this process, see section V of this document (Public Participation). Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal Register notices, public meeting webinar attendee lists and transcripts (if a public meeting is held), 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure. The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE2023-BT-TP-0014. 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. ADDRESSES: RIN 1904–AD93 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (202) 287– 5904. Email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General Counsel, GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585–0121. Telephone: (240) 571– 5157. Email: Melanie.Lampton@ hq.doe.gov. For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting webinar, contact the Appliance and Equipment Standards Program staff at (202) 287– 1445 or by email: ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ ee.doe.gov. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: DOE proposes to maintain a previously approved incorporation by reference and to incorporate by reference the following industry standards into parts 429 and 431: AHRI Standard 340/360–2022 (I–P), 2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, AHRI approved January 26, 2022 (AHRI 340/360–2022). Copies of AHRI 340/360–2022 can be obtained from the Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201 (703) 524–8800, or online at: www.ahrinet.org/standards/ search-standards. AHRI Standard 1340(I–P)–202X Draft, Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 1340– 202X Draft). AHRI 1340–202X Draft is in draft form and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review only during the drafting of this NOPR. If this industry test standard is formally adopted, DOE intends to incorporate by reference the final published version of AHRI 1340 in DOE’s subsequent test procedure final rule. If there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions for which DOE receives stakeholder comments in response to this NOPR recommending that DOE adopt provisions consistent with the published version of AHRI 1340, then DOE may consider adopting those provisions. If there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions for which SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules stakeholder comments do not express support, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment on the changes to the industry consensus standard. A copy of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft is provided in the docket for this rulemaking for review. 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 37–2009). Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 can be obtained from the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 180 Technology Parkway, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092, (404) 636–8400, or online at: www.ashrae.org. See section IV.M of this document for a further discussion of these standards. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 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. Definitions 1. CUAC and CUHP Definition 2. Basic Model Definition 3. Double-Duct Definition 4. Metric Definitions C. Updates to Industry Test Standards 1. AHRI 340/360 2. AHRI 1340 3. ASHRAE 37 D. Consideration of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet E. DOE Proposed Test Procedures F. Efficiency Metrics and Test Conditions 1. Comments Received on Metrics a. IEER Test Conditions and Weighting Factors b. Energy Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs c. Cyclic Degradation Factor for Cooling d. Economizing and Ventilation e. External Static Pressure Requirements f. Damper Leakage, Energy Recovery Systems, and Crankcase Heaters g. Controls Verification Procedure h. Heating Efficiency Metric 2. Test Conditions Used for Current Metrics in Appendix A 3. Test Conditions Used for New Metrics in Proposed Appendix A1 4. IVEC 5. IVHE a. IVHE for Colder Climates 6. Additions and Revisions to the IVEC and IVHE Metrics Not Included in the Term Sheet a. Cooling Weighting Factors Adjustment b. ESP Testing Target Calculation c. Test Instructions for Splitting ESP Between Return and Supply Ductwork d. Default Fan Power and Maximum Pressure Drop for Coil-Only Systems VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 e. Component Power Measurement f. IVHE Equations g. Non-Standard Low-Static Indoor Fan Motors 7. Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs a. Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs 8. Efficiency Metrics for Double-Duct Systems G. Test Method Changes in AHRI Standard 340/360 1. Vertical Separation of Indoor and Outdoor Units 2. Measurement of Air Conditions 3. Refrigerant Charging Instructions 4. Primary and Secondary Methods for Capacity Measurements 5. Atmospheric Pressure a. Adjustment for Different Atmospheric Pressure Conditions b. Minimum Atmospheric Pressure c. Atmospheric Pressure Measurement 6. Condenser Head Pressure Controls 7. Length of Refrigerant Line Exposed to Outdoor Conditions 8. Indoor Airflow Condition Tolerance 9. ECUACs and WCUACs With Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h 10. Additional Test Method Topics for ECUACs a. Outdoor Air Entering Wet-Bulb Temperature b. Make-Up Water Temperature c. Piping Evaporator Condensate to Condenser Sump d. Purge Water Settings e. Condenser Spray Pumps f. Additional Steps To Verify Proper Operation H. General Comments Received in Response to the July 2017 TP RFI I. Configuration of Unit Under Test 1. Summary 2. Background 3. Proposed Approach for Exclusion of Certain Components a. Components Addressed Through Test Provisions of 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart F, appendices A and A1 b. Components Addressed Through Representation Provisions of 10 CFR 429.43 c. Enforcement Provisions of 10 CFR 429.134 d. Testing Specially Built Units That Are Not Distributed in Commerce J. Represented Values 1. Cooling Capacity 2. Single-Zone Variable-Air-Volume and Multi-Zone Variable-Air-Volume 3. Confidence Limit 4. AEDM Tolerance for IVEC and IVHE 5. Minimum Part-Load Airflow K. Enforcement Procedure for Verifying Cut-In and Cut-Out Temperatures L. Proposed Organization of the Regulatory Text for CUACs and CUHPs M. Compliance Date N. Test Procedure Costs and Impact 1. Appendix A 2. Appendix A1 IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094 B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act PO 00000 Frm 00003 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56393 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule 3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements a. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A b. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A1 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 F. Review Under Executive Order 12988 G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 1999 I. Review Under Executive Order 12630 J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act, 2001 K. Review Under Executive Order 13211 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference V. Public Participation A. 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 Small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment 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)) Commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment includes as equipment categories the air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (ACUACs) and air-cooled commercial unitary heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (ACUHPs), evaporatively-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (ECUACs), and water-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (WCUACs), which are the subject of this NOPR.1 (ECUACs, 1 While ACUACs with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are included in the broader category of CUACs, they are not addressed in this NOPR. The test procedure for ACUACs with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h have been addressed in a separate rulemaking: see Docket No. EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0031. All references within this NOPR to ACUACs and ACUHPs exclude E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM Continued 17AUP3 56394 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 WCUACs, and ACUACs and ACUHPs including double-duct equipment are collectively referred to as CUACs and CUHPs in this document.) The current DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs are codified at title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart F, section 96, Table 1. The following sections discuss DOE’s authority to establish and amend test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs, as well as relevant background information regarding DOE’s proposed amendments to the test procedures for this equipment. A. Authority The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94–163 (42 U.S.C. 6291–6317, as codified), as amended (EPCA),2 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 3 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 covered equipment includes small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. (42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)–(D)) Commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment includes CUACs and CUHPs, which are the subject of this document. The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 U.S.C. 6296). The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) equipment with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 2 All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116–260 (Dec. 27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact Parts A and A–1 of EPCA. 3 For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, Part C was redesignated Part A–1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 making representations about the efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with relevant standards promulgated under EPCA. Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D)) Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets forth the general criteria and procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test procedures for covered equipment. Specifically, EPCA requires that any test procedure prescribed or amended under this section must be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating cost of a given type of covered equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average use cycle and requires that such test procedures not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)–(3)) As discussed, CUACs and CUHPs are classified as 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 AHRI or 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 update 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 the 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, in which case DOE may establish an amended test procedure that does satisfy those statutory provisions. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B) and (C)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs, to determine whether amended PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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)–(3)) In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is warranted, the Department 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 in the Federal Register its determination not to amend the test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii)) DOE is proposing amendments to the test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs in satisfaction of its aforementioned statutory obligations under EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) and (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1)–(3)) B. Background DOE’s existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs appears at 10 CFR 431.96 (Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps). The test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling capacity of greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h specified in 10 CFR 431.96 references appendix A to subpart F of part 431 (Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Air-Cooled Small (≥65,000 Btu/h), Large, and Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, referred to as appendix A in this document). Appendix A references certain sections of ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360–2007, 2007 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 2011 (ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007); ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37–2009, Methods of Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009); and specifies other test procedure requirements related to minimum external static pressure (ESP), optional break-in period, refrigerant charging, setting indoor airflow, condenser head pressure controls, standard airflow and air quantity, tolerance on capacity at E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules part-load test points, and condenser air inlet temperature for part-load tests. The DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity of greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h specified in 10 CFR 431.96 incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 (excluding section 6.3 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 and including paragraphs (c) and (e) of § 431.96.4) The DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240–2008, ‘‘2008 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump Equipment,’’ approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by addendum 1 in June 2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012 (ANSI/ AHRI 210/240–2008). On October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 2016, which included updates to the test procedure references for CUACs and CUHPs (excluding CUACs and CUHPs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) to reference AHRI Standard 340/360–2015, 2015 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/ 360–2015).5 This action by ASHRAE triggered DOE’s obligations under 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(B), as outlined previously. On July 25, 2017, DOE published a request for information (RFI) (July 2017 TP RFI) in the Federal Register to collect information and data to consider amendments to DOE’s test procedures for certain categories of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment including CUACs and CUHPs. 82 FR 34427. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE identified several aspects of the currently applicable Federal test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs that might warrant modifications, in 56395 particular: incorporation by reference of the most recent version of the relevant industry standard(s); efficiency metrics and calculations; and clarification of test methods. Id. at 82 FR 34439–34445. DOE also requested 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 procedures’ accuracies. Id. at 82 FR 34448. DOE received a number of comments regarding CUACs and CUHPs in response to the July 2017 TP RFI from interested parties. Table I.1 lists the commenters that provided comments relevant to CUACs and CUHPs, along with each commenter’s abbreviated name used throughout this NOPR.6 Discussion of the relevant comments, and DOE’s responses, are provided in the appropriate sections of this document. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 TABLE I.1—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE JULY 2017 TP RFI RELEVANT TO CUACS AND CUHPS Comment No. in the docket Name of commenter Abbreviation used Commenter type Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute ............................................... Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy, Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation Council. Carrier Corporation .................................................................................................... Goodman Global Inc .................................................................................................. Ingersoll Rand ............................................................................................................ Lennox International Inc ............................................................................................. National Comfort Institute .......................................................................................... Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; (collectively referred to as the ‘‘California Investor-Owned Utilities’’). AHRI ....................... ASAP, ASE, et al ... 11 9 Trade Association. Efficiency Advocacy Organizations. Carrier .................... Goodman ................ Trane ...................... Lennox .................... NCI ......................... CA IOUs ................. 6 14 12 8 4 7 Manufacturer. Manufacturer. Manufacturer. Manufacturer. Trade Association. Utilities. A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.7 For cases in which this NOPR references comments received in response to the July 2017 TP RFI (which are contained within a different docket 8), the full docket number (rather than just the document number) is included in the parenthetical reference. At the time DOE published the July 2017 TP RFI, the applicable version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was the 2016 edition, which referenced AHRI Standard 340/360–2015, 2015 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment as the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. On October 24, 2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019, which updated the relevant AHRI Standard 340/360 reference to the 2019 edition, 2019 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/360–2019). In January 2022, AHRI published additional updates to its test procedure standard for CUACs and CUHPs, with the publication of AHRI Standard 340/ 360–2022, 2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/360– 2022), which DOE is proposing to reference in the amended test procedure in appendix A to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431 in this NOPR. These industry test standards are discussed further in section III.C of this NOPR. To the extent that comments on the July 2017 TP RFI are still relevant to AHRI 340/360–2022, DOE addresses such comments in the following sections. 4 Paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 address optional break-in provisions and additional provisions regarding set up, respectively. 5 The previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2013) references ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007. 6 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in a docket related to DOE’s rulemaking to develop test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs. As noted, the July 2017 RFI addressed a variety of different equipment categories and is available under docket number EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. As this NOPR addresses only CUACs and CUHPs, it has been assigned a separate docket number (i.e., EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015). The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). 7 The parenthetical reference provides a reference for information located in the relevant docket, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov. The references are arranged as follows: (commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document). 8 Comments submitted in response to the July 2017 TP RFI are available in Docket No. EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56396 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules For ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2016 references ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008. After the publication of the July 2017 RFI, AHRI published AHRI Standard 210/240–2017, 2017 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 210/240–2017). ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2019 references AHRI 210/240–2017 as the test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with rated cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h. After the publication of AHRI 210/240–2017, AHRI released two updates to that industry standard: (1) AHRI Standard 210/240–2017 with Addendum 1, 2017 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 210/240–2017 with Addendum 1), which was published in April 2019; and (2) AHRI Standard 210/ 240–2023, 2023 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Airconditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 210/240–2023), which was published in May 2020. On May 12, 2020, DOE published an RFI in the Federal Register regarding energy conservation standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and commercial warm air furnaces (May 2020 ECS RFI). 85 FR 27941. In response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE received comments from various stakeholders, including ones related to the test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs. Table I.2 lists the stakeholders whose comments in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI were related to the ACUAC and ACUHP test procedures and have been considered in this rulemaking. For cases in which this NOPR references comments received in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI (which are contained within a different docket 9), the full docket number (rather than just the item entry number) is included in the parenthetical reference. TABLE I.2—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2020 ECS RFI RELEVANT TO CUAC AND CUHP TEST PROCEDURES Name of commenter Abbreviation used Comment No. in the docket Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy, California Energy Commission, Natural Resources Defense Council, and Northeast Energy Efficiency Partnerships. Carrier Corporation .................................................................................................... Goodman Manufacturing Company ........................................................................... John Walsh ................................................................................................................ Kristin Heinemeier ...................................................................................................... Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ........................................................................ ASAP, ACEEE, et al. 23 Carrier .................... Goodman ................ Walsh ..................... Heinemeier ............. NEEA ...................... 13 17 18 12 24 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; (collectively referred to as the ‘‘California Investor-Owned Utilities’’). Trane Technologies ................................................................................................... Verified Inc ................................................................................................................. CA IOUs ................. 20 Trane ...................... Verified ................... 16 11 On May 25, 2022, DOE published an RFI in the Federal Register regarding test procedures and energy conservations standards for CUACs and CUHPs (May 2022 TP/ECS RFI). 87 FR 31743. In response to the May 2022 TP/ ECS RFI, DOE notes that it received comments from various stakeholders related to the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. Table I.3 lists the stakeholders whose comments in response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI were related to the CUAC and CUHP test procedures and have been considered in this proposed rulemaking. For cases in which this NOPR references Commenter type Efficiency Advocacy Organizations and State Agency. Manufacturer. Manufacturer. Individual. Individual. Efficiency Advocacy Organization. Utilities. Manufacturer. Efficiency Advocacy Organization. comments received in response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI (which are contained within a different docket 10), the full docket number (rather than just the item entry number) is included in the parenthetical reference. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 TABLE I.3—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2022 TP/ECS RFI RELEVANT TO CUAC AND CUHP TEST PROCEDURES Comment No. in the docket Name of commenter Abbreviation used Air-Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration Institute ................................................. Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. Carrier Corporation .................................................................................................... Lennox International Inc ............................................................................................. New York State Energy Research and Development Authority ................................ Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance ........................................................................ AHRI ....................... ASAP and ACEEE 8 11 Carrier .................... Lennox .................... NYSERDA .............. NEEA ...................... 10 9 7 13 Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas and Electric, and Southern California Edison; (collectively referred to as the ‘‘California Investor-Owned Utilities’’). CA IOUs ................. 12 9 Comments submitted in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI are available in Docket No. EERE– 2019–BT–STD–0042. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 10 Comments submitted in response to the May 2022 ECS/TP RFI are available in Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015. PO 00000 Frm 00006 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Commenter type Manufacturer. Efficiency Advocacy Organizations. Manufacturer. Manufacturer. State Agency. Efficiency Advocacy Organization. Utilities. Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 56397 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 TABLE I.3—LIST OF COMMENTERS WITH WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN RESPONSE TO THE MAY 2022 TP/ECS RFI RELEVANT TO CUAC AND CUHP TEST PROCEDURES—Continued Name of commenter Abbreviation used Trane Technologies ................................................................................................... Trane ...................... On July 29, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of intent to establish a working group for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (Working Group) to negotiate proposed test procedures and amended energy conservation standards for this equipment (July 2022 Notice of Intent). 87 FR 45703. The Working Group was established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C App 2) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act (NRA) (5 U.S.C. 561– 570, Pub. L. 104–320). The purpose of the Working Group was to discuss, and if possible, reach consensus on recommended amendments to the test procedures and energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs. The Working Group consisted of 14 voting members, including DOE. (See appendix A, Working Group Members, Document No. 65 in Docket No. EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015) On December 15, 2022, the Working Group signed a term sheet of recommendations regarding ACUAC and ACUHP test procedures to be submitted to ASRAC, the contents of which are referenced throughout this NOPR (referred to hereafter as the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet). (See Id.) The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet was approved by ASRAC on March 2, 2023. These recommendations are discussed further in section III.D of this NOPR. In January 2023, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022, which included updates to the test procedure references for CUACs and CUHPs with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, specifically referencing AHRI 340/360–2022. For ECUACs and WCUACs with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1– 2022 references AHRI 210/240–2023. Notably, ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h were removed from the scope of AHRI 210/240–2023, and are instead included in the scope of AHRI 340/360– 2022. DOE discusses this change in scope to the industry test procedure and comments received related to ECUACs and WCUACs with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h in section III.G.9 of this NOPR. Following the publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022, AHRI is currently working on an update to the AHRI standard 340/360 11 (i.e., AHRI Standard 1340(I–P)–202X Draft, Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 1340–202X Draft)). 11 DOE has provided a copy of AHRI 1340–202X Draft in the docket for this rulemaking, available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-TP0014. AHRI Standard 1340 is in draft form and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review only during the drafting of this NOPR. Note that the draft AHRI Standard 1340 may be further revised, edited, delayed, or withdrawn prior to VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs by: (1) updating the reference in the Federal test procedure to the most recent version of the industry test procedure, AHRI 340/360– 2022, for measuring integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), energy efficiency ratio (EER), and coefficient of performance (COP); and (2) establishing a new test procedure that references the most recent draft version of industry test procedure, AHRI 1340–202X Draft, and is consistent with recommendations from the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet that DOE should include new efficiency metrics (integrated ventilation, economizer, and cooling (IVEC) and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency (IVHE)) and new testing requirements. If a finalized version of AHRI 1340–202X Draft is not published before the final rule or if there are substantive changes between the draft and published PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Comment No. in the docket 14 Commenter type Manufacturer. versions of AHRI 340/360, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment on the final version of that industry consensus standard. To implement the proposed changes, DOE proposes: (1) to amend appendix A to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/ 360–2022 for CUACs and CUHPs, while maintaining the current efficiency metrics; and (2) to add a new appendix A1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431. At 10 CFR part 431.96, ‘‘Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps,’’ DOE would list appendix A1 as the applicable test method for CUACs and CUHPs for any standards denominated in terms of IVEC and IVHE. Appendix A1 would utilize the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, including the new IVEC and IVHE efficiency metrics recommended by the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Use of appendix A1 would not be required until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy conservation standard based on the new metrics, should DOE adopt such standards. After the date on which compliance with appendix A1 would be required, appendix A would no longer be used as part of the Federal test procedure. DOE is also proposing more general updates to establish a definition for the terms ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioner’’ and ‘‘commercial unitary heat pump.’’ Lastly, DOE is proposing to amend certain provisions within DOE’s regulations for representation and enforcement consistent with the proposed test procedure amendments. Table I.1 summarizes the current DOE test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs, DOE’s proposed changes to that test procedure, and the reason for each proposed change. publication by the AHRI Standards Technical Committee (STC). E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56398 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE II.1—SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE RELATIVE TO CURRENT TEST PROCEDURE Current DOE test procedure Proposed test procedure Attribution Incorporates by reference ................................................. 1. ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 for CUACs and CUHPs with a cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h; and 2. ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008 for ECUACs and WCUACs with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. Includes provisions for determining EER, IEER, and COP. Incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360–2022 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 in appendix A. Utilize AHRI 1340–202X Draft and incorporate by reference ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009 in a new appendix A1. Update to the most recent industry test procedures. Appendix A maintains provisions for determining EER, IEER, and COP. Appendix A1 includes provisions for determining EER2, COP2, IVEC, and IVHE. Includes provisions in 10 CFR 429.43 specific to CUACs and CUHPs to determine represented values for units with specific components, and to prevent cooling capacity over-rating. Adopts product-specific enforcement provisions for CUACs and CUHPs regarding: (1) verification of cooling capacity for determining ESP requirements and (2) testing of units with specific components. Updates to the applicable industry test procedures. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Does not include certain CUAC and CUHP provisions regarding over-rating capacity and specific components for determination of represented values in 10 CFR 429.43. Does not include certain CUAC- and CUHP-specific enforcement provisions in 10 CFR 429.134. Should DOE adopt the amendments described in this proposed rule, the effective date for the amended test procedure would be 30 days after publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the CUAC and CUHP test procedures would not be unduly burdensome. Furthermore, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to appendix A, if made final, would not alter the measured efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs or require retesting or recertification solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of the proposed amendments to the test procedure. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to appendix A, if made final, would not increase the cost of testing. If finalized, representations of energy use or energy efficiency would be required to be based on testing in accordance with the amended test procedure in appendix A beginning 360 days after the date of publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. DOE has tentatively determined, however, that the newly proposed test procedure at appendix A1 would alter the measured efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs, in part because the amended test procedure would adopt different energy efficiency metrics than in the current test procedure. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to appendix A1, if made final, would increase the cost of testing relative to the current test procedure. Tentative cost estimates are discussed in section III.M of this document. As discussed, use of appendix A1 would not be required until the compliance date of any VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 amended energy conservation standard denominated in terms of the new metrics in appendix A1, should DOE adopt such standards. The proposed amendments to representation requirements in 10 CFR 429.43 would not be required until 360 days after publication in the Federal Register of a test procedure final rule. Discussion of DOE’s proposed actions are addressed in detail in section III of this NOPR. III. Discussion In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs. For each proposed amendment, DOE provides relevant background information, explains why the amendment merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments, and proposes a potential approach. A. Scope of Applicability This rulemaking applies to ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, including double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as ECUACs and WCUACs of all capacities. Definitions that apply to CUACs and CUHPs are discussed in section III.B of this NOPR. DOE’s regulations for CUACs and CUHPs cover both single-package units and split systems. See the definition of ‘‘commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment’’ at 10 CFR 431.92. A split system consists of a condensing unit—which includes a condenser coil, condenser fan and motor, and compressor—that is paired with a separate component that includes an evaporator coil to form a complete refrigeration circuit for space PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Improve representativeness of test procedure. Clarify how DOE will conduct enforcement testing. conditioning. One application for condensing units is to be paired with an air handler (which includes an evaporator coil), such that the combined system (i.e., the condensing unit with air handler) meets the definition of a split system CUAC or CUHP. It should be pointed out that AHRI has a certification program for unitary large equipment that includes certification of CUACs, CUHPs, and condensing units. DOE notes that as part of the AHRI certification program for unitary large equipment, manufacturers who sell aircooled condensing units with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/ h must certify condensing units as a complete system (i.e., paired with an air handler) according to the AHRI 340/360 test procedure.12 However, for condensing units with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and less than 250,000 Btu/h, the AHRI certification program allows manufacturers to certify condensing units as a complete system according to AHRI 340/360 or optionally certify as a condensing unit only according to AHRI Standard 365, ‘‘Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning Condensing Units’’ (AHRI 365). DOE emphasizes that these AHRI testing and certification requirements differ from the Federal test procedure at 10 CFR 431.96, which requires testing to ANSI/ AHRI 340/360–2007 and does not permit certifying to DOE as a condensing unit only according to AHRI 365. Additionally, the AHRI 12 See appendix A of the AHRI Unitary Large Equipment Certification Program Operations Manual (January 2021). This can be found at https://www.ahrinet.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/ ULE_OM.pdf. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules certification program does not include unitary split systems or condensing units with cooling capacities above 250,000 Btu/h, whereas the Federal test procedure and standards (codified at 10 CFR 431.96 and 10 CFR 431.97, respectively) cover all CUACs and CUHPs with cooling capacities up to 760,000 Btu/h. Once again, DOE emphasizes that condensing unit models distributed in commerce with air handlers with cooling capacities up to 760,000 Btu/h are covered as commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment (see definition at 10 CFR 431.92) and as such are subject to the Federal regulations specified for CUACs and CUHPs regarding test procedures (10 CFR 431.96), energy conservation standards (10 CFR 431.97), and certification and representation requirements (10 CFR 429.43). ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 B. Definitions 1. CUAC and CUHP Definition In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the definitions that apply to CUACs and CUHPs (including the definitions for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment) require any revisions—and if so, how those definitions should be revised. 85 FR 27941, 27945 (May 12, 2020). DOE also requested comment on whether additional equipment definitions are necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage between equipment types. Id. Trane commented that the overall definition for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment is very broad and covers equipment that is used in specific industrial applications (e.g., computer room air conditioners (CRACs), dedicated outdoor air systems (DOASes), and indoor agricultural systems) for which the CUAC/CUHP test procedure and IEER metric should not apply.13 Trane recommended that DOE should separately regulate these categories of equipment with specific definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation standards. (Trane, EERE– 2019–BT–STD–0042–0016, pp. 2–3) Goodman commented that ambiguity exists regarding DOASes used for dryclimate applications, as these systems could be rated and tested in accordance with AHRI Standard 340/360, as well as AHRI Standard 920, and that updating definitions to address these specific 13 The IEER metric represents a weighted average of full-load and part-load efficiencies, weighted according to the average amount of time operating at each load point. Additionally, IEER incorporates reduced condenser temperatures (i.e., reduced outdoor ambient temperatures) for part-load operation. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 system types based on mixed-air or 100percent air applications would provide some clarity in the marketplace. (Goodman, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042– 0017, p. 2) Regarding DOASes, in a final rule published in the Federal Register on July 27, 2022, DOE defined a direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system (DX–DOAS) as a unitary dedicated outdoor air system that is capable of dehumidifying air to a 55 °F dew point—when operating under Standard Rating Condition A as specified in Table 4 or Table 5 of AHRI 920–2020 (incorporated by reference, 10 CFR 431.95) with a barometric pressure of 29.92 in Hg—for any part of the range of airflow rates advertised in manufacturer materials, and has a moisture removal capacity of less than 324 lb/h. 87 FR 45164, 45170, 45198. DOE has tentatively concluded that this definition provides the requisite specificity sought by Goodman’s comment. More broadly, as in this NOPR, DOE has previously used the colloquial terms ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners’’ and ‘‘commercial unitary heat pump’’ (i.e., CUACs and CUHPs), to refer to certain commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, recognizing that CUAC is not a statutory term and is not currently used in the CFR. See 79 FR 58948, 58950 (Sept. 30, 2014); 80 FR 52676, 52676 (Sept. 1, 2015). As codified in regulation, the classes for which EPCA prescribed standards have been grouped under the headings ‘‘commercial air conditioners and heat pumps’’ (10 CFR 431.96, Table 1) and ‘‘air conditioning and heating equipment’’ (10 CFR 431.97, Table 1), although these are not defined terms. These classes have also been identified by the broader equipment type with which they are associated (i.e., small, large, or very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment). Id. DOE agrees with the commenters that a more tailored definition regarding the equipment categories covered by these umbrella terms may provide additional benefits in terms of clarity. Consequently, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a definition for ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump’’ to assist in distinguishing between the regulated categories of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. The proposed definition is structured to indicate categories of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that are excluded from the definition, rather than stipulating features or PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56399 characteristics of CUACs and CUHPs. Specifically, the proposed definition would exclude single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps (SPVUs), variable refrigerant flow multisplit air conditioners and heat pumps, and water-source heat pumps. To the extent that a unit could be considered either a CUAC or a CRAC, such unit would be excluded from the CUAC definition if marketed solely for applications specific to the CRAC equipment category. To the extent that a unit could be either a CUAC or a DX– DOAS, such unit would be excluded from the CUAC definition if it is only capable of providing ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air or it is marketed in all materials as only having such capability. DOE notes that, when gathering information for potential enforcement of CRAC, CUAC or a DX–DOAS standards, DOE may consider marketing materials claiming that a unit is a CRAC, CUAC or DX– DOAS by any party. Any marketing, by any party, could signal that a unit is not only a CRAC, CUAC, or a DX–DOAS. DOE notes that to the extent that a basic model is covered under more than one equipment category (e.g., CRAC and CUAC) it would be subject to the regulations applicable to each equipment class that covers that basic model. DOE proposes the following definition: Commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump means any small, large, or very large air-cooled, water-cooled, or evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that consists of one or more factory-made assemblies that provide space conditioning; but does not include: (1) single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, (2) variable refrigerant flow multisplit air conditioners and heat pumps, (3) water-source heat pumps; (4) equipment marketed only for use in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other information technology cooling applications, and (5) equipment only capable of providing ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air marketed only for ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air. DOE recognizes that there may be models on the market that would be covered by DOE regulations for multiple equipment categories. As discussed in a previous notice addressing CRACs, such models would have to be tested and rated according to the requirements for each applicable equipment class of E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56400 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 standards (e.g., CRAC and CUAC). See 77 FR 16769, 16773 (March 22, 2012). Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition for CUACs and CUHPs. 2. Basic Model Definition The current definition for ‘‘basic model’’ in DOE’s regulations includes a provision applicable for ‘‘small, large, and very large air-cooled or watercooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment (excluding air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h).’’ 10 CFR 431.92. Consistent with DOE’s proposed definition for ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump,’’ DOE proposes to similarly update the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ so that this provision instead applies to the proposed term ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump.’’ DOE notes that the term in the current ‘‘basic model’’ definition includes ACUACs, ACUHPs, and WCUACs, but does not explicitly include ECUACs, (DOE notes that the definition of ‘‘commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment’’ at 10 CFR 431.92 makes clear that that term includes evaporatively-cooled equipment. Consequently, ECUACs are clearly part of the relevant basic model definition, so the omission of the term ‘‘evaporatively-cooled’’ from the heading should not impact the proper functioning and use of the test procedure. However, DOE is proposing to update the relevant heading to dispel any confusion in that regard.) This proposal thereby includes ECUACs in this provision of the ‘‘basic model’’ definition—i.e., because ECUACs are included within the proposed term ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump,’’ as discussed in section III.B.1 of this NOPR. It would further clarify that this provision of the ‘‘basic model’’ definition refers only to CUACs and CUHPs, and not to any other category of equipment that is ‘‘small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’. DOE also proposes editorial changes more generally to the definition of ‘‘basic model’’ specified in 10 CFR 431.92. The current definition begins with ‘‘Basic model includes’’ and each equipment category-specific provision of the definition begins with the equipment category name, followed by the word ‘‘means,’’ followed by the basic model definition for that category (e.g., ‘‘Computer room air conditioners VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 means all units . . .’’). However, this wording could be misinterpreted to read as a definition of each equipment category, rather than as the definition of what constitutes a basic model for each equipment category. Therefore, DOE proposes to revise the definition to instead begin with ‘‘Basic model means’’ and then revise each equipment category specific provision to begin with ‘‘For’’ and replace the word ‘‘means’’ with a colon (e.g., ‘‘For Computer room air conditioners: all units . . .’’). These proposed changes to the basic model definition are editorial and would not change the current understanding of what constitutes a basic model for each equipment category. 3. Double-Duct Definition DOE established a definition for ‘‘double-duct air conditioner or heat pump’’ at 10 CFR 431.92 (referred to as ‘‘double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps’’ or ‘‘double-duct systems’’) in an energy conservation standards direct final rule published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2016 (January 2016 Direct Final Rule). 81 FR 2420, 2529. This definition was included in a term sheet by the ASRAC working group for commercial package air conditioners (Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group) as part of the rulemaking that culminated with the January 2016 Direct Final Rule. (See Document No. 93 in Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–STD–0007, pp. 4–5) DOE defines double-duct systems as aircooled commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment that: (1) Is either a horizontal single package or split-system unit; or a vertical unit that consists of two components that may be shipped or installed either connected or split; (2) Is intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air from the building exterior to and from the unit, as evidenced by the unit and/or all of its components being non-weatherized, including the absence of any marking (or listing) indicating compliance with UL 1995,14 ‘‘Heating and Cooling Equipment,’’ or any other equivalent requirements for outdoor use; (3) If it is a horizontal unit, a complete unit has a maximum height of 35 inches; if it is a vertical unit, a complete unit has a maximum depth of 35 inches; and (4) Has a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and up to 300,000 Btu/h. 10 CFR 431.92. In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the 14 Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 1995, UL Standard for Safety for Heating and Cooling Equipment (UL 1995). PO 00000 Frm 00010 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 definitions that apply to ACUACs and ACUHPs, including double-duct systems, require any revisions—and if so, how those definitions should be revised. 85 FR 27941, 27945. (May 12, 2020). In response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, Carrier recommended that DOE review the current definitions for double-duct systems, as well as the definition for SPVUs, asserting that the current definitions for double-duct systems and SPVUs do not clearly delineate the two equipment categories. Carrier stated that while double-duct systems and SPVUs are extraordinarily similar in application, double-duct systems have longer ductwork to bring air from outside the building to the condensing section of the unit, whereas SPVUs must remain in close proximately to an exterior wall. (Carrier, EERE–2019–BT– STD–0042–0013 at p. 2) In response, DOE notes that section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify the following definition for double-duct systems: an air conditioner or heat pump that complies with all of the following: (1) Is either a horizontal single package or split-system unit; or a vertical unit that consists of two components that can be shipped or installed either connected or split; or a vertical single packaged unit that is not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) Is intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air from the building exterior to and from the unit, where the unit and/or all of its components are non-weatherized; (3) If it is a horizontal unit, the complete unit shall have a maximum height of 35 in. or the unit shall have components that do not exceed a maximum height of 35 in. If it is a vertical unit, the complete (split, connected, or assembled) unit shall have components that do not exceed maximum depth of 35 in.; (4) Has a rated cooling capacity greater than and equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than or equal to 300,000 Btu/h. In comparison to DOE’s definition, DOE notes the following regarding the definition for double-duct system in section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft: (1) vertical single packaged units not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall can be classified as doubleduct systems; (2) the maximum dimensions apply to each component of a split system; and (3) the AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft definition does not include compliance with UL 1995 as a criterion for determining whether a model is non- E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 weatherized. For the reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, DOE has tentatively concluded that the definition for double-duct system in section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft more appropriately classifies double-duct systems and differentiates this equipment from other categories of commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. Regarding vertical single package units, the DOE definitions for SPVUs at 10 CFR 431.92 include models that are intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall. In the January 2016 Direct Final Rule, DOE agreed with the exclusion of vertical single package units from the definition for ‘‘doubleduct system’’ because SPVUs are separately regulated.15 81 FR 2420, 2446 (Jan. 15, 2016). However, the exclusion of all vertical single package units from the definition for ‘‘double-duct system’’ adopted in the January 2016 Direct Final Rule means that vertical single package models that do not meet the SPVU definition (i.e., are not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall) are not explicitly covered by the definitions for SPVUs or double-duct systems. Because the reasoning provided in the January 2016 Direct Final Rule was to exclude SPVUs from the double-duct definition, DOE has tentatively concluded that vertical single package units that do not meet the SPVU definition were inadvertently excluded from the DOE double-duct definition. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that the clarification in the AHRI 340/360–2022 definition for ‘‘double-duct systems’’ (i.e., inclusion of vertical single package units not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall) is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group that initially drafted the current ‘‘double-duct system’’ definition. See 81 FR 2420, 2446. (Jan. 15, 2016). This clarification also addresses Carrier’s concern that the current definitions do not clearly differentiate double-duct systems from SPVUs. 15 Specifically, DOE stated in the January 2016 Direct Final Rule that single package vertical units are already covered under separate standards (10 CFR 431.97(d)). As a result, to ensure that SPVUs are not covered under the definition of double-duct equipment, DOE agrees with the ASRAC Term Sheet recommendations that for vertical doubleduct units, only those with split configurations (that may be installed with the two components attached together) should be included as part of this separate equipment class. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Regarding maximum height and depth dimensions, the revised definition in section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X draft specifies that for systems with multiple components, the maximum dimensions apply to each component of the unit. Because split systems are installed separately from each other, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate for the maximum dimensions for split systems to apply to each component, rather than the combined system. Regarding determination of whether a model is non-weatherized, the AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft definition does not include the criterion regarding the absence of any marking (or listing) indicating compliance with UL 1995 as an indication that the unit is intended for indoor installation. Upon examination of UL 1995, DOE recognizes that the scope of the standard is not limited to models intended for outdoor installation, and therefore, that compliance with UL 1995 does not necessarily indicate that a model is intended for outdoor installation and/or is weatherized. Therefore, DOE tentatively agrees with removing the reference to UL 1995 in the double-duct definition, and instead specifying that double-duct systems are intended for indoor installation (e.g., the unit and/or all of its components are nonweatherized). Based on the preceding discussion, DOE has tentatively determined that the definition for ‘‘double-duct system’’ in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft better implements the intent of DOE and the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group to create a separate equipment class of ACUACs and ACUHPs that are designed for indoor installation and that would require ducting of outdoor air from the building exterior. 81 FR 2420, 2446 (Jan. 15, 2016). Thus, DOE is proposing to revise the definition of double-duct air conditioners and heat pumps in 10 CFR 431.92 to reflect the updated definition for double-duct systems in section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. 4. Metric Definitions As mentioned in section II and discussed in further detail in sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt new cooling and heating metrics in appendix A1 (i.e., IVEC and IVHE). Additionally, DOE is proposing three metrics for optional representations in appendix A1, as discussed further in section III.F.3 of PO 00000 Frm 00011 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56401 this NOPR: energy efficiency ratio 2 (EER2), coefficient of performance 2 (COP2), and IVHE for colder climates (IVHEC). Consistent with this approach, DOE is proposing to add new definitions for the terms ‘‘IVEC,’’ ‘‘IVHE,’’ ‘‘EER2,’’ and ‘‘COP2’’ to 10 CFR 431.92. The proposed definitions describe what each metric represents, the test procedure used to determine each metric, and specific designations applicable to each metric (e.g., IVHEC). C. Updates to Industry Test Standards The following sections discuss the changes included in the most recent updates to AHRI 340/360 and ASHRAE 37, which are incorporated by reference in the current DOE test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h at 10 CFR 431.96 and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A. AHRI 340/360 is also incorporated by reference in the current DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h at 10 CFR 431.96. 1. AHRI 340/360 As noted previously, DOE’s current test procedures for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007. DOE’s current test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008. The most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, (i.e., ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022), references AHRI 340/360– 2022 as the test procedure for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022 included updates to the test procedure references for ECUACs and WCUACs with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h to reference AHRI 210/240–2023. However, ECUACs and WCUACs with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h are outside of the scope of AHRI 210/240–2023 and are instead included in AHRI 340/360–2022. Given these changes to the relevant industry test standards, DOE believes that such reference was an oversight. The following list includes substantive additions in AHRI 340/360– 2022 as compared to ANSI/AHRI 340/ 360–2007, which is edition referenced in the current Federal test procedure and applies to CUACs and CUHPs: 1. A method for testing double-duct systems at non-zero ESP (see section E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56402 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 6.1.3.7 and appendix I of AHRI 340/ 360–2022); 2. A method for comparing relative efficiency of indoor integrated fan and motor combinations (IFMs) that allows CUACs and CUHPs with non-standard (i.e., higher ESP) IFMs to be rated in the same basic model as otherwise identical models with standards IFMs (see section D4.2 of Appendix D of AHRI 340/360– 2022); 3. Requirements for indoor and outdoor air condition measurement (see appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2022); 4. Detailed provisions for setting indoor airflow and ESP (see sections 6.1.3.4–6.1.3.6 of AHRI 340/360–2022) and refrigerant charging instructions to be used in cases in which manufacturer’s instructions conflict or are incomplete (see section 5.8 of AHRI 340/360–2022); and 5. ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/ h are included within the scope of the standard. As discussed, DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs by incorporating by reference AHRI 340/360–2022 in appendix A. 2. AHRI 1340 The recommendations of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet are being incorporated into an updated version of AHRI 340/360 currently being drafted (i.e., AHRI 1340–202X Draft) that will supersede AHRI 340/360–2022. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes recommendations from the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet described in section III.D of this NOPR (including the IVEC and IVHE metrics). The AHRI 1340–202X Draft also includes the following revisions and additions to the IVEC and IVHE metrics not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, which are discussed in detail in sections III.F.5.a, III.F.6, and III.F.7.a of this NOPR: 1. Detailed test instructions for splitting ESP between the return and supply ductwork, consistent with ESP requirements recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet; 2. Corrections to the hour-based IVEC weighting factors included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet; 3. Correction of the equation in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet for calculating adjusted ESP for any cooling or heating tests conducted with an airflow rate that differs from the full-load cooling airflow; VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 4. Addition of separate hour-based weighting factors and bin temperatures to calculate a separate version of IVHE that is representative of colder climates, designated IVHEC 5. Changes to the default fan power and maximum pressure drop used for testing coil-only systems; 6. Additional instruction for component power measurement during testing; 7. Corrections to equations used for calculating IVHE; 8. Provisions for testing with nonstandard low-static indoor fan motors; and 9. Revision to the power adder for WCUACs that reflects power that would be consumed by field-installed heat rejection components. In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in its appendix A1 test procedure. AHRI Standard 1340 is in draft form and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review for this NOPR. Note that the draft AHRI Standard 1340 may be further revised, edited, delayed, or withdrawn prior to publication by the AHRI Standards Technical Committee. If AHRI has published a final version, DOE intends to update its incorporation by reference to the final published version of AHRI 1340, unless there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions, in which case DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment on the changes to the industry consensus standard. 3. ASHRAE 37 ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, which provides a method of test for many categories of air conditioning and heating equipment, is referenced for testing CUACs and CUHPs by both AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. More specifically, sections 5 and 6 and appendices C, D, and E of AHRI 340/360–2022 and sections 5 and 6 and appendices C, D, and E of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft reference methods of test in ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009. DOE currently incorporates by reference ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009 in 10 CFR 431.95, and the current incorporation by reference applies to the current Federal test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs specified at appendix A. The current Federal test procedures at 10 CFR 431.96 for ECUACs and WCUACs do not explicitly reference ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009. Given that DOE is proposing to expand the scope of appendix A to include testing of PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ECUACs and WCUACs as well as the fact that AHRI 340/360–2022 references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 for several test instructions, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate for the existing incorporation by reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 in appendix A to apply to testing ECUACs and WCUACs. Given that the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 for several test instructions, DOE is proposing to additionally incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 for use with appendix A1. D. Consideration of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE received comments from several stakeholders indicating support for the formation of an ASRAC working group to convene and discuss representative test conditions for CUACs and CUHPs. (AHRI, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0008, at pp. 1–2; CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0012, at pp. 1–2; Lennox, EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0009, at pp. 1–2; NEEA, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0013, at pp. 6–7; Trane, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0014, at p. 2) As a result, DOE published in the Federal Register the July 2022 Notice of Intent. 87 FR 45703 (July 29, 2022). DOE then established the Working Group in accordance with FACA and NRA. The Working Group consisted of 14 members and met six times, while the Working Group’s subcommittee met an additional seven times. The Working Group meetings were held between September 20, 2022, and December 15, 2022, after which the Working Group successfully reached consensus on an amended test procedure. The Working Group signed a term sheet of recommendations on December 15, 2022. (See EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0065) The Working Group addressed the following aspects of the test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs: 1. Mathematical representation of cooling efficiency: The current cooling metric specified by AHRI 340/360–2022 (i.e., IEER) represents a weighted average of the measured energy efficiency ratios (EER) measured at four distinct test conditions, whereas the proposed IVEC metric is calculated as the total annual cooling capacity divided by the total annual energy use, as discussed further in section III.F.4 of this document. The Working Group agreed that this calculation approach provides a more mathematically accurate way of representing the cooling efficiency of ACUACs and ACUHPs compared to the current approach used for IEER. As part of this equation format, E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules the IVEC metric also uses hour-based weighting factors to represent the time spent per year in each operating mode. 2. Integrated heating metric: The current heating metric for ACUHPs (i.e., COP) represents the ratio of heating capacity to the power input, calculated at a single test condition of 47 °F. COP does not account for the performance at part-load or over the range of temperatures seen during an average heating season, and it does not include energy use in heating season ventilation mode. IVHE accounts for both full-load and part-load operation at a range of typical ambient temperatures seen during the heating season, and it includes energy use in heating season ventilation mode. Analogous to IVEC, the proposed IVHE metric is calculated as the total annual heating load divided by the total annual energy use, as discussed further in section III.F.5 of this document, and the metric also uses hour-based weighting factors to represent the time spent per year in each operating mode. 3. Operating modes other than mechanical cooling: The IEER metric currently does not include the energy use of operating modes other than mechanical cooling, such as economizer-only cooling and cooling season ventilation. The newly established IVEC metric includes the energy use of these other modes. 4. ESP: The IVEC and IVHE metrics require increased ESPs—in comparison to the ESPs required for determining IEER and COP—to more accurately represent ESPs and corresponding indoor fan power that would be experienced in real-world installations. 5. Crankcase heater operation: The current IEER metric includes crankcase heater power consumption only when operating at part-load compressor stages (i.e., for part-load cooling operation, crankcase heater power is included only for higher-stage compressors that are staged off, and it is not included for lower-stage compressors when all compressors are cycled off). The COP metric does not include any crankcase heater power consumption. In contrast, the IVEC and IVHE metrics include all annual crankcase heater operation, including when all compressors are cycled off in part-load cooling or heating, ventilation mode, unoccupied no-load hours, and in heating season (for ACUACs only). 6. Oversizing: The current IEER and COP metrics do not consider that ACUACs and ACUHPs are typically oversized in field installations. In contrast, the proposed IVEC and IVHE metrics include an oversizing factor of 15 percent (i.e., it is assumed that the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 unit’s measured full-load cooling capacity is 15 percent higher than the peak building cooling load and peak building heating load). Accounting for oversizing is more representative of the load fractions seen in field applications and better enables the test procedure to differentiate efficiency improvements from the use of modulating/staged components. Based on discussions related to these six topics, the Working Group developed the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, which includes the following recommendations: 1. A recommendation to adopt the latest version of AHRI 340/360–2022 with IEER and COP metrics required for compliance beginning 360 days from the date a test procedure final rule publishes (See Recommendation #0); 2. The IVEC efficiency metric, to be required on the date of amended energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs (See Recommendation #1); 3. Hour-based weighting factors for the IVEC metric (See Recommendation #2); 4. Details on determination of IVEC, including provisions for determining IVEC in appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet (See Recommendation #3); 5. Target load fractions and temperature test conditions for IVEC, which account for oversizing (See Recommendation #4); 6. A requirement that representations of full-load EER be made in accordance with the full-load ‘‘A’’ test (See Recommendation #5); 16 7. A requirement to provide representations of airflow used for the full load ‘‘A’’ test and the part load ‘‘D’’ test (i.e., the airflow used in the loweststage test for the D point), and a provision for determining the minimum airflow that can be used for testing (See Recommendation #6); 8. The IVHE efficiency metric (See Recommendation #7); 9. Hour-based weighting factors, load bins, and outdoor air temperatures for each bin (i.e., temperatures used for the building heating load line, not test temperature conditions) for the IVHE metric (See Recommendation #8); 10. The test conditions and list of required and optional tests and representations for the IVHE metric (See Recommendation #9); 16 Similar to the current test procedure for determining IEER, the test procedure recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes four cooling tests designated with letters ‘‘A’’, ‘‘B’’, ‘‘C’’, and ‘‘D.’’ The ‘‘A’’ test is a full-load cooling test, while the ‘‘B,’’ ‘‘C,’’ and ‘‘D’’ tests are part-load cooling tests. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56403 11. Provisions for manufacturers to certify cut-in and cut-out temperatures for heat pumps to DOE and provisions for a DOE verification test of those temperatures (See Recommendation #10); 12. Commitment of the Working Group to analyze ventilation and fanonly operation included in the IVEC and IVHE metrics to validate that these metrics adequately capture fan energy use during the energy conservation standards portion of the negotiated rulemaking. If the IVEC and IVHE levels do not adequately drive more efficient air moving systems that are technologically feasible and economically justified, the Working Group committed to developing a metric addressing furnace fan energy use (See Recommendation #11); 13. ESP requirements for the IVEC and IVHE metrics, requirements for splitting the ESP requirements between the return and supply ducts, and a requirement that certified airflow for full load and D bin be made public in the DOE Compliance Certification Database (See Recommendation #12); 14. Provisions requiring manufacturers to certify crankcase heater wattages and tolerances for certification (See Recommendation #13); and 15. Provisions that the contents of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet be implemented in a test procedure NOPR and final rule, with the final rule issuing no later than any energy conservation standards direct final rule. (See Recommendation #14) E. DOE Proposed Test Procedures As discussed, EPCA requires that test procedures for covered equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs, be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) DOE has tentatively determined that the recommendations specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet are consistent with this EPCA requirement and is proposing amendments to the existing test procedure in appendix A and a new test procedure in appendix A1 in accordance with the Term Sheet. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to maintain the current efficiency metrics of IEER, EER, and COP in appendix A, and is proposing to reference AHRI 340/ 360–2022 in appendix A for measuring the existing metrics. Thus, the proposed E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56404 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 amendments to appendix A would not affect the measured efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs or require retesting solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of the proposed amendments to the appendix A test procedure, if made final. Additionally, DOE is proposing to establish a new test procedure at appendix A1 that would adopt the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, including the newly proposed IVEC and IVHE metrics, ideally through incorporation by reference of a finalized version of that industry test standard. (If a finalized version of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft is not published before the test procedure final rule, or if there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions of the standard that are not supported by stakeholder comments in response to this NOPR, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment on the final version of that industry consensus standard.) Use of appendix A1 would not be required until the compliance date of any amended standards denominated in terms of the new metrics in appendix A1, should such standards be adopted. Specifically, in appendix A, DOE is proposing to adopt the following sections of AHRI 340/360–2022: sections 3 (with certain exclusions 17), 4, 5, and 6, and appendices A, C, D (excluding sections D1 through D3 18), and E. As previously mentioned in section I.B of this NOPR, DOE’s test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs currently specifies additional test procedure requirements in sections 3 through 10 of the current appendix A that are not included in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 and that are related to minimum ESP, optional break-in period, refrigerant charging, setting indoor airflow, condenser head pressure controls, tolerance on capacity at part-load test points, and condenser air inlet 17 DOE is not proposing to reference the following provisions in section 3 of AHRI 340/360–2022 because the terms are either defined at 10 CFR 431.92 or are not needed for the proposed DOE test procedure: 3.2 (Basic Model), 3.4 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning Equipment), 3.5 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Heat Pump), 3.7 (Double-duct System), 3.8 (Energy Efficiency Ratio), 3.12 (Heating Coefficient of Performance), 3.14 (Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio), 3.23 (Published Rating), 3.26 (Single Package AirConditioners), 3.27 (Single Package Heat Pumps), 3.29 (Split System Air-conditioners), 3.30 (Split System Heat Pump), 3.36 (Year Round Single Package Air-conditioners). 18 For reasons discussed in section III.I of this NOPR, DOE is proposing provisions regarding configuration of unit under test at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A), appendix A, and appendix A1 that are distinct from the provisions in sections D1 through D3 of AHRI 340/360–2022. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 temperature for part-load tests. Similarly, DOE’s test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs currently specifies additional test procedure requirements in paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 regarding optional breakin period and additional provisions for equipment setup. DOE has tentatively determined that these DOE test procedure requirements that are specified in appendix A and paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 no longer need to be separately specified due to the addition of equivalent provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Therefore, DOE is proposing to remove these provisions from appendix A and to revise Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 such that paragraphs (c) and (e) are no longer listed as requirements for ECUACs and WCUACs, instead utilizing the relevant provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022. Further, in both appendix A and appendix A1, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 and to utilize all sections of that industry test method except sections 1 (Purpose), 2 (Scope), and 4 (Classifications). Specifically for appendix A1, DOE is proposing to adopt sections of AHRI 1340–202X Draft for measuring the IVEC and IVHE metrics, which are generally consistent with the recommendations from the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. In the proposed appendix A1, DOE is proposing to adopt the following sections of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft: sections 3 (with certain exclusions) 4, 5, and 6.1 through 6.3, and appendices A, C, D (excluding D1 through D3), and E. Sections III.F.3, III.F.4, III.F.5, and III.F.6 of this NOPR include further discussion on the IVEC and IVHE metrics, as well as additions and revisions to the IVEC and IVHE metrics that are included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft but not in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Sections III.F.7 and III.F.6.d of this NOPR include further discussion on the IVEC and IVHE metrics specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft that DOE is proposing to adopt in appendix A1 for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems. The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet applies only to the test procedures for ACUACs and ACUHPs excluding double-duct systems. However, AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes additional provisions for determining IVEC and IVHE for doubleduct systems, ECUACs, and WCUACs— indicating industry consensus that these metrics are appropriate for these categories of CUACs and CUHPs. DOE has tentatively determined that the test PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 procedures for CUACs and CUHPs as proposed would improve the representativeness of the current Federal test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Specifically, DOE has tentatively concluded that testing CUACs and CUHPs (including double-duct systems, ECUACs, and WCUACs) in accordance with the test provisions in the most recent draft of the applicable consensus industry test procedure AHRI 1340–202X Draft (which incorporates recommendations of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, including adopting the new IVEC and IVHE metrics) would provide more representative results and more fully comply with the requirements of 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) than testing strictly in accordance with AHRI 340/360–2022. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs to adopt in the proposed new appendix A1 the test provisions in AHRI 1340–202X Draft and ASHRAE 37–2009. Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to adopt the IVEC and IVHE metrics as determined under AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1 of the Federal test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs (including double-duct systems), ECUACs, and WCUACs. F. Efficiency Metrics and Test Conditions In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, May 2020 ECS RFI, and May 2022 TP/ ECS RFI, DOE received comment on a number of topics related to changing the metrics and/or test conditions used for determining CUAC and CUHP efficiency. The following sections: (1) summarize comments received on these topics; (2) discuss the current test conditions and metrics in appendix A; (3) discuss the test conditions and metrics proposed to be included in appendix A1; (4) discuss the newly proposed IVEC metric; (5) discuss the newly proposed IVHE metric; (6) discuss additions and revisions to the IVEC and IVHE metrics that are included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft but not the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet; and (7) discuss metrics specific to double-duct systems. 1. Comments Received on Metrics In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, May 2020 ECS RFI, and May 2022 TP/ ECS RFI, DOE received comments regarding a number of test procedure topics. In the following subsections, DOE briefly summarizes these topics, E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 including the corresponding comments received and DOE’s responses. DOE notes that many of the issues raised by commenters had not yet been addressed through an industry consensus test procedure at the time the comments were submitted to DOE. Many of these issues were raised subsequently during the Working Group, and the newly proposed IVEC and IVHE metrics would largely address the major concerns previously expressed by commenters. a. IEER Test Conditions and Weighting Factors In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE welcomed comment on any aspect of the existing test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs not specifically addressed by the RFI, particularly with regard to information that would improve the representativeness of the test procedures. 82 FR 34427, 34448. (July 25, 2017). With respect to the IEER test conditions and weighting factors, the CA IOUs suggested raising the highest ambient dry-bulb temperature test point used for determining IEER, stating that the 95 °F condition specified in the test procedure does not reflect the conditions experienced in the western climate and on many rooftops throughout the country. (CA IOUs, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0007 at p. 3) Additionally, in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE received comments and test data from Verified recommending changes to the IEER weighting factors and indoor and outdoor air temperature test conditions in AHRI 340/360, particularly to account for the use of economizers (discussed further in section III.F.1.d) and changes in climate due to global climate change. (Verified, EERE–2019– BT–STD–0042–0011 at pp. 3–7) DOE also received comments from two individuals supporting the statements made by Verified. (Heinemeier, EERE– 2019–BT–STD–0042–0012 at p. 1; Walsh, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042– 0018 at p. 1) In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE received several comments regarding the weighting factors used in the IEER metric, specifically relating to the building types considered in the current test procedure. ASAP and ACEEE asserted that the current IEER weighting factors should be adjusted to account for additional building types that were not considered when initially developing IEER. (ASAP and ACEEE, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0011, at p. 2) Carrier noted that IEER was developed using three building types VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 (specifically, office, retail, and school buildings) and asserted that for an updated analysis, the 16 building types currently in ASHRAE 90.1 should be considered where applicable to ACUACs and ACUHPs. (Carrier, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0010, at pp. 14– 15) Carrier also noted that it had developed a model that outputs load profiles for the 16 ASHRAE 90.1 building types for each of the 19 global climate zones in ASHRAE 169–2013 and was using its model to evaluate the effects of ventilation, ASHRAE 90.1 requirements for economizer free cooling and energy recovery, updated heating metrics, different climate zones and building load profiles, and updated ESPs. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0010, at pp. 1–6) Additionally, Carrier noted that the weighting factors developed during the 2005 process to create IEER were based on ton-hours and not purely on hours, noting that high-capacity hours have more weight than the lower capacity hours in terms of energy use. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0010, at pp. 12–13). Carrier also explained that the weighting for the A test condition was based on the 97-percent to 100-percent capacity range because it would not have been appropriate to use a larger bin with the rating condition at the extreme upper limit of the bin. Id. Carrier recommended that if DOE were to update the cooling metric, DOE should consider the following: (1) oversizing, (2) re-evaluating test points and weighting factors if ventilation and economizing are included, (3) test uncertainty at very low loads, and (4) varying return air temperatures. Id. AHRI stated that energy use during cooling varies based on climate zone, building type, construction, and use, and that ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 has developed reference cities for all 19 climate zones and defined 16 reference buildings that represent 83 percent of the market. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0008, at p. 5) As presented in the September 20–21, 2022, Working Group meetings, the Working Group evaluated the weighting factors and test conditions specified in conjunction with the newly proposed IVEC metric using the models developed by Carrier, which include several ASHRAE 90.1 building types and climate zones for which ACUACs and ACUHPs are installed. (See EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0019, pp. 9–22) The weighting factors and their development are further discussed in section III.F.4 of this NOPR. DOE believes that these provisions address the issues raised by commenters as summarized previously in this section, PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56405 and proposes to adopt in appendix A1 the adjusted IVEC weighting factors that are specified in AHRI 1340–202X Draft and discussed in section III.F.6.a of this NOPR. b. Energy Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs For ECUACs and WCUACs of all regulated cooling capacities, DOE currently prescribes standards in terms of the EER metric for cooling-mode operation. 10 CFR 431.97(b); see Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.97. This differs from ACUACs and ACUHPs with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (excluding double-duct systems), for which DOE currently prescribes energy conservation standards in terms of the IEER metric for cooling-mode operation and in terms of COP for heating-mode operation. 10 CFR 431.97(b); see Table 3 and Table 4 to 10 CFR 431.97. Unlike EER, which represents the efficiency of the equipment operating only at full load, IEER represents the efficiency of operating at part-load conditions of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of capacity in addition to the efficiency at full load. The IEER metric provides a more representative measure of energy consumption in actual operation of CUACs and CUHPs by weighting the full-load and part-load efficiencies with the average amount of time the equipment spends operating at each load point. AHRI 340/360–2022 includes both the EER and IEER metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1–2019 and ASHRAE 90.1–2022 specify minimum efficiency levels for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of both EER and IEER. As discussed in the July 2017 RFI, ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 includes a method for testing and calculating IEER for ECUACs and WCUACs. DOE requested comment and data on whether the IEER part-load conditions and IEER weighting factors are representative of the operation of fieldinstalled ECUACs and WCUACs, and on the typical cycling losses of fieldinstalled ECUACs and WCUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34440 (July 25, 2017). On this topic, AHRI, Carrier, and Goodman commented that the weighting factors are based on building load profiles and should not depend on equipment category. (AHRI, EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 22; Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 8; Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0014 at p. 3) ASAP, ASE, et al. encouraged DOE to adopt IEER as the efficiency metric for ECUACs and WCUACs, stating that ECUACs and WCUACs spend most of their operating E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56406 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 time in part load, and that using IEER for these equipment types would provide consistency in ratings with ACUACs and ACUHPs and better represent performance in the field. (ASAP, ASE, et al., EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0009 at pp. 4–5) In contrast, Goodman stated that the WCUAC market is so small that there would be no value in changing the regulated metric to IEER for such equipment. (Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0014 at p. 3) DOE responds to these commenters as follows. In the proposed appendix A, for ECUACs and WCUACs, DOE proposes to include both the required EER metric and the optional IEER metric, as well as the test procedure specified in AHRI 340/360–2022, in the DOE test procedure so as to allow for required representations using the EER metric and optional representations using the IEER metric. In a final determination published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2021, DOE discussed the potential for amended energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs denominated in terms of IEER, but the Department concluded that such a metric change was not warranted and ultimately maintained the current standards denominated in terms of EER. 86 FR 37001, 37004–37005. As part of this rulemaking, DOE is proposing the IEER provisions as an optional test procedure to allow for consistent and comparable representations in terms of IEER when testing to appendix A, should a manufacturer choose to make such representations. As discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt the IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in the proposed appendix A1, as determined in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE has tentatively concluded that the inclusion of the IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in AHRI 1340– 202X Draft represents industry consensus that the metric provides a representative measure of efficiency for ECUACs and WCUACs. Section III.F.6.d of this NOPR includes further discussion of the IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs. c. Cyclic Degradation Factor for Cooling In section 6.2.3.2 of AHRI 340/360– 2022, units that are unable to reduce their capacity to meet one of the IEER part load rating points (i.e., 75 percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent) are tested under steady-state conditions at the minimum stage of compression that the unit is able to achieve. In real-world installations, these same units would typically operate under non-steady-state conditions because the compressor would cycle to reduce the unit’s VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 capacity to meet the desired cooling load. AHRI 340/360–2022 require units unable to reduce their capacity below one of the part load rating points have the EER for that rating point calculated using a cyclic degradation coefficient. This degradation coefficient, which is calculated based on the load fraction and ranges from 1 to 1.13, is included in the denominator of the EER calculation for that rating point and is multiplied by the sum of the compressor and condenser fan power in order to simulate the efficiency degradation of compressor and condenser fan cycling. With respect to cyclic degradation, DOE received a comment in response to the July 2017 TP RFI from the CA IOUs recommending that DOE investigate the cyclic degradation factor in AHRI 340/ 360–2015 to verify that the degradation coefficient will never exceed 1.13. (CA IOUs, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0007 at p. 2) DOE also received a comment in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI from Verified questioning the validity of the cyclic degradation factor in AHRI 340/ 360–2019, stating that its laboratory tests found that relative cycling losses of a 7.5-ton system were more than double the losses for a 3-ton system. (Verified, EERE–2019–BT–STD–0042–0011 at p. 10) While the Working Group discussed calculation methods for IVEC during the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group meetings, the Working Group did not discuss any alternatives to the cyclic degradation approach specified in AHRI 340/360–2022. Additionally, the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes the cyclic degradation calculation method specified in AHRI 340/360–2022 as part of the IVEC metric calculation method. At this time, DOE lacks clear and convincing evidence to deviate from the cyclic degradation approach in AHRI 340/360–2022 that is recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and included in AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to adopt a cyclic degradation approach that differs from the approach specified in these documents. d. Economizing and Ventilation In 2015, DOE initiated a rulemaking effort for the ASRAC Commercial and Industrial Fans and Blowers Working Group (CIFB Working Group) to negotiate the scope, test procedure, and standards for commercial and industrial fans and blowers. 80 FR 17359. The CIFB Working Group issued a term sheet with recommendations regarding the energy conservation standards, test procedures, and efficiency metrics for PO 00000 Frm 00016 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 commercial and industrial fans and blowers (CIFB Term Sheet). (See Document No. 179 in Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–STD–0006.) Recommendation #3 of the CIFB Term Sheet identifies a need for DOE’s test procedures and related efficiency metrics for CUACs and CUHPs to more fully account for the energy consumption of fans embedded in regulated commercial airconditioning equipment. (Id. at pp. 3–4) In addition, the CIFB Working Group recommended that in the next round of test procedure rulemakings, DOE should consider revising efficiency metrics that include energy use of supply and condenser fans to include the energy consumption during all relevant operating modes (e.g., auxiliary heating mode, ventilation mode, and part-load operation). (Id.) The Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group also developed recommendations regarding fan energy use in a term sheet. (See Document No. 93 in Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–STD–0007) The Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group recommended that DOE initiate a rulemaking with a primary focus of better representing total fan energy use in real-world installations, including consideration of fan operation for operating modes other than mechanical cooling and heating.19 (Id. at p. 2) As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and data on the operation of CUAC and CUHP supply fans when there is no demand for heating and cooling, as well as the impact of ancillary functions (e.g., primary heating, auxiliary heating, and economizers 20) on the use and operation of the supply fan. 82 FR 34427, 34440. In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Carrier and AHRI commented that fan operation in ventilation hours cannot properly be accounted for without including economizer operation in testing. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0006 at p. 9; AHRI, EERE–2017– BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 23) AHRI and Goodman commented that manufacturers and third-party laboratories do not currently have test 19 Mechanical cooling and heating refer to a ACUAC and ACUHP using the refrigeration cycle to cool and heat the indoor space, and does not refer to other forms of unit operation (e.g., economizing, ventilation, or supplemental heating). 20 An economizer is a system that enables an ACUAC or ACUHP to supply outdoor air instead of return air from the conditioned space in order to reduce or eliminate mechanical cooling operation in mild or cold weather conditions. In economizeronly cooling, the indoor fan runs to supply outdoor air to meet cooling load, but there is no mechanical cooling operation—i.e., compressor(s) and condenser fans do not operate. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules facilities that can accommodate testing of ACUACs and ACUHPs with economizers operating because such testing requires air to be pulled from the outdoor room into the indoor room. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 22; Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0014 at p. 3) AHRI further stated that because of the lack of test facilities to accommodate this type of testing, incorporation of ventilation into an efficiency metric is still not practical. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 23) In the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE acknowledged a need to further investigate the prevalence and operating hours of economizers and ventilation. DOE requested comment and data on several issues including the number of units installed with economizers per climate zone, the operating hours of economizers by climate zone, and the methodology used to determine operating hours in each cooling mode, especially those that might contribute to the creation of a new metric. In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, the CA IOUs, NYSERDA, and ASAP and ACEEE commented that the current test procedure does not account for the fan energy use outside of mechanical cooling and heating modes. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0012, at p. 2; ASAP and ACEEE, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0011, at pp. 1–2, NYSERDA, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0007, at p. 3) Specifically, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider the California 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement effort for potential solutions. (CA IOUs, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0012, at p. 2) NYSERDA recommended that DOE consider factoring in fan energy using temperature rise provisions, further detailed in comments submitted by NYSERDA in response to the commercial warm air furnace test procedure NOPR published February 5, 2022 (see 87 FR 10726). (NYSERDA, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0007, at p. 3) Regarding the distribution of installed economizers, AHRI stated that although many economizers are field-installed, AHRI is considering collecting data on factory-installed economizers, particularly by state or climate zone. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0008, at p. 5) AHRI did not provide any such data in its comment. ASAP and ACEEE cited AHRI data indicating that economizers are typically installed in CUACs. ASAP and ACEEE noted that ASHRAE 90.1–2019 requires economizers in all but one climate zone, suggesting the importance VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 of incorporating fan energy use during economizer only cooling mode. (ASAP and ACEEE, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0011, at pp. 1–2) Lennox commented that its information indicates that the percentage of CUACs and CUHPs shipped with factory installed economizers ranges from around 30 percent to 80 percent by state, averaging around 55 percent in the U.S. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0009, at p. 5) Lennox noted that the total percentage is likely far higher than this level when field-installed economizers are taken into account. Id. Lennox also stated that its information indicates that a higher fraction of equipment in northern climates contain economizers than in warmer southern climates. Lennox recommended that DOE review the standard and code requirements for where economizers are required in order to assess the fraction of products installed with economizers in each climate zone. Id. Carrier commented that, based on the market distribution data used for the ASHRAE 90.1 determination, economizers are required on approximately 96 percent of the 16 reference buildings’ weighted sales. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0010, at pp. 9–10) Regarding economizer hours and methodology for determination of hours in each bin load, AHRI stated that DOE should use the heating and cooling load modeling used to develop IEER to understand the heating, cooling, and economizing hours for CUACs and CUHPs. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0008, at p. 3) Carrier provided data showing the hours CUACs and CUHPs spend in economizer only, integrated economizer, and mechanical only cooling developed as part of ASHRAE 90.1 economizer studies it has conducted. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0010, at p. 12) Carrier stated that the 2005 analysis performed to determine the IEER metric was based on the mechanical cooling operation, including hours where integrated economizers are used, but that it did not account for the benefits of the economizer capacity. (Carrier, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0010, at pp. 12– 13) In addition to distribution and operating information, DOE received multiple recommendations in response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI relating to the inclusion of economizer or ventilation data in a new efficiency metric. The CA IOUs stated that economizer performance is highly dependent on the PO 00000 Frm 00017 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56407 use of climate-zone appropriate controls, and that economizers are often shipped with conservative default control settings appropriate for warm and moist areas. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0012, at pp. 3–4) The CA IOUs asserted that including economizers in the CUAC and CUHP energy efficiency metric would not be beneficial because it would preempt climate-zone-dependent economizer requirements in building codes. Id. The CA IOUs explained that economizers and their installed controls are often sold by third parties, and that original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) usually do not determine the method of economizer control or quality of construction. Id. The CA IOUs stated that DOE may need to determine if independently manufactured economizers fall within its statutory authority and if it is feasible to regulate them. Id. Furthermore, the CA IOUs asserted that designing a test procedure that measures a significant difference between models may be challenging unless the test includes operation as an integrated economizer, in which case the difference in performance would be driven by the unit’s capacity control and turndown capability. Id. Carrier asserted that the downside of including the ventilation cooling hours in a new cooling metric is that it would decrease the focus on the mechanical cooling, and that evaluation of mechanical cooling performance was the intent of the current IEER metric. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0010, at pp. 9–10) Carrier requested that if the IEER metric and test procedure are modified to include ventilation fan power, the benefits of the economizer and also energy recovery be included to account for the actual capabilities of such a large application base. Id. Based on comments received in response to the July 2017 TP RFI and the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE recognized in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI a need to further investigate fan operation during ventilation or air circulation/filtration and economizing. Specifically, while comments received previously had indicated the prevalence of multi-speed fans that reduce fan speed in these operating modes, the commenters had not indicated how the fan speed in these operating modes typically compares to fan speed when operating at the lowest stage of compressor cooling. Thus, in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE sought feedback on the supply airflow and fan power at the lowest stage of compression for variable air volume and staged air volume fans in relation to ventilation, air circulation, and E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 56408 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules economizer-only cooling. 87 FR 31743, 31750–31751. In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, AHRI and Lennox recommended that DOE review ASHRAE 62.1 ‘‘Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air Quality,’’ which specifies minimum ventilation rates and other measures to achieve proper indoor air quality control in commercial buildings. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0008, at pp. 4–5; Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0009, at pp. 4–5) AHRI noted that ventilation rates specified by ASHRAE 62.1 vary from 18 percent to 60 percent based on building type. (AHRI, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0008, at p. 4) AHRI also noted that ASHRAE 90.1– 2019 provides minimum requirements for the CUACs and CUHPs, including the requirement to have two-speed fans. Id. AHRI stated that airflow, including during ventilation, will be different for CUACs and CUHPs if the product is multi-zone variable air volume (MZVAV), single-zone variable air volume (SZVAV), or constant volume, and that the relationship between fan power, airflow, and code requirements must be considered when developing a metric change that incorporates ventilation. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0008, at pp. 4–5) AHRI also stated that ventilation occurs only during occupied mode. (AHRI, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0008, at p. 5) Lennox stated that CUAC and CUHP systems are generally designed to meet minimum ventilation requirements in all operating modes. (Lennox, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0009, at p. 5) Lennox recommended that for the test procedure, the airflow in ventilationonly mode be set at the same as the airflow used at the minimum stage of capacity. Id. Lennox stated that for economizer-only cooling, the systems are generally designed to meet a supply air temperature setpoint, and that the supply airflow volume is influenced by outside air temperature and/or the cooling demand of the conditioned space to attain this setpoint. Id. Lennox stated that the economizer-only supply airflow might not be the same as the lowest stage of compression and can be less than the airflow at the lowest stage of compression. Id. Carrier stated that for ventilation-only operation, the airflow may or may not be the same as the minimum stage of capacity, and that the airflow depends on the controls and application, as well as the required ventilation rate. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0010, at p. 9) Carrier also stated that fan speeds can be higher during economizer cooling operation. Id. Carrier noted that ASHRAE 90.1 requires economizers to VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 be capable of 100-percent airflow and that the maximum economizer capacity be used before turning on the mechanical cooling of the integrated economizer option. Id. NEEA noted that CUAC and CUHP standard rating conditions do not consider operating modes where ventilation air (either mixed or not mixed with return air) is actively heated or cooled. NEEA stated that it recognizes that the impact of certain features—including economizers and ventilation systems—will vary depending on the amount of ventilation air introduced by the CUAC/CUHP. NEEA described, for example, that in 30-percent and 100-percent outside air systems, energy recovery represents a significant opportunity for energy savings, whereas in 0-percent outside systems, enclosure improvements or reducing damper leakage may present the greatest opportunity for energy savings. NEEA asserted that by only accounting for 0-percent outside air cooling and heating modes, the current efficiency metrics give misleading signals to manufacturers and consumers about what models will decrease energy consumption. NEEA recommended that DOE consider how the market categorizes CUAC and CUHP equipment and ensure that DOE product definitions align with the market and not just what is simplest for regulation. (NEEA, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0013 at p. 6) During negotiations for the Working Group, the Working Group agreed not to include testing with economizers operating due to test burden and repeatability concerns. (See EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0048 at pp. 55–57) However, the Working Group agreed to include operating hours and fan energy use associated with economizer operation (reflecting both factoryinstalled and field-installed economizers). (See EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0053 at pp. 9, 32) DOE and other participating stakeholders then assessed market data of economizer distribution. Due to the wide distribution of economizers identified through this analysis, all caucuses agreed to include the economizer benefit and energy use in the new integrated cooling metric—IVEC. To ensure representative consideration of economizers in the cooling metric, the calculation for the IVEC metric incorporates both the cooling benefit and energy use associated with the hours of cooling contribution provided in integrated economizing and economizer-only cooling modes. The IVEC metric also includes the energy use associated with cooling season PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 ventilation operation. To determine the breakdown of hours among economizeronly cooling, integrated economizer, mechanical cooling-only, and cooling season ventilation operation for the IVEC metric, the Working Group utilized the previously discussed building modeling of several ASHRAE 90.1 building types and climate zones in which CUACs and CUHPs are installed. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed inclusion of fan energy for economizing and ventilation operating modes in the IVEC cooling metric—in conjunction with other proposed test condition changes—addresses the concerns previously raised regarding fan energy representation in the efficiency metric, and proposes to adopt the IVEC metric as specified in the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft. e. External Static Pressure Requirements In the testing of air conditioners and heat pumps, ESP requirements simulate the resistance that the indoor fan must overcome from the air distribution system when installed in real-world installations. Both AHRI 210/240 (i.e., the 2008, 2017, and 2023 versions) and AHRI 340/360 (i.e., the 2007, 2015, 2019, and 2022 versions) specify minimum ESPs for testing based on the unit’s rated capacity. Minimum ESPs are specified in Table 7 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and range from 0.10–0.20 inches of water column (in. H2O) for ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and range from 0.2–0.75 in. H2O for all CUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. These values align with the ESP requirements specified in the current DOE test procedure. In 2015, the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group recommended that the energy use analysis conducted for the January 2016 Direct Final Rule should use higher ESPs than those specified in the DOE test procedure to help better simulate real-world applications. 81 FR 2420, 2470 (Jan. 15, 2016). Specifically, the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group recommended ESPs of 0.75 and 1.25 in. H2O, which corresponded to the ESPs used in modified building simulations of the cooling load. Id. The ESP values recommended by the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group did not vary with capacity. Recommendation #2 of the term sheet developed by the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group suggested that DOE should amend the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs to better represent the total fan energy use E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules by considering alternative ESPs. (See Document No. 93 in Docket No. EERE– 2013–BT–STD–0007 at p. 2) Higher ESPs at the same airflow would result in higher fan power measured during testing and would, therefore, result in fan energy use comprising a larger fraction of total energy use measured during the test. In the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE sought data and comment on representative ESPs in the field of all CUACs and CUHPs. 87 FR 31743, 31749 (May 25, 2022). NEEA provided a comment, recommending generally that DOE establish a more representative ESP value for testing all CUACs and CUHPs based on the previous recommendation from the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group. (NEEA, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0013 at pp. 7–8) NEEA noted that the ESP levels used by DOE for the energy use analysis during the last energy conservation standards rulemaking for ACUACs and ACUHPs are two to three times higher than the required ESPs in the existing test procedure. Id. NEEA stated that these values were more representative of units in the field due to the ESP used in this test procedure not including the return ductwork pressure loss, which NEEA described as significant because many units do not include return fans. Id. The CA IOUs supported updates to the CUAC and CUHP test procedure to improve the representation of fan energy use, particularly by updating the required ESPs in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0012 at p. 2) Specifically regarding ESPs, the CA IOUs encouraged DOE to explore California’s 2022 Title 24 codes and standards-enhancement effort for air distribution enhancements. Id. The CA IOUs, as well as NYSERDA and ASAP and ACEE, recommended that DOE consider alternative ESP values more representative of units in real-world installations. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0012, at p. 2; ASAP and ACEEE, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0011, at pp. 1–2; NYSERDA, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0007, at p. 3) AHRI and Lennox stated that CUACs and CUHPs are designed to cover a range of ESPs, noting that big box retail stores could have an ESP of 0.5 in. H2O and that multi-story offices could exceed ESPs of 2.0 in. H2O. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0008 at pp. 2–3; Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0009 at p. 2) AHRI noted that the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group agreed to use 0.75 and 1.25 in. H2O for the energy conservation standards energy use analysis. Id. AHRI stated that its members were unable to VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 form a consensus position on the issue of representative ESPs for CUACs and CUHPs before the comment period ended; however, AHRI may submit supplementary comments to DOE or a working group if one were to be formed. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0008 at p. 3) Lennox stated that while its review of data was ongoing regarding a representative ESP recommendation, it found the ESP levels used by the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group to be reasonable. Lennox recommended that the ESPs used for testing increase according to the capacity breaks specified in AHRI 340/360 because ESPs generally increase with product capacity. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0009 at pp. 2–3) Lennox also commented the applied static pressure from ECUACs and WCUACs did not vary from similar air source products and recommended similar values be used for product performance comparison. (Id. at p. 3) Carrier stated that it agreed some adjustments to the ESPs might be appropriate, but that several things need to be reviewed before the ESPs are revised. Carrier also stated that ESPs can vary significantly depending on the application. Specifically, Carrier stated that some applications can use concentric ductwork, where ESPs are likely higher than the current ESPs in AHRI 340/360–2022; and other applications use variable air volume (VAV) systems, which have more extensive ductwork and added pressure drop from terminals. Carrier stated that for larger equipment, the applications are more complex because the equipment is larger and ductwork design can vary based on the building design. Carrier mentioned a general trend that static pressure and ductwork length increase with equipment size, but also mentioned that this depends on the building design, configuration, and system type. Carrier stated that it is in the process of reviewing job design data and applications and will have that data for further discussions once it is received. Additionally, Carrier stated that performing an analysis of the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 fan power budget addendum BO may also provide additional insight to proper static pressure levels. (Carrier, EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0010 at p. 7) In the May 2022 RFI, DOE also sought specific data on ESPs for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as well as feedback on whether a representative ESP value for testing would be 0.5 in H2O (as referenced for air-cooled CUACs PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56409 <65,000 Btu/h in AHRI 210/240–2023), the range of 0.10 to 0.20 in H2O (from AHRI 340/360–2022), or alternative values. For WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE’s preliminary analysis showed that these units may typically be installed above dropped ceilings in commercial buildings. For ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE’s preliminary analysis shows that these units are primarily marketed for residential applications, which suggests that it may be appropriate to align the ESP requirements for ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h with those specified for CAC/HPs in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, appendix M1 (appendix M1) (i.e., 0.5 in H2O for conventional units). Therefore, DOE considered whether it was appropriate for the same ESP requirements to be applied for both ECUACs and WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h. 87 FR 31743, 31750 (May 25, 2022). Carrier stated that the ESPs for ECUACs and WCUACs less than 65,000 Btu/h in the field would not be much different than the average values used for the AHRI 210/240–2023 analysis.21 Carrier asserted that ESP values in the field might be lower than those ESPs, because some ECUACs and WCUACs with a capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are applied with short supply ducts and no return ducts or can also be used with concentric ducts. (Carrier, EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0010 at pp. 7–8) Lennox recommended the ESP value of 0.5 in H2O from AHRI 210/240–2023 be used for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0009 at p. 3) The majority of comments received in response to both the July 2017 TP RFI and May 2022 TP/ECS RFI indicate that higher ESP requirements for testing would be more representative of all CUACs and CUHPs in the field. The ESP requirements included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet reflect consensus among Working Group members regarding higher ESP requirements for testing. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft specifies provisions for determining the IVEC and IVHE metrics for double-duct systems, ECUACs, and WCUACs, including higher ESP requirements for testing consistent with 21 In its comment, Carrier mentioned the ‘‘AHRI 210/240–2003 analysis.’’ Because there is no 2003 version of AHRI 210/240 and the ESP requirements for air-cooled central air conditioners and heat pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/ h were updated in AHRI 210/240–2023, DOE interprets the intent of Carrier’s comment as referring to AHRI 210/240–2023. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56410 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Because the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not include provisions for testing ECUACs and WCUACs, the term sheet does not include ESP requirements for testing equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes an ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O for testing ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, which is consistent with the ESP requirement specified in AHRI 210/240– 2023 for comparable air-cooled equipment. DOE has tentatively concluded that the ESP requirements specified in AHRI 1340–202X Draft represent industry consensus for testing CUACs and CUHPs and provide a more representative measure of energy efficiency. Therefore, as discussed in sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt the ESP requirements specified in AHRI 1340– 202X Draft as part of the IVEC and IVHE metrics. f. Damper Leakage, Energy Recovery Systems, and Crankcase Heaters In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE received several comments recommending that damper leakage, energy recovery systems, and crankcase heaters be addressed in the test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs. NEEA recommended that DOE create a test procedure that accounts for energy losses and gains from auxiliary components, considers energy saved from increased enclosure insulation, and considers variation alongside potentially incorporating CSA P.8, Thermal efficiencies of industrial and commercial gas-fired packaged furnaces. (NEEA, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0013, at pp. 2–6) NEEA highlighted the significant energy savings potential of heat recovery ventilation (HRV) and energy recovery ventilation (ERV) systems. NEEA stated that its research indicates such systems can reduce energy use by 24 percent in commercial warm air furnaces in Northwest climate zones. Accordingly, NEEA recommended that energy recovery be incorporated into the test procedure and performance metric for CUACs and CUHPs. Id. With regard to insulation, NEEA stated that while building codes such as ASHRAE 90.1 stipulate maximum damper leakage, the requirements do not apply to the resale market, causing a significant number of units available today to have significantly higher leakage rates than code requirements. Id. NEEA recommended that DOE investigate the savings potential of increased insulation VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 and account for its benefit across all operating modes in test procedure and efficiency metrics, as non-conditioning operating periods are not currently accounted for. Id. NEEA stated that its research indicates that increased enclosure insulation can improve heating season energy savings, and that NEEA expects there would be cooling season savings as well that are not currently accounted for. Id. NEEA provided examples of subcomponent performance characteristics that could be used as part of a whole box metric approach, including AHRI 1060 for energy recovery, ANSI/AMCA Standard 500–D–18 for damper leakage, and AHRI 1350 for evaluation of enclosure insulation material and thickness for casing loss. Id. NEEA recommended that DOE consider the approach implemented in CSA P.8 to account for different outdoor air configurations, which could be emulated to account for different percentages of ventilation air without adding additional test burden. Id. The CA IOUs expressed concern that energy use of equipment components, such as crankcase heaters, is significant and not represented in the IEER metric. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0012, at p. 6) The CA IOUs therefore recommended that off-mode and standby energy consumption be accounted for when updating the CUAC/HP test procedure and metric. Id. As discussed, the Working Group assessed the impact of energy from additional operating modes, as well as crankcase heaters and controls power, and the metrics recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet include: (1) in the IVEC metric—economizer-only cooling, cooling season ventilation mode, crankcase heat operation, and controls power in unoccupied no-load cooling season hours; and (2) in the IVHE metric—heating season ventilation mode, crankcase heat operation, and controls power in unoccupied no-load heating season hours. (See EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0065) Additionally, damper leakage was discussed during the Working Group meetings, and the Working Group ultimately voted not to address this issue in the IVEC and IVHE metrics. (See EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0055, pp. 7–9) While cabinet insulation and the effects of ERVs and HRVs were discussed during the Working Group discussions, no proposals were made to include them in the new metrics. All members of the Working Group voted to recommend inclusion of the IVEC and IVHE metrics in the DOE test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs. DOE has tentatively PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 determined that the issues regarding additional operating modes raised by commenters are adequately addressed by provisions in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, and these provisions are also included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Further, at this time DOE lacks clear and convincing evidence to justify proposing any deviations from the IVEC and IVHE metrics specified in AHRI 1340–202X Draft to address damper leakage, cabinet insulation, or ERVs and HRVs. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt the IVEC and IVHE metrics specified in AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1. g. Controls Verification Procedure In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE also received several comments regarding recommendations for a controls verification procedure. The CA IOUs, ASAP and ACEEE, and NEEA suggested that DOE consider a controls verification procedure (CVP) in the DOE test procedure. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0012, at p. 5; ASAP and ACEEE, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0011, at pp. 2–3; NEEA, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0013, at p. 5) Specifically, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider a CVP similar to the one developed for variable refrigerant flow multi-split systems (VRF multi-split systems) to validate that the controls used within CUACs and CUHPs with variable speed compressors are used effectively. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0012, at p. 5) ASAP and ACEEE stated that the CVP should include requirements for testing under native controls to better reflect performance of equipment in the field. (ASAP and ACEEE, EERE–2022– BT–STD–0015–0011, at pp. 2–3) ASAP and ACEEE stated that this would mirror the CVP included in the December 2021 test procedure NOPR for VRF multi-split systems (See 86 FR 70644) and the native control requirement in the residential cold climate heat pump challenge in the September 2021 specifications. Id. NEEA recommended that DOE consider a verification procedure to test that economizer controls operate as intended. (NEEA, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0013, at p. 5) Due to what NEEA asserted is a significant energy savings opportunity of economizer cooling if the controls are verified, NEEA recommended that economizers be incorporated into the efficiency metric through a calculation-based approach. Id. DOE notes that members from NEEA, ASAP, and the CA IOUs were involved during the Working Group negotiations E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules and provided input on the included test procedure requirements. The resulting ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not contain any provisions for a CVP and was agreed upon by all members of the Working Group. As such, DOE believes that the issues raised by these stakeholders are resolved on this matter. Further, commenters did not provide sufficient information that would justify or inform development of a CVP for CUACs and CUHPs, and at this time, DOE lacks clear and convincing evidence to propose any test procedure amendments that deviate from the AHRI 1340–202X Draft to address controls verification. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 h. Heating Efficiency Metric In the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE stated that it was considering whether incorporating heating performance at temperatures lower than 47 °F would improve the representativeness of the DOE test procedure for ACUHPs, and how such performance would differ between CUHPs with different types of supplementary heat (e.g., electric resistance heat and furnaces) and the climate regions in which CUHPs are typically installed. As such, in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on data relating to CUHP shipments and typical regions they are shipped to, distribution of heating types shipped with CUHPs, and the lowest outdoor temperatures CUHPs are expected to operate at alongside cut in and cut out temperature data. 87 FR 31743, 31750–31753. Carrier provided data showing the shipment-weighted market share by building type for CUACs and CUHPs; however, Carrier noted that the actual shipment data by building type would be best obtained from AHRI for the whole U.S. industry. (Carrier, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0010, at p. 13) In response to the request for comment regarding shipment data of CUHPs, Lennox and the CA IOUs commented that the market for CUHPs is growing alongside electrification efforts, but still represents a small fraction of the overall CUAC and CUHP market. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0009, at pp. 3–4; CA IOUs, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0012, at pp. 4–5) Additionally, Lennox stated that the CUHP market is primarily concentrated in the south and southwestern regions of the country, with the majority located in California and Arizona. Id. Lennox acknowledged the importance of CUHP market growth and test procedure improvements but recommended that DOE fully evaluate industry capability and incremental burden associated with VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 test procedure amendments to prevent undue burden. Id. NYSERDA noted that in an effort to decarbonize, the Climate Action Council of New York set a 2030 goal that heat pumps should provide space heating and cooling for 10 percent to 20 percent of commercial space statewide, and that heat pumps should become the majority of new purchases for space and water heating by the late 2020s. (NYSERDA, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0007, at pp. 1–2) Carrier stated that the commercial heat pump market is generally limited to models under 20 tons because the demand for large heat pumps in commercial buildings is currently very small. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0010, at p. 8) Carrier noted that commercial load profiles are significantly different than residential buildings, that commercial buildings have much higher cooling loads than residential buildings, and that commercial buildings tend to operate during the day and are often unoccupied during the evening when temperatures are lower. Id. In response to the request for comment regarding the distribution of supplementary heating types shipped with CUHPs, Carrier stated that currently, it only provides CUHPs with electric heat as backup, mostly because the different load profiles in commercial buildings are more cooling intensive. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0010, at p. 8) Carrier also stated that with the growing interest in use of heat pumps in colder climates, it is evaluating the use of backup gas heat. Id. Lennox stated that it does not offer CUHP products with factory-installed supplementary electric heat and described the difficulty in tracking fieldinstalled electric heat accessories. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0009, at p. 4) Lennox noted that dualfuel CUHP products with factoryinstalled gas furnaces comprise less than 1 percent of the CUHP and CUAC markets but could expand as CUHPs are implemented in climates with heating capacity requirements exceeding current CUHP abilities. Id. In response to the request for data on the operating temperatures for CUHPs, AHRI stated that the lowest outdoor temperatures at which CUHPs typically operate in mechanical heating mode would be between 5 °F and 15 °F, and that the cut-out temperature is not dependent on supplementary heat. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0008, at p. 4) AHRI stated that the purpose of supplementary heat is to provide comfort conditions to buildings, and that a compressor cut-out PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56411 temperature is required to protect equipment. Id. Carrier stated that currently, its CUHPs are rated to operate down to ¥10 °F with a few limited to ¥5 °F and 0 °F, and that at these very low temperatures, auxiliary electric heat is required. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0010, at p. 8) Carrier also stated that currently, there is no set temperature for mechanical heating lockout. Id. Lennox stated that industry compressor cut-out temperatures range from over 15 °F to ¥15 °F depending on unit design. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0009, at p. 4) Lennox commented that with electric heating, cut-out temperatures are typically set to the lowest available setting, while compressor cut-out temperature is normally more flexible and typically set to a higher temperature with furnace supplementary heating. Id. In addition to the data and information provided regarding specific heat pump issues, DOE received recommendations from multiple stakeholders regarding potential new heating efficiency metrics. The CA IOUs encouraged DOE to adopt an updated heating metric to match the expected increase in market share and recommended using a metric that is representative of an average use cycle. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0012, at pp. 4–5) Additionally, the CA IOUs expressed support for a seasonal heating metric, similar to HSPF2 for consumer heat pumps, which could account for performance at different ambient conditions, defrost operation, and standby modes. Id. The CA IOUs also noted that separate product categories could also be considered, such as for cold-climate CUHPs. Id. NYSERDA stated that a heating efficiency metric could utilize heatingspecific weighting factors similar to those used in the approach for IEER calculations and could take into account heating mode tests at all three conditions, alongside proposing two new required test conditions. (NYSERDA, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0007, at pp. 1–2) NYSERDA also recommended the new metric utilize fractional heating bin hours for a representative region, and account for the typical load profiles for the 16 DOE commercial prototype buildings. Id. Lennox asserted that reasonably designed test procedure amendments could encourage CUHP product improvements in low temperature performance and accelerate market expansion. (Lennox, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0009, at p. 4) Specifically, NYSERDA, the CA IOUs, and ASAP and ACEEE supported an update to the CUHP heating metric to E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 56412 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules account for performance under 17 °F and 5 °F ambient conditions. (NYSERDA, EERE–2022–BT–STD– 0015–0007, at pp. 1–2; CA IOUs, EERE– 2022–BT–STD–0015–0012, at p. 4; ASAP and ACEEE, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0011, at p. 1) All three groups recommended that DOE incorporate a test at 5 °F as an optional test condition. Id. The CA IOUs also recommended accounting for defrost performance, and that DOE track the development of ASHRAE RP–1831 ‘‘Validation of a Test Method for Applying a Standardized Frost Load on a Test Evaporator in a Test Chamber with an Operating Conditioning System’’ to consider whether it can help the development of a test procedure that incorporates defrost performance. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0012, at p. 4) Carrier stated that it is not aware of how many test laboratories in the United States have the capabilities of testing on ACUHPs at low ambient conditions. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0010, at p. 9) Carrier asserted that if DOE were to require testing at lower ambient conditions for ACUHPs, manufacturers and third-party labs may be required to invest substantial capital in psychrometric room upgrades. Id. During the Working Group ASRAC negotiations, extensive discussions were held and analyses were conducted on improving the representativeness of the heating metric for ACUHPs by creating a seasonal metric. As a result of these discussions and analyses, Working Group members reached consensus on the IVHE metric to better represent ACUHP energy use across a range of operation conditions, and specified test conditions and procedures for determining IVHE in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The tests for determining IVHE include required and optional tests at varying load levels (i.e., full-load, part-load, and for variable-speed equipment, boost compressor speed) and outdoor air drybulb temperatures (specifically 47 °F, 17 °F, and 5 °F). The IVHE metric also accounts for defrost operation by including a defrost degradation coefficient for low-temperature operation (less than 40 °F). DOE has tentatively determined that the IVHE metric included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft addresses concerns raised by commenters, and as discussed further in section III.F.5 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt the IVHE metric as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 2. Test Conditions Used for Current Metrics in Appendix A As discussed, DOE proposes to update the current test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (which DOE proposes to specify for ACUACs and ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs in appendix A) to reference the updated industry test standard AHRI 340/360–2022 and retain the current metrics for CUACs and CUHPs. AHRI 340/360–2022 designates certain test conditions for test procedures characterized as ‘‘standard rating tests’’ and certain other test conditions for test procedures characterized as ‘‘performance operating tests.’’ The ‘‘standard rating tests’’ are used for determining representations of cooling capacity, heating capacity, and cooling and heating efficiencies. The ‘‘performance operating tests’’ evaluate other operating conditions, such as ‘‘maximum operating conditions’’ (see section 8 of AHRI 340/360–2022), which DOE is not proposing to include in the DOE test procedure. Specifically, Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 specifies test conditions for standard rating and performance operating tests for CUACs and CUHPs. The relevant conditions for EER and IEER cooling tests are those referred to as ‘‘standard rating conditions’’ in AHRI 340/360–2022. To clarify this distinction, DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A that the cooling test conditions used for representations as required under the DOE regulations are: (1) for equipment subject to standards in terms of EER, the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions, Cooling’’ conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360– 2022; and (2) for equipment subject to standards in terms of IEER, the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions, Cooling’’ and ‘‘Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IEER)’’ conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022. For heating mode tests of CUHPs, Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 includes ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions’’ for both a ‘‘High Temperature Steady-state Test for Heating’’ and a ‘‘Low Temperature Steady-state Test for Heating’’ (conducted at 47 °F and 17 °F outdoor air dry-bulb temperatures, respectively). To clarify which conditions are applicable for representations as required under the DOE regulations, DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A that the heating test conditions used for compliance are the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady-state Heating)’’ conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022. Further, DOE proposes to also include the low-temperature (i.e., 17 °F) heating test condition specified in PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 (referred to as ‘‘Low Temperature Steady-state Heating’’) in the proposed test procedure and specify in section 3 of appendix A that representations of COP at this low-temperature heating condition are optional. 3. Test Conditions Used for New Metrics in Proposed Appendix A1 As discussed, DOE is proposing to include the new test procedure recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in a new appendix A1. This proposal includes adopting the new IVEC and IVHE metrics discussed in sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft designates certain test conditions for test procedures characterized as ‘‘standard rating tests’’ and certain other test conditions for test procedures characterized as ‘‘performance operating tests.’’ The ‘‘standard rating tests’’ are used for determining representations of cooling capacity, heating capacity, and cooling and heating efficiencies. The ‘‘performance operating tests’’ evaluate other operating conditions, such as ‘‘maximum operating conditions’’ (see section 8 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft), which DOE is not proposing to include in the DOE test procedure at appendix A1. Specifically, Table 7 of AHRI 1340– 202X Draft specifies test conditions for standard rating and performance operating tests for CUACs and CUHPs. The relevant test conditions for IVEC tests, as well as EER2 representations, are those referred to as ‘‘standard rating conditions’’ in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. To clarify this distinction, DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A1 that the cooling conditions used for representations as required under the DOE regulations are the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions, Cooling’’ and ‘‘Standard Rating PartLoad Conditions (IVEC)’’ specified in Table 7 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Additionally, DOE proposes to include provisions for optional representations of EER2. For heating mode tests of ACUHPs, Table 7 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions, Heating’’ for three outdoor temperature conditions at 47 °F, 17 °F, and 5 °F. Additionally, the table includes ‘‘Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IVHE),’’ which includes optional part load conditions for rating units with the IVHE metric. The required test conditions for IVHE representations are the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Heating’’ at 47 °F and 17 °F. The optional test conditions for IVHE E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 representations are the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Heating’’ at 5 °F and ‘‘Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IVHE)’’. To clarify this, DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A1 that the heating conditions used for representations as required under the DOE regulations are the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Heating’’ at 47 and 17 °F specified in Table 7 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Further, DOE proposes to also include the 5 °F heating test condition as well as the part load test conditions specified in Table 7 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft (referred to as ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Heating (5 °F ambient)’’ and ‘‘Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IVHE)’’ respectively) in the proposed test procedure and specify in section 3 of appendix A1 that testing to the lowtemperature heating conditions and the part load conditions are optional for representations of IVHE. Additionally, DOE proposes to include provisions for optional representations of COP247, COP217, and COP25 at the 47, 17, and 5 °F heating test conditions previously discussed. 4. IVEC The following section provides a summary of the development and final recommendations regarding the IVEC cooling metric proposals in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and DOE’s corresponding proposals for inclusion in the appendix A1 test procedure. As discussed, for the newly proposed cooling metric, the Working Group determined to modify the climate zones and building types accounted for in the test procedure compared to those included in the current DOE test procedure. To do so, the Working Group utilized hour-based weighting factors. To develop these weighting factors, members of the Working Group used building modeling developed by Carrier that was based on 10 ASHRAE 90.1 building prototypes across all U.S. climate zones. (See EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0019) This resulted in hourbased weighting factors, which are provided in Recommendation #2 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group concluded that including economizer-only cooling and cooling season ventilation operating modes in a seasonal cooling metric would improve the representativeness for ACUACs and ACUHPs. Appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet provides the recommended calculation method for the IVEC method and includes sections specifying the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 56413 the Working Group recommended that for all units tested without an economizer installed, 0.10 in. H2O shall be added to the full load ESP values specified in Table III.1. 3. Return and supply static split requirements: Test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs include ESP requirements that reflect the total ESP applied within the return and supply ductwork of the test setup. The current Federal test procedure does not specify requirements for how ESP is distributed during testing (i.e., the relative contribution from return ductwork versus supply ductwork). Given the recommendation to increase the required ESP levels for testing (as discussed in section III.F.1.e of this document), the Working Group concluded that the higher ESP conditions could cause variability in test results if the distribution of ESP between return ductwork and supply ductwork were not specified in the revised test procedure. To ensure TABLE III.1—MINIMUM ESP REQUIRE- repeatable and reproducible testing MENTS FOR IVEC AND IVHE REC- conditions for CUAC and CUHP units, OMMENDED BY THE ACUAC AND the Working Group recommended specifying that ESP requirements be ACUHP WORKING GROUP split with 25 percent applied in the return ductwork and the remaining 75 ESP Rated cooling capacity percent applied in the supply ductwork. (in H2O) The Working Group further ≥65 and <135 kBtu/h .................. 0.75 recommended that the fraction of ESP ≥135 and <240 kBtu/h ................ 1.0 applied in the return ductwork shall ≥240 and <280 kBtu/h ................ 1.0 have a ¥5/+0 percent tolerance (i.e., the ≥280 and <760 kBtu/h ................ 1.5 return static must be within 20 to 25 percent of the total ESP) for the full-load 2. Economizer pressure drop: cooling test. In a case where there is no ASHRAE 90.1–2022 requires the use of additional restriction on the return duct economizers for comfort cooling and more than 25 percent of the ESP is applications for almost all U.S. climate already applied in the return ductwork zones. The analysis conducted by without a restriction, then greater than Carrier in support of the Working Group 25 percent ESP in the return ductwork indicates that over 96 percent of would be allowed. Once set for the fullbuildings require the use of load cooling test, these restriction economizers. Economizers installed in settings shall remain unchanged for the CUACs and CUHPs add internal static other cooling and heating tests pressure that the indoor fan has to conducted. overcome, even when the economizer To incorporate the various changes dampers are closed. The current DOE involved in testing requirements and test procedure does not require the weighting factors already discussed, the installation of an economizer on a tested Working Group created the IVEC metric unit, and DOE is aware that provided in Recommendation #1 with manufacturers generally do not test further specifications in appendix B of CUACs and CUHPs with economizers the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group installed. The ESP requirements TP Term Sheet. The IVEC metric is specified by the current DOE test essentially a summation formula procedure are the same regardless of analogous to the seasonal energy whether a unit is tested with or without efficiency ratio 2 (SEER2) metric an economizer. As such, testing a unit designated for residential central air without an economizer does not reflect conditioner (CAC) equipment. (See the total static pressure that would be appendix M1 to subpart B of part 430 experienced in the field for installations ‘‘Uniform Test Method for Measuring that require the use of an economizer. In the Energy Consumption of Central Air order to better represent the fan power Conditioners and Heat Pumps’’) of ACUACs and ACUHPs that are Specifically, the IVEC metric is typically installed with economizers, calculated by dividing the total annual methods for including ventilation and economizer-only cooling operation in the calculation of IVEC. As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this NOPR, the Working Group also considered ESP requirements for the newly proposed IVEC and IVHE metrics. Stakeholders indicated the need for higher ESP requirements to improve representativeness of field performance. Additionally, stakeholders discussed the importance of maintaining uniformity in testing of units at higher ESP conditions. (See EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0062 at p. 11) The ESP requirements agreed to by the Working Group are provided in Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and include the following: 1. Higher ESP requirements for testing: As discussed previously, the minimum ESP conditions recommended by the Working Group are provided in Table III.1. PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56414 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules cooling capacity by the total annual energy use. Key aspects encompassed in the proposed IVEC metric include the following: 1. Accounting for energy consumed in different modes: The IVEC metric includes energy use during mechanical cooling, integrated mechanical and economizer cooling, economizer-only cooling, cooling season ventilation, unoccupied no-load hours, and heating season operation of crankcase heat (for CUACs only). Appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies instructions for determining energy consumption during each mode. 2. Testing parameters: The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet further specifies instructions in appendix B for the mechanical cooling tests at each target mechanical load. These methodologies and tolerances mirror those specified in AHRI 340/ 360–2022, including a 3-percent tolerance on the target mechanical load for part-load tests, and in cases when the target mechanical load cannot be met within tolerance, instructions for using interpolation and cyclic degradation to determine the performance at the target test point. 3. Target load percentages: Recommendation #4 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes target conditions for testing, including load percentages for testing units at part-load conditions. For each bin, the specified target load percent (% Loadi) reflects the average load as a percentage of the full-load capacity for that bin met by using all modes of cooling, and is used for determining total annual cooling provided in the numerator of the IVEC equation. The target mechanical load percent (% Loadi, mech) is the average load for each bin met only through mechanical cooling (i.e., mechanical-only cooling and the mechanical portion of integrated mechanical and economizer cooling) and is the target load fraction used for the part-load cooling test for each bin. As mentioned, the IVEC metric includes the annual operation of crankcase heaters for CUACs and CUHPs. Appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet further specifies the accounting of crankcase heater energy consumption in each operating mode. Recommendation #2 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies hour- based weighting factors to account for crankcase heat operation in unoccupied no-load cooling season hours for CUACs and CUHPs as well as heating season hours for CUACs. Appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet also specifies that for partload cooling tests, crankcase heat is accounted for in power measurements of higher stage compressors that are staged off during testing, while crankcase heat operation of lower-stage compressors when cycled off as well as crankcase heat operation in other operating modes is calculated using the certified crankcase heater power. The IVEC metric also accounts for a 15-percent oversizing factor. Accordingly, the target load percentages specified in Recommendation #4 include this 15 percent oversizing factor. Additionally, the A test condition is excluded from the IVEC calculation; however, the A test is still a required test point for determining full load capacity. IVEC includes outdoor and return air dry-bulb and wet-bulb test temperatures that differ from those used in the current test procedure for determining IEER, as shown in Table III.2. TABLE III.2—IEER AND IVEC TEST TEMPERATURES IEER test conditions Test point ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 A B C D Outdoor air dry bulb temperature (°F) ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. The IVEC metric also limits the minimum airflow that can be used for testing. This minimum airflow limit calculation method is based on the average ventilation rate determined in building modeling performed to develop IVEC and is a function of the full-load cooling capacity. Unlike AHRI 340/360– 2022 (see section 6.1.3.4.5), the provisions for determining IVEC do not specify separate test provisions for setting airflow during part-load tests of MZVAV units. Rather, the part-load airflow used for testing all CUACs and CUHPs would be based on the certified part-load cooling airflow. Based on the discussions in the Working Group, DOE understands that the changes recommended for the IVEC metric are intended to result in an efficiency metric that is more representative of CUAC and CUHP VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Return air temperature (dry bulb/wet bulb) (°F) 95 81.5 68 65 5. IVHE The following section provides a summary of the development and final recommendations regarding the IVHE heating metric specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The IVHE metric specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet differs from the COP heating efficiency metric specified in the Frm 00024 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Outdoor air dry bulb temperature (°F) 80/67 80/67 80/67 80/67 operation. Therefore, DOE tentatively agrees with the approach recommended by the Working Group and is proposing to adopt the IVEC metric in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft (including the provisions discussed in section III.F.6 of this NOPR that were not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet). PO 00000 IVEC test conditions 95 85 75 65 Return air temperature (dry bulb/wet bulb) (°F) 80/67 77/64 77/64 77/64 current DOE test procedure through the inclusion of heating season operating modes not currently accounted for, a combined seasonal performance metric rather than individual ratings at specific temperature conditions, and additional optional test conditions. In alignment with the development of the IVEC metric described in section III.F.4 of this NOPR, the Working Group determined to utilize hour-based weighting factors to account for heating loads across more building types and climate zones than are included in the current DOE test procedure. The building heating load lines and hours developed for the IVHE metric rely on a similar ASHRAE 90.1 building and climate zone analysis as the one conducted for the IVEC metric development. Additionally, in developing the heating load line that the hour-based weighting factors rely on, E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules the Working Group utilized the previously discussed 15-percent oversizing factor and assumed a heat to cool ratio of 1 as outlined in Recommendation #8 (i.e., assumed the peak building cooling load equals the peak building heating load). The heating rating requirements recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet include several distinct provisions regarding testing requirements from the existing DOE test procedure. In the current DOE test procedure, CUHPs are required to be tested only at a 47 °F fullload condition to generate a COP rating. Recommendation #9 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, however, introduces several provisions with significant differences from the existing DOE test procedure. First, the recommendation includes required testing at 47 °F and 17 °F full load conditions, aligning with those previously specified in AHRI 340/360– 2022. Additionally, the recommendation introduces optional part load test conditions at both 47 °F and 17 °F temperature conditions as well as test conditions for optional testing at a 5 °F full load condition. Finally, the recommendation includes test requirements for optional boost tests at the 17 °F and 5 °F test conditions for variable speed units. Additionally, the IVHE metric incorporates two operating modes previously excluded from the DOE test procedure: heating season ventilation mode and supplemental electric resistance heat operation. Lastly, the IVHE test conditions rely on the same ESP requirements per capacity bin as those specified for IVEC, as detailed in Recommendation #12. The airflow provisions pertaining to IVEC mentioned in section III.F.4 of this NOPR (i.e., a limit on minimum airflow used for testing and no separate test provisions for MZVAV units) apply to the test provisions for the IVHE metric as well. The results from optional and required testing as well as the newly included operating modes are included in the calculation of the IVHE metric utilizing the weighting factors outlined in Recommendation #8 and calculation methods from appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The calculation methods for IVHE that implement these changes are further detailed in the paragraphs that follow. The IVHE metric includes contributions from both mechanical and resistance heating to meet building heating load. Similar to the IVEC calculation approach, the IVHE metric is calculated by dividing the total annual VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 building heating load by the total annual energy use. Recommendations #8, #9 and #10, as well as appendices B and C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, provide the calculation methods for the IVHE metric. The proposed hour-based weighting factors and bin temperatures for IVHE are included in Recommendation #8 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, which specifies 10 distinct load-based bins alongside weighting factors for heating season ventilation and operation of crankcase heat in unoccupied no-load heating season hours. The calculation methods outlined for the IVHE metric in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet are specified as the following: 1. Building load calculation: Recommendation #8 includes the calculation method for the building load in each load bin based on the measured full-load cooling capacity. 2. Interpolation between temperatures: Appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies interpolation instructions for the various test temperatures specified in Recommendation #8. Interpolation instructions are specified for bins with temperatures between 17 °F and 47 °F. Appendix C also includes the following instructions for bins with temperatures less than 17 °F: (1) interpolation instructions to be used if the optional 5 °F test is conducted, and (2) extrapolation instructions utilizing the 47 °F and 17 °F test data to be used if the 5 °F test is not conducted. 3. Determination of heating stage, auxiliary heat, and cyclic degradation: For load bins in which the calculated building load exceeds the highest-stage mechanical heating capacity determined for the bin temperature, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes calculation methods for determining the power required by auxiliary resistance heat and is included in the overall IVHE calculation. For load bins in which the calculated building load is lower than the lowest-stage mechanical heating capacity determined for the bin temperature, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes calculation methodology for calculating power and incorporating cyclic degradation with a cyclic degradation factor of 0.25. This cyclic degradation methodology is consistent with the methodology specified in appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 430 for residential central heat pumps. For load bins in which the PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56415 calculated building load is in between the lowest-stage and highest-stage mechanical heating capacities determined for the bin temperature, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes calculations for determining power based on interpolation between performance of mechanical heating stages. 4. Defrost degradation: The capacity calculations for all load bins with temperatures less than 40 °F include a defrost degradation coefficient, with calculations specified in appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. 5. Cut-out factor: Recommendation #10 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies that manufacturers will certify cut-in and cut-out temperatures, or the lack thereof, to DOE to ensure resistanceonly operation is included at temperatures below which mechanical heating would not operate. This restriction is implemented in calculations through a cut-out factor included in appendix C. DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting requirements for ACUHPs in this NOPR to require reporting cut-in and cut-out temperatures. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to amend the certification and reporting requirements for this equipment under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. 6. Crankcase heater power contribution: In alignment with the inclusion of crankcase heater power contribution in IVEC, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies a method for incorporating crankcase heat power for all heating season operating modes for ACUHPs. Specifically, for part-load heating tests, crankcase heat is accounted for in power measurements of higher stage compressors that are staged off during testing, while crankcase heat operation of lower-stage compressors when cycled off as well as crankcase heat operation in other operating modes is calculated using the certified crankcase heater power. Based on participation in the Working Group, DOE understands that the changes recommended for the IVHE metric are intended to result in an efficiency metric that is more representative of CUHP operation. As discussed, DOE tentatively agrees with the approach recommended by the Working Group and is proposing to adopt the IVHE metric in appendix A1, as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft (including the provisions discussed in section III.F.6 of this NOPR E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56416 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 that were not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet). a. IVHE for Colder Climates While stakeholder comments received (as discussed in section III.F.1.h) indicate that the majority of current CUHP shipments are concentrated in the south and southwestern regions of the country, it is likely that in the future manufacturers will develop CUHPs that are designed for operation in colder climates, and correspondingly that the market for CUHPs in colder climates is expected to grow. Because the IVHE metric is based on the US national average climate across all US climate zones, the lowest bin temperature for calculating IVHE is 15.9 °F, and a small fraction of heating hours are at colder temperatures (i.e., 19 percent of heating hours are in a load bin with a temperature colder than 32 °F, and less than 1 percent of heating hours are in a load bin with a temperature colder than 17 °F). As a result, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes provisions, including weighting factors and temperature bins, for calculating a colder climate-specific IVHE metric, designated as IVHEC, which are distinct from the provisions used for IVHE. Specifically, IVHEC was developed using the same building heating analysis that was used to develop IVHE (as discussed in section III.F.5 of this NOPR), but the IVHEC weighting factors and load bins were developed using the results for climates zones 5 and above (i.e., climate zone 5 as well as all climate zones colder than climate zone 5), weighted by the share of the US population in each of those climate zones. The use of only climate zones 5 and colder for IVHEC results in the following, compared to IVHE: lower outdoor dry-bulb temperature for each load bin, more heating season hours in all load bins, and a higher heating season building load. Specifically, for IVHEC, 56 percent of heating hours are in a load bin with a temperature colder than 32 °F, and 12 percent of heating hours are in a load bin with a temperature colder than 17 °F. Further, because the defrost degradation coefficients specified in appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet depend on the outdoor temperature for each load bin (and IVHEC has colder bin temperatures than IVHE), the AHRI 1340–202X Draft also specifies separate defrost degradation coefficients for calculating IVHEC. The temperatures and hours for each load bin for calculating IVHE and IVHEC can be found in section 6.3.2 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Given the potential for the development of CUHPs designed for operation in colder climates and the expected increased number of shipments of CUHPs into colder climates, DOE recognizes the utility in having CUHP ratings for a separate IVHE metric that is specific to colder climates. Correspondingly, DOE has tentatively concluded that the IVHEC metric as specified in the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft is more representative of field conditions for CUHPs installed in colder US climates. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt provisions for determining the IVHEC metric in appendix A1 via reference to the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, and to allow for optional representations of IVHEC for CUHPs. Specifically, DOE is proposing that IVHE would be the regulated metric when testing to appendix A1; therefore, should DOE adopt amended standards for CUHPs in terms of IVEC and IVHE, all CUHPs would be required to certify compliance with IVHE standards, and additional representations of IVHEC would be optional. 6. Additions and Revisions to the IVEC and IVHE Metrics Not Included in the Term Sheet AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes several provisions regarding the new IVEC and IVHE metrics that are not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE notes that the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes provisions to allow changes to the proposals in the term sheet if mistakes in the original recommendations are identified through further analysis or discussion between stakeholders. (See EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0065, Recommendations #2, #8, #11) Further, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes a number of additional test provisions that DOE has tentatively concluded are consistent with the intent of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, but provide additional guidance for determining IVEC and IVHE. As discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1, including these additional provisions not specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The following sections discuss these provisions in further detail. a. Cooling Weighting Factors Adjustment Subsequent to the development of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, additional analysis of the building models used to develop the weighting factors for the IVEC metric PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 indicated that the proposed weighting hours included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet are incorrect. Specifically, the weighting hour factors in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet overrepresent mechanical-only cooling hours and underrepresent economizeronly and integrated-economizer hours for all IVEC load bins. DOE presented corrected weighting factors during the ACUAC and ACUHP standards negotiations and no concerns were raised. (See EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0078 at p. 8) These corrected IVEC weighting factors are included in AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1, including these updated IVEC weighting factors. b. ESP Testing Target Calculation Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes an equation for determining adjusted ESP for cooling or heating tests that use an airflow that differs from the full-load cooling airflow. However, the equation specified in Recommendation #12 is missing a term for the full-load ESP. This equation is corrected in AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE is proposing to adopt these provisions of AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1, including this corrected equation for determining adjusted ESP. c. Test Instructions for Splitting ESP Between Return and Supply Ductwork As discussed previously, Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies that ESP shall be split between return and supply ducts during testing, such that 25 percent of the ESP is applied in the return ductwork. However, the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not contain explicit test setup instructions specifying how to achieve the split in ESP between return and supply ductwork. Section E11 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes more detailed instructions regarding the duct and pressure measurement setup, the measurement and adjustment of the return static pressure, and the restriction devices that can be used in the return ductwork to achieve the required split of between 20 and 25 percent of the total ESP applied to the return ductwork. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft also includes test instructions for cases in which the ESP split is not achieved in the first test as well as any exceptions to the specified tolerance requirement. DOE has tentatively E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 concluded that these additional instructions will provide a more consistent measurement of ESP and are aligned with the intent of Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt these provisions of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE. d. Default Fan Power and Maximum Pressure Drop for Coil-Only Systems DOE’s current test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs references ANSI/ AHRI 340/360–2007, and section 6.1 of that test standard specifies default fan power and corresponding capacity adjustment for ACUACs, ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs with a coil-only configuration (i.e., without an integral indoor fan). Specifically, ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 requires that an indoor fan power of 365 Watts (W) per 1,000 standard cubic feet per minute (scfm) be added to power input for coil-only units and that the corresponding heat addition (i.e., 1,250 Btu/h per 1,000 scfm) be subtracted from measured cooling capacity (and added to measured heating capacity), regardless of capacity of the unit under test and regardless of full or part-load test conditions. In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on the prevalence of ACUACs, ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs that are sold in coil-only configurations and requested data on the typical efficiency or typical power use and airflow of fans used with coil-only ACUACs, ACUHPs, WCUACs, and ECUACs in field installations. 82 FR 34427, 34440 (July 25, 2017). In response, Lennox and AHRI stated that the market for coil-only ACUACs and ACUHPs is very small and that less than 1 percent of the approximately 9,000 models listed in the AHRI directory are coil-only models. In addition, Lennox and AHRI stated their expectation that the coil-only configuration will become even less common or disappear from the market by 2023 when new energy conservation standards become effective. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 3; AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at pp. 23–24) Lennox recommended maintaining the current default fan power because the market for these configurations is very small and stated that the effect of any change in default fan power associated with the difference in typical energy use would be de minimis. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0008 at p. 3) Section 6.1.1.6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 has the same requirement as ANSI/ AHRI 340/360–2007 regarding default VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 fan power and capacity adjustment of coil-only systems. Additionally, both section 6.1.3.2(d) of ANSI/AHRI 340/ 360–2007 and section 6.1.3.3.4 of AHRI 340/360–2022 specify that for coil-only systems, the pressure drop across the indoor assembly shall not exceed 0.30 in H2O for the full-load cooling test. If the measured pressure drop exceeds that value, then the industry test standards specify that the indoor airflow rate be reduced such that the measured pressure drop does not exceed the specified maximum pressure drop. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes different requirements for testing coilonly units as compared to ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 and AHRI 340/360–2022. First, section 5.17.4 of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft includes a higher maximum pressure drop across the indoor assembly of 1.0 in H2O when testing coil-only units, as compared to the maximum pressure drop of 0.3 in H2O specified in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 and AHRI 340/360–2022. Second, section 6.2.4.2 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes higher default fan power values than specified in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 and AHRI 340/360–2022; these values were updated to reflect the higher ESP requirements used for IVEC and IVHE. Because the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify ESP requirements that vary by capacity bin, section 6.2.4.2 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specifies different default fan power adders and capacity adjustments for each capacity bin, developed based on fan power needed to overcome the ESP requirement for each bin. Lastly, while ANSI/AHRI 340/360– 2007 and AHRI 340/360–2022 specify a single default fan power adder (and corresponding capacity adjustment) to be used for all tests, the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft includes separate default fan power adders and capacity adjustments for full-load tests and part-load tests (i.e., tests conducted at an airflow lower than the full-load cooling airflow) to reflect that fan power does not decrease linearly with airflow (i.e., reducing airflow in part-load operation would reduce fan power in field operation by more than would be calculated using a single power adder that is normalized by airflow). These part-load fan power adders and capacity adjustments were developed assuming a part-load airflow that is 67 percent of the full-load airflow. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft does not specify what values to use if the part-load airflow is higher than 67 percent of the full-load airflow. In a test procedure final rule for CAC/HPs published October 25, 2022, DOE adopted a part-load fan power adder PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56417 and capacity adjustment for coil-only systems based on 75 percent of the fullload airflow, and specified that linear interpolation be used to determine the default fan power coefficient between the part-load and full-load default fan power coefficients when the specified part-load airflow is between 75 and 100 percent of the full-load airflow. 87 FR 64550, 64558. DOE has tentatively concluded that similar linear interpolation provisions would be appropriate for coil-only CUACs and CUHPs in the case where the airflow specified by a manufacturer for a test is between 67 and 100 percent of the fullload airflow. Therefore, DOE is proposing to include similar provisions in appendix A1 that specify how to calculate the default fan power coefficient and capacity adjustment in such cases. Consistent with the basis of part-load values in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft on 67 percent of full-load cooling airflow, DOE is also proposing to clarify that for tests in which the manufacturerspecified airflow is less than the fullload cooling airflow, the target airflow for the test must be the higher of: (1) the manufacturer-specified airflow for the test; or (2) 67 percent of the airflow measured for the full-load cooling test. DOE tentatively concludes the changes to the coil-only test procedure in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft represent industry consensus on the most appropriate and representative way to test and determine IVEC and IVHE of coil-only systems. Additionally, DOE has tentatively concluded that provisions to address manufacturerspecified airflows between 67 and 100 percent of full-load cooling airflow (via interpolation between the specified fullload and part-load fan power adders and capacity adjustments) would provide a representative means to develop ratings for coil-only CUACs and CUHPs, consistent with the CAC/HP test procedure at appendix M1. Lastly, these do not conflict with any recommendations in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE has tentatively concluded that these provisions provide a representative method to test coil-only units that better aligns with the test requirements for CUACs and CUHPs with integral fans specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Therefore, DOE is proposing to reference the provisions for testing coilonly units specified in sections 5.17.4 and 6.2.4.2 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft with additional instruction to use linear interpolation for determining the fan power adder and capacity E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56418 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules adjustment for instances when manufacturers specify an airflow between 67 and 100 percent of full-load cooling airflow, and clarifying that airflow for coil-only systems must not be lower than 67 percent of full-load cooling airflow. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 e. Component Power Measurement Section E10 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes additional instruction regarding how the total unit, indoor fan, controls, compressor, condenser section, and crankcase heat power should be measured and accounted for during a test. This includes details that were not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, as well as updates to address issues such as unique model designs and power meter precision that were identified after the term sheet was completed. For example, although the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specified that controls power be determined by subtracting all other power measurements from the total unit power, sections E10.1 and E10.2 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft require that controls power be measured. This is because controls power is a much smaller value than power consumed by other components of a CUAC or CUHP and thus is more accurately determined by measuring directly with a power meter of sufficient precision. Section E10.2 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft also allows for determination of compressor and condenser section power by measurement together or by subtraction from total power (i.e., separate power measurement of power consumed by the compressor and condenser section is not required). These provisions address cases in which unique wiring of certain models may make separate measurement of compressor and condenser section power very difficult or impossible, in addition to cases in which the laboratory does not have enough power meters to measure all components separately. Section E10.3 also provides an equation for calculating default value(s) for crankcase heater power to address the case in which a manufacturer does not specify crankcase heater wattage.22 DOE has tentatively concluded that these provisions will provide more repeatable and representative test results and is 22 As discussed, Recommendation # 13 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet requires that manufacturers certify crankcase heater wattage for each heater. DOE is not proposing amendments to certification requirements in this rulemaking, and will instead address certification requirements in a separate rulemaking for certification, compliance, and enforcement. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 proposing to adopt them through reference to section E10 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. f. IVHE Equations Section 6.3 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes the following changes regarding the heating metric equations that differ from the provisions in appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. 1. Removal of the cut-out factor from certain equations: As discussed in section III.F.5 of this NOPR, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes a cut-out factor in IVHE calculations to reflect the dependence of unit performance on whether compressors are cut-out at a given bin temperature. However, the cut-out factor was inadvertently included in certain equations in appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet where it should not apply (i.e., equations to determine unit performance that should not be impacted by the fraction of time in which compressors are cut out). Therefore, in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, the cut-out factor was removed from those equations where it was incorrectly applied in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE notes that these changes would only affect IVHE calculation for models with a cut-out or cut-in temperature higher than the temperature of the lowest load bin. 2. Accounting for auxiliary heat when compressors are cut out: When compressors are cut-out, auxiliary heat would operate to meet the building load. This auxiliary heat operation is addressed in section b of appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet (i.e., when building load exceeds the highest stage unit heating capacity at a given bin temperature), but was inadvertently excluded in sections c and d of appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet (i.e., when building load is between capacities of a unit tested with multiple heating stages, or when building load is less than the capacity for the lowest tested compressor stage). Therefore, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes corrections in these cases so that auxiliary heat demand is applied to meet building load in all cases in which compressors are cut out. 3. Fan power applied in auxiliary heat-only mode: In appendix C of the Term Sheet, the equations do not subtract the heat gain in the indoor airstream from the indoor fan (i.e., ‘‘fan heat’’) from the auxiliary heat demand. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft addresses this issue by subtracting fan heat from PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 auxiliary heat demand. Additionally, sections c and d of appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet assume that the fan would be either cycling between airflows when cycling between stages of compression or operating at the lowest measured indoor airflow for any cooling or heating test when cycling on and off at the lowest stage of compression; however, the indoor fan would likely be operating at the airflow corresponding to the fullload heating test when operating in auxiliary heat mode. The AHRI 1340– 202X Draft addresses this by applying fan power from the full-load heating test for auxiliary heat-only mode. However, DOE notes that because both fan heat and auxiliary heat apply heat to the indoor airstream with the same efficiency (i.e., COP of 1), the airflow assumed for auxiliary heat-only mode does not impact results, as the fan heat resulting from an increase in fan power reduces the auxiliary heat needed to meet the building load by the same amount, resulting in no net change to calculated IVHE. 4. Interpolation for variable-speed compressor systems: When building load is between capacities of a unit tested with multiple heating stages, section c of appendix C of the term sheet includes a separate method for interpolating between stages for variable-speed compressor systems (i.e., a method that interpolates capacity divided by power) from the method for all other units (i.e., a method that linearly interpolates power). As part of development of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, it was determined that there were insufficient data to support a separate interpolation method for variable-speed compressor systems, and therefore the AHRI 1340–202X Draft applies the same linear interpolation method based on power for all units. 5. Compressor operating levels for heating tests: Recommendation #9 of the Term Sheet includes details on the required and optional tests based on configuration of the system (i.e., singlestage, two or more stages, and variablecapacity). Required tests include a test at ‘‘high’’ operating level at 17 and 47 ° F; optional tests include tests at low and intermediate operating levels at 17 and 47 ° F as well as high and ‘‘boost’’ operating levels at 5 ° F. For variablecapacity systems, the Term Sheet specifies that the high speed and low speed at each temperature should be the normal maximum and minimum for each ambient temperature. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes additional explanation of which compressor speeds correspond to the low, medium, E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 high, and boost designations at each test temperature. DOE has tentatively concluded that these updated IVHE equations as described in the preceding paragraphs would provide for a more accurate calculation of IVHE. Further, Recommendation #9 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet states that the equations in appendix C of the term sheet are subject to quality control checking (‘‘QC’’) for errors with the intent remaining the same as voted on. DOE has tentatively concluded that the discussed deviations in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft hold the same intent of the recommendations set forth in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt the provisions of AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVHE in appendix A1, including the updated equations discussed in this section. DOE notes that appendix C of the Term Sheet includes a provision that ‘‘additional provisions, still TBD would apply for variable-speed compressors for which pairs of full-speed or minimumspeed tests are not run at the same speed.’’ The AHRI 1340–202X Draft does not include any provisions allowing for determination of capacity for a bin by interpolating between tests conducted at different compressor operating levels. DOE has tentatively concluded that this approach is appropriate and that calculating IVHE with results from multiple tests at each compressor operating level will provide representative ratings for manufacturers that choose to include performance at operating levels beyond the required high operating level tests at 47 and 17 °F in their representations of IVHE. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to deviate from the approach in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. g. Non-Standard Low-Static Indoor Fan Motors As discussed in section III.F.4, DOE is proposing to include higher ESPs recommended by the Working Group and included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in the Federal test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. However, individual models of CUACs and CUHPs with indoor fan motors intended for installation in applications with a low ESP may not be able to operate at the proposed full-load ESP requirements at the full-load indoor rated airflow. To VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 address this situation, section 3.25 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft defines ‘‘nonstandard low-static indoor fan motors’’ as motors which cannot maintain ESP as high as specified in the test procedure when operating at the full-load rated indoor airflow and that are distributed in commerce as part of an individual model within the same basic model that is distributed in commerce with a different motor specified for testing that can maintain the required ESP. Section 5.19.3.3 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes test provisions for CUACs and CUHPs with non-standard low-static indoor fan motors that cannot reach the ESP within tolerance during testing, which require using the maximum available fan speed that does not overload the motor or motor drive, adjusting the airflow-measuring apparatus to maintain airflow within tolerance, and operating with an ESP as close as possible to the minimum ESP requirements for testing. This approach is consistent with the industry test standard referenced by the DOE test procedure for DX–DOASes (AHRI 920– 2020). As discussed in section III.I.3.b, DOE is proposing to clarify that representations for a CUAC or CUHP basic model must be based on the least efficient individual model(s) distributed in commerce within the basic model (with the exception specified in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) for certain individual models with the components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)). DOE has tentatively concluded that the combination of (1) the provisions in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft for testing models with ‘‘non-standard low-static indoor fan motors’’ with (2) the requirement that basic models be rated based on the least efficient individual model (with certain exceptions, as discussed) provides an appropriate approach for handling CUAC and CUHP models with these motors—if an individual model with a non-standard low-static indoor fan motor is tested, the test would be conducted at an indoor airflow representative for that model. But because testing at the rated airflow for such an individual model would result in testing at an ESP lower than the requirement and thus a lower indoor fan power, the representations for that basic model would be required to be based on an individual model with an indoor fan motor that can achieve the ESP requirements at the rated airflow. PO 00000 Frm 00029 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56419 Consistent with the proposed adoption of the AHRI 340/360–202X Draft in appendix A1, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions for testing models with non-standard lowstatic indoor fan motors. 7. Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs The current DOE test procedure for WCUACs and ECUACs is specified at 10 CFR 431.96 and includes the EER metric. The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not include provisions for ECUACs and WCUACs. However, AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes provisions for determining the new IVEC and optional EER2 metric for ECUACs and WCUACs. The AHRI 1340–202X Draft provisions for determining IVEC and EER2 for ECUACs and WCUACs are largely the same as the provisions for ACUACs and ACUHPs; however, there are several provisions unique to ECUACs and WCUACs—specifically regarding (1) ESP requirements and (2) test temperatures. As discussed, the IVEC and EER2 metrics include higher ESP requirements than the current DOE test procedures and AHRI 340/360–2022. For ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specifies the same ESP requirements for determining IVEC and EER2 for ECUACs and WCUACs as for ACUACs and ACUHPs (shown in Table III.1 in section III.F.4 of this NOPR). As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this NOPR, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft also includes an ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O for testing ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, which is consistent with the ESP requirement specified in AHRI 210/240– 2023 for comparable air-cooled equipment (i.e., air-cooled, three-phase CUACs and CUHPs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. ECUACs and WCUACs use different types of test temperatures than ACUACs and ACUHPs, and AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes test temperature requirements for full-load and part-load test points for determining IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs. Table III.3 and Table III.4 show the test temperatures included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56420 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE III.3—IVEC TEST TEMPERATURES FOR ECUACS AHRI 340/360–2022 IEER test temperatures Test point A B C D Outdoor air dry-bulb (°F) ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... ............................................................... 95 81.5 68 65 Outdoor air wet-bulb (°F) AHRI 1340–202X draft IVEC test temperatures Make-up water (°F) 75 66.2 57.5 52.8 Outdoor air dry-bulb (°F) 85 77 77 77 Outdoor air wet-bulb (°F) 95 85 75 65 Make-up water (°F) 75 65 57 52 85 77 77 77 TABLE III.4—IVEC TEST TEMPERATURES FOR WCUACS AHRI 340/360–2022 IEER test temperatures AHRI 1340–202X draft IVEC test temperatures Test point Entering water (°F) A B C D ............................................................................................... ............................................................................................... .............................................................................................. .............................................................................................. 85 73.5 62 55 Leaving water (°F) * Entering water (°F) 95 .............................. .............................. .............................. 85 72 62 55 Leaving water (°F) * 95 .............................. .............................. .............................. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 * AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft include a leaving water temperature condition only for the A test. Testing with the specified entering and leaving water temperature test determines the water flow rate used for the A test. For part-load tests, AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify that the part-load water flow rate be set per the manufacturer’s installation instructions; and for any full-load tests conducted at B, C, or D rating points (i.e., for interpolation to reach the target percent load), that the water flow rate used match the flow rate measured for the A test. Therefore, a leaving water temperature is not specified for the B, C, and D tests. DOE understands that the provisions for determining IVEC and EER2 for ECUACs and WCUACs included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft (including higher ESP requirements and revised test temperature requirements) reflect industry consensus that the IVEC metric (and optional EER2 metric) provide a more representative measure of energy efficiency for ECUACs and WCUACs. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that the IVEC metric specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft (including ESP requirements and test temperatures) is more representative than the EER metric specified in the current DOE test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt the IVEC metric (as well as the optional EER2 metric) specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft into appendix A1 of the Federal test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs. At this time, DOE does not have sufficient evidence to propose alternate test conditions, but requests comment on whether alternate test conditions are appropriate for determining IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs. As mentioned previously, the current energy conservation standards of ECUACs and WCUACs are in terms of EER. Were DOE to adopt the appendix A1 test procedure for determining IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs as proposed, testing to the IVEC metric would not be required until DOE adopts energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of that metric. As discussed, DOE is also proposing to VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 update the current test procedure for all CUACs and CUHPs, including ECUACs and WCUACs, in appendix A to reference AHRI 340/360–2022, maintaining the current EER metric until DOE adopts energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of the proposed IVEC metric. Issue 3: DOE requests comment in its proposal to adopt the IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, including the test temperature requirements. a. Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs WCUACs are typically installed in the field with separate heat rejection components 23 that reject heat from the water loop to outdoor ambient air, but these separate heat rejection components are not accounted for in the testing of WCUACs under the current DOE test procedure. These heat rejection components typically consist of a circulating water pump (or pumps) and a cooling tower. To account for the power that would be consumed by these components in field installations, section 6.1.1.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 specifies that WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h shall add 10.0 W to the total power of the unit 23 Separate heat rejection components (e.g., a cooling tower or circulating water pump) are not used with ACUACs or ECUACs. PO 00000 Frm 00030 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 for every 1,000 Btu/h of cooling capacity. The industry test procedure for dedicated outdoor air systems (DOASes)—AHRI 920–2020, ‘‘2020 Standard for Performance Rating of Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units’’—includes a different method to account for the additional power consumption of water pumps, with a pump power adder referred to as the ‘‘water pump effect’’ being added to the calculated total unit power. Specifically, section 6.1.6 of AHRI 920– 2020 specifies that the water pump effect is calculated with an equation dependent on the water flow rate and liquid pressure drop across the heat exchanger, including a term that assumes a liquid ESP of 20 ft of water column. In the May 2022 RFI, DOE requested comment on the representativeness of the AHRI 920– 2020 approach to account for power consumption of external heat rejection components as compared to the approach in AHRI 340/360–2022. 87 FR 31743, 31752 (May 25, 2022). On this topic, AHRI stated that its members are still evaluating the applicability of the AHRI 920 approach but have some concerns regarding the applicability to air-cooled equipment. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0008 at p. 6) DOE notes that the provisions discussed in this section pertain only to WCUACs and not to aircooled equipment. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules The CA IOUs recommended DOE adopt the approach used in AHRI 920– 2020 for adding power due to water pumps. The CA IOUs concurred with DOE that WCUAC and ECUAC equipment are niche products with a small market, and contended that a simple power adder or alignment with AHRI 920–2020 would be a good solution. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0012 at p. 7) Carrier commented that neither the AHRI 340/360–2022 nor the AHRI 920– 2020 approach is appropriate, because both methods rely on fixed constants that may not give an accurate representation of each system in the field and ignore any opportunities for improvements and optimization of the building design. However, Carrier did not suggest an alternative method to accounting for the power consumption of water pumps or a cooling tower. Additionally, Carrier stated that both AHRI 920 and AHRI 340/360 ignore the impact of fouling,24 and recommended fouling be considered for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled equipment. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0010 at pp. 15–16) Section 6.2.4.3 of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft includes similar provisions for accounting for the power of heat rejection components for WCUACs to those in AHRI 340/360–2022. However, unlike AHRI 340/360–2022, the heat rejection component power addition is not limited to units with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, and instead applies to WCUACs of all cooling capacities. In response to comments from stakeholders, DOE does not have any data to indicate that the approaches to account for the power required by heat rejection components in AHRI 340/360– 2022, AHRI 920–2020, or the AHRI 1340–202X Draft are inaccurate. Despite expressing concerns regarding the representativeness of the methods in AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 920– 2020, Carrier did not suggest any alternative test method. While the CA IOUs expressed a preference for use of the method in AHRI 920, DOE has tentatively concluded that the latest approach presented in the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft is representative of industry consensus to account for the power of heat rejection components in WCUACs, such as circulating water pumps and cooling towers. Therefore, consistent with the proposed adoption of the AHRI 340/360–202X Draft in appendix A1, DOE is not proposing any deviations 24 ‘‘Fouling’’ refers to the formation of unwanted material deposits on heat transfer surfaces. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 from the provisions for accounting for the power of heat rejection components for WCUACs specified in section 6.2.4.3 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. As previously indicated, water-cooled air conditioners and heat pumps rely on pumps to circulate the water that transfers heat to or from refrigerant in the water-to-refrigerant coil. Most watercooled units rely on external circulating water pumps; however, some watercooled units in other equipment categories (e.g., water-source heat pumps and DOASes) have integral pumps included within the unit that serve this function. For such units with integral pumps, test provisions are warranted to specify how to test with the integral pump (e.g., provisions specifying the liquid ESP at which to operate the integral pump). AHRI 340/ 360–2022 does not contain provisions specific to testing WCUACs with integral pumps. In contrast, DOE recently adopted provisions requiring that water-source DOASes with integral pumps be tested with a target external head pressure of 20 ft of water column (consistent with AHRI 920–2020). 87 FR 45164, 45181 (July 27, 2022). DOE requested comment on the prevalence of WCUACs with integral pumps in the May 2022 RFI, as it was not aware of any WCUACs on the market with integral pumps. DOE also sought comment on what liquid ESP would be representative for testing, if WCUACs with integral pumps do exist on the market. 87 FR 31743, 31752 (May 25, 2022). AHRI and Carrier stated that they are not aware of any WCUACs on the market that contain integral pumps. (AHRI, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015– 0008 at p. 6; Carrier, EERE–2022–BT– STD–0015–0010 at p. 16) Carrier noted that typically, WCUACs are installed in buildings with multiple units and then connected to a central cooling tower system; Carrier asserted that it would not make sense to put pumps in each of the units because multiple units use a common cooling tower system. (Carrier, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0010 at p. 16) Based on commenter responses indicating a lack of WCUACs on the market with integral pumps and lack of provisions addressing WCUACs with integral pumps in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, DOE is not proposing to include test provisions for WCUACs with integral pumps. 8. Efficiency Metrics for Double-Duct Systems As discussed in section III.B.3 of this NOPR, double-duct systems are equipment classes of ACUACs and PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56421 ACUHPs, either single package or split, designed for indoor installation in constrained spaces, such that outdoor air must be ducted to and from the outdoor coil. DOE is proposing revisions to the definition for double-duct systems that align with the updated definition in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Pursuant to the current DOE test procedure (which references ANSI/ AHRI 340/360–2007), double-duct systems are tested and rated under the same test conditions at zero outdoor air ESP as conventional ACUACs and ACUHPs (i.e., that are not double-duct systems). AHRI 340/360–2022 added a test method in appendix I that specifies an outdoor air ESP requirement of 0.50 in. H2O for double-duct systems. When testing with 0.50 in. H2O outdoor air ESP, ratings are designated with the subscript ‘‘DD’’ (e.g., EERDD, COPDD, and IEERDD) to distinguish them from the ratings determined by testing at zero outdoor air ESP. The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not include provisions for double-duct systems. However, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes provisions for determining the new IVEC and IVHE metrics for doubleduct systems. Specifically, similar to appendix I of AHRI 340/360–2022, the AHRI 1340–202X Draft applies a 0.50 in. H2O outdoor air ESP requirement for determining IVEC and IVHE for doubleduct systems. Other than this outdoor air ESP requirement, the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft specifies no differences in determining IVEC and IVHE for doubleduct systems as compared to conventional ACUACs and ACUHPs. Because double-duct systems are installed indoors with ducting of outdoor air to and from the outdoor coil, DOE has tentatively concluded that testing at a non-zero outdoor air ESP (as specified in AHRI 1340–202X Draft) would be more representative of field applications than testing at zero outdoor air ESP (as specified in the current Federal test procedure). Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that the IVEC and IVHE metrics specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft are more representative than the EER, IEER, and COP metrics specified in the current DOE test procedure, for the reasons discussed throughout this NOPR (e.g., sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR) for ACUACs and ACUHPs more generally. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that the application of the IVEC and IVHE metrics in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft to double-duct systems reflect industry consensus that these metrics provide a more representative E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56422 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 measure of energy efficiency for doubleduct systems. Therefore, DOE proposes to include provisions in appendix A1 for determining IVEC and IVHE for doubleduct systems. Although DOE is proposing generally to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360–2022 in appendix A, DOE has tentatively determined not to reference in appendix A the modified testing requirements for double-duct systems specified in appendix I of AHRI 340/360–2022 because the modified ESP requirements would alter the measured efficiency of double-duct systems. Instead, DOE proposes to maintain the current metrics for double-duct systems in appendix A. As proposed, an outdoor air ESP requirement of 0.50 in. H2O for doubleduct systems would only apply when determining the new IVEC and IVHE metrics per appendix A1. As mentioned previously, the current energy conservation standards for double-duct systems are in terms of EER and COP. Were DOE to adopt the test procedures for IVEC and IVHE for double-duct systems as proposed, testing to those metrics would not be required until DOE adopts energy conservation standards for double-duct systems in terms of those metrics. Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the IVEC and IVHE metrics for double-duct systems in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. G. Test Method Changes in AHRI Standard 340/360 In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested and received comments on a number of topics related to the current DOE test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs, and the most up-to-date version of AHRI 340/360 that was available at the time (i.e., AHRI 340/360–2015). 82 FR 34427, 34439–34445 (July 25, 2017). With the publication of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and the development of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, many of these topics have been addressed in the updated and draft versions of the standard. DOE is not proposing any deviations from AHRI 340/360–2022 for appendix A. As discussed later in this document, DOE has tentatively determined, based upon clear and convincing evidence, that the updated industry test procedures in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, as proposed to be adopted by DOE in appendix A and appendix A1, would more fully comply with the EPCA requirements for the test procedures to be reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy efficiency or energy use of CUACs and CUHPs during a VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 representative average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In the following sections, DOE summarizes the comments received in response to the July 2017 TP RFI, and discusses changes in the industry test standard update that are related to comments received, as well as other changes to the industry test standard AHRI 340/360 that are relevant to DOE’s test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. 1. Vertical Separation of Indoor and Outdoor Units In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE noted that ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 does not limit the vertical separation of indoor and outdoor units when testing split systems. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017). In contrast, section 6.1.3.5 of AHRI 340/360–2015 (the relevant revision of that industry test standard at the time of the July 2017 RFI) specifies that the maximum allowable vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor units be no more than 10 feet, presumably because separation greater than 10 feet can adversely affect measured performance. If test facilities use indoor and outdoor environmental chambers that are stacked vertically, the limitation on vertical separation may make it impractical or impossible to test split systems. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a maximum of 10 feet of vertical separation of indoor and outdoor units would limit the ability of existing facilities to test split-system CUACs and CUHPs and requested comment on the impact that vertical separation of split systems has on efficiency and capacity. Id. On this topic, AHRI commented that if the vertical separation is too high, there will be a large negative impact on capacity and efficiency, and that if separation approaches 15 feet, intermediate traps may be needed. AHRI also commented that this requirement does not limit the ability of laboratories to test units. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018–0011 at p. 26) Similarly, Lennox commented that greater separation would negatively impact results, and that they were also not aware of any test laboratories that had difficulty with this requirement. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0008 at p. 5) Carrier stated that vertical separation can impact performance but that the 10-foot maximum separation should not be an issue as long as the length of the interconnecting line in the outdoor section does not exceed 5 feet. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 13) Goodman stated that a PO 00000 Frm 00032 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 maximum of 10 feet of vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor units is appropriate. Goodman also stated that the 10-feet maximum allowable vertical separation ensures minimal impact of suction line losses and oil return problems, and that greater vertical separation will adversely impact cooling capacity and efficiency. (Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0014 at p. 5) DOE received no other comments on this issue. AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft do not include any specifications regarding the maximum allowable vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor units. DOE understands that the approach provided in both AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft represents industry consensus regarding setup for testing of CUACs and CUHPs, and surmises that the commenters’ original positions on this provision changed during the course of developing the industry consensus standard. Consistent with the proposed adoption of AHRI 340/360–2022 (in appendix A) and AHRI 1340–202X Draft (in appendix A1), DOE is not proposing specifications regarding the maximum allowable vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor units. 2. Measurement of Air Conditions In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on condenser inlet air size and uniformity using the criteria in appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015. DOE also requested comment on whether the requirements of appendix C are sufficient to ensure reproducibility of results and/or any test data that demonstrate sufficient reproducibility. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017). Regarding this matter, AHRI and Lennox stated that alterations to the laboratory have been required to ensure the air in the room is uniform. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 25; Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 5) Lennox stated that these alterations typically include adjustment to conditioning equipment supply ducts, air mixers within the test room, and temporary partitions to prevent air stratification surrounding the unit under test. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0008 at p. 5) Carrier commented that the current method is well-proven and used on rooftop units and chillers. However, Carrier stated that airflow stratification is an area of concern; it requires not just measurement, but also good test facilities that provide uniform airflow. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0006 at p. 12) In response to DOE asking specifically about ECUACs, AHRI commented that the air sampling tree E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 requirements in appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2015 are feasible for all ECUACs, and that adding more wet-bulb measurements than what is currently in appendix C would not benefit test reproducibility. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018–0011 at p. 25) Appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft contains a number of changes, including certain changes related to temperature uniformity, as well as provisions regarding air condition measurement for indoor air and outdoor outlet air. These changes would improve test representativeness and repeatability. DOE understands that the approach provided in appendix C of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft represents industry consensus regarding the most appropriate method of measuring air conditions. Consistent with the proposed adoption of AHRI 340/360–2022 (in appendix A) and AHRI 1340–202X Draft (in appendix A1), DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions in appendix C of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding measuring air conditions. 3. Refrigerant Charging Instructions As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether it would be appropriate to adopt an approach regarding refrigerant charging requirements for ACUACs and ACUHPs that is similar or identical to the approach used in the DOE test procedure for central air conditioners and heat pumps (CACs and HPs). DOE also sought data to determine how sensitive the performance of ACUACs, ECUACs, and WCUACs is relative to changes in the various charge indicators used for different charging methods, specifically the method based on subcooling. 82 FR 34427, 34441 (July 25, 2017). On this topic, AHRI and Lennox commented that charging instructions should first be determined from the supplemental PDF test instructions that are certified to DOE. If instructions are not found there, AHRI and Lennox stated that charging should be conducted in accordance with the manufacturer installation instructions provided with the unit. (AHRI, EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 24; Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 4) Lennox further stated that if neither the certified supplemental test instructions (STI) nor the installation instructions shipped with the unit provide charging information, then a predetermined method to set the refrigerant charge should be employed, consistent with the approach for CACs. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Lennox also commented that charging methods should consider a consistent setup method in the test laboratories to account for charge adjustments for pressure transducers and any loss of charge in the application of transducers, and that charge verification is required when visible damage on the equipment is spotted, even if damage is minor. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0008 at p. 4) Trane encouraged DOE to require the certification of detailed manufacturer instructions for setting up CUACs for unique test standard conditions, including the method that the manufacturer uses to vary refrigerant charge and the refrigerant charging instructions that are unique to that unit design. (Trane, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0012 at p. 2) Carrier commented that DOE currently requires charging instructions to be included in the certified supplemental test instructions for CUACs. Further, Carrier stated that if the manufacturer’s charging instructions for a CUAC unit provide a specified range for superheat, sub-cooling, or refrigerant pressure, then DOE’s test procedure should specify to use the average of the range to determine the refrigerant charge, consistent with AHRI 340/360–2015. (Carrier, EERE–2017– BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 11) Goodman stated that while CUACs are sensitive to changes in charge, regardless of the charging method, manufacturers typically provide a range of target values for charging to allow for typical accuracy of pressure and temperature measurement equipment used in the field. Goodman further commented that it can provide a specific charging point in the supplemental testing instructions certified to DOE, but that adding specific charge points to certified instructions would be an added burden. (Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0014 at p. 4) Section 5.8 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft include a comprehensive set of provisions regarding refrigerant charging for CUACs and CUHPs that is generally consistent with the approach for CACs/HPs. Specifically, they require that units be charged at conditions specified by the manufacturer in accordance with the manufacturer’s installation instructions. If no manufacturer-specified charging conditions are provided, the test standards specify charging at the standard rating conditions (as defined in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and Table 7 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft). These provisions also provide additional charging instructions to be used if the manufacturer does not PO 00000 Frm 00033 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56423 provide instructions or if the provided instructions are unclear or incomplete (e.g., specifying default charging targets to use if none are provided by the manufacturer; specifying an instruction priority to be used in the event of conflicting information between multiple manufacturer-provided charging instructions). DOE is proposing to adopt the charging instructions in AHRI 340/360– 2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, which are consistent with the charging conditions DOE has established for CACs/HPs. Additionally, given the inclusion of these provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft, DOE understands that the approach provided in section 5.8 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.12 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft represents industry consensus regarding the most appropriate and representative approach for refrigerant charging when testing CUACs and CUHPs. 4. Primary and Secondary Methods for Capacity Measurements DOE’s current test procedure references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 which includes requirements on how to perform the primary and secondary methods of capacity measurement, and further specifies which secondary method can be used when testing certain equipment classes. ASHRAE 37– 2009 lists applicable test methods in Table 1 of that industry standard, but the table does not indicate that the outdoor air enthalpy method is applicable for any configuration of evaporatively-cooled equipment. Therefore, the secondary method for ECUACs is limited to use of the refrigerant enthalpy method or compressor calibration method for split systems and only the compressor calibration method for single-package equipment. As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment and test data on whether there is difficulty in achieving a match between primary and secondary capacity measurements when testing ECUACs with rated capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h and whether the difficulty level is higher, lower, or the same when testing the unit at full-load conditions as compared to part-load conditions. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017). DOE also requested comment on whether there would be a benefit in allowing the outdoor air enthalpy method as a secondary method of capacity measurement for ECUACs or whether there are other alternative approaches that could be considered for mitigating the potential test burden. Id. In response to the July 2017 RFI, AHRI commented that it does not have E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56424 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 data on whether there is difficulty with matching primary and secondary capacity measurements for ECUACs. AHRI added that it appreciates DOE’s investigation of less burdensome secondary capacity measurements, but that its members are following ASHRAE 37 and, therefore, have not used the outdoor enthalpy method for ECUACs. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at pp. 28–29) Appendix E of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft include requirements related to the method of testing CUACs and CUHPs. These appendices include requirements for measuring capacity with the primary method (i.e., the indoor air enthalpy method) and with a secondary method (e.g., outdoor air enthalpy method, compressor calibration method, refrigerant enthalpy method). More specifically, AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft reference the primary and secondary methods for capacity measurements listed in ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009 and specify that testing shall comply with all of the requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 2009. Additionally, section E6 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify secondary capacity measurement for all capacities of CUACs and CUHPs, including equipment with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h. Correspondingly, section E6.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft allow use of the cooling condensate method (detailed in section E6.6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft) as an acceptable secondary capacity measurement for (1) ECUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h and (2) single package ACUACs and ACUHPs with outdoor airflow rates above 9,000 scfm.25 DOE has tentatively concluded that requiring secondary capacity measurement for CUACs and CUHPs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h would provide more repeatable test results by ensuring that there is confirmation of accurate capacity measurements for testing all units, without adding substantive 25 This provision of section E6.2 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding the cooling condensate method only applies to units that do not reject condensate to the condenser coil. Section E6.2.1.1 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify that no secondary measurements are required for cooling or heating tests for equipment that reject condensate in the following groups: single package ACUACs with outdoor airflow rates above 9,000 scfm and (2) single package ECUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 burden to testing. Further, DOE understands that many test laboratories are limited in their ability to measure outdoor airflow rates greater than 9,000 scfm (and thus limited in their ability to conduct the outdoor air enthalpy method for units with such outdoor airflow rates; 26) therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that use of the cooling condensate method for single package CUACs with outdoor airflow rates above 9,000 scfm would allow for sufficient confirmation of capacity measurement without making the test procedure unduly burdensome. DOE understands that the approach provided in appendix E of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding primary and secondary methods of capacity measurement represents industry consensus regarding the most appropriate method for testing CUACs and CUHPs. Absent any data indicating that an alternative secondary method would reduce test burden while still providing representative and repeatable test results, DOE is proposing to adopt the provisions in appendix E of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding primary and secondary methods of capacity measurement. 5. Atmospheric Pressure a. Adjustment for Different Atmospheric Pressure Conditions The current DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs do not include an adjustment for different atmospheric pressure conditions. Appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2015 includes an adjustment for indoor fan power and corresponding fan heat to address potential differences in measured results conducted at different atmospheric pressure conditions. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested test data validating the supply fan power correction used in AHRI 340/ 360–2015. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017). DOE also sought test data showing the impact that variations in atmospheric pressure have on the performance (i.e., capacity and component power use) of ACUACs and ACUHPs. Id. AHRI stated that it was planning to remove the atmospheric pressure corrections from AHRI Standard 340/ 360 until further industry research was completed. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 26 DOE understands the most commonly used secondary capacity measurement method for single package ACUACs to be the outdoor air enthalpy method. Measurement of outdoor airflow is required for conducting the outdoor air enthalpy method; therefore, the outdoor air enthalpy method cannot be conducted if the outdoor airflow cannot be measured. PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 0018–0011 at p. 25) Carrier also stated that AHRI was planning on removing the atmospheric pressure correction and supported keeping a lower limit of 13.7 psia for the barometric pressure, because a lower value can result in degradation of performance. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 12) Lennox commented that the adjustment method presented in AHRI 340/360– 2015 is theoretically sound but recognized the need for additional research to verify the impacts of testing due to the nature of uncertainty and test repeatability of calorimeter room testing. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0008 at p. 4) Since publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, the atmospheric pressure correction has been removed from the industry test procedure and is not included AHRI 340/360–2022 or the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 or the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding an atmospheric pressure correction. b. Minimum Atmospheric Pressure Section 6.1.3.2 of AHRI 340/360–2015 specifies a minimum atmospheric pressure of 13.7 psia for testing equipment to address the potential impact of atmospheric pressure on the airflow rate and power of the outdoor fan(s). This differs from the current DOE test procedure in which there is no minimum atmospheric pressure requirement. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the minimum atmospheric pressure of 13.7 psia specified in section 6.1.3.2 of AHRI 340/360–2015 would prevent any existing laboratories from testing equipment, and what burden, if any, would be imposed by such a requirement. 82 FR 34427, 34442. AHRI commented it intends to keep the lower limit of 13.7 psia in AHRI Standard 340/360, and that the lower limit represents approximately 1900 ft above sea level, and that all known third party testing laboratories meet this requirement. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018–0011 at p. 25) Lennox and Carrier recommended that DOE adopt the lower limit of 13.7 psia. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 4; Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 12) Section 6.1.3.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section E2 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft include the 13.7 psia minimum atmospheric pressure requirement. DOE is not proposing any deviations from the minimum atmospheric pressure provisions specified in section 6.1.3.2 of E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules AHRI 340/360–2022 and section E2 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 c. Atmospheric Pressure Measurement The accuracy of atmospheric pressure measurements required by section 5.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 (which is referenced in AHRI 340/360–2015) is ±2.5 percent. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE estimated that under certain circumstances, atmospheric pressure measurements at the extremes of this ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 tolerance can result in variation in capacity measurement of 1 to 2 percent. 82 FR 34427, 34443 (July 25, 2017). In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on the typical accuracy of the atmospheric pressure sensors used by existing test laboratories. Id. In response, AHRI commented that the third-party laboratory used by AHRI for certification testing uses sensors with accuracy better than ±0.15 psia.27 (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 27) Carrier commented that the brand of pressure sensors that are currently used have an accuracy of ±0.001 inches of mercury (in. Hg).28 (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 15) Section 5.12.1 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.16.2 of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft specify a minimum accuracy of atmospheric pressure measurement of ±0.50 percent, which is less stringent than the accuracy suggested by Carrier but more stringent than the accuracy suggested by AHRI. Because the committees to develop these standards include manufacturers and third-party test laboratory representatives, DOE has tentatively determined that this accuracy specification appropriately represents the capability of atmospheric pressure measuring instruments and DOE is not proposing any deviations from the minimum accuracy specified in section 5.12.1 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.16.2 of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft. 6. Condenser Head Pressure Controls Condenser head pressure controls regulate the flow of refrigerant through the condenser and/or adjust operation of condenser fans to prevent condenser pressures from dropping too low during low-ambient operation. When employed, these controls ensure that the refrigerant pressure is high enough to maintain adequate flow through refrigerant expansion devices such as 27 At standard atmospheric pressure (14.696 psia), an accuracy of ±0.15 psia is equivalent to an accuracy of ±1.0 percent. 28 At standard atmospheric pressure (29.92 in. Hg), an accuracy of ±0.001 in. Hg is equivalent to an accuracy of ±0.003 percent. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 thermostatic expansion valves. The use of condenser head pressure controls influences a unit’s performance when operating in the field. Section F7.1 of AHRI 340/360–2015 includes a time average test procedure to be used in case head pressure controls cause cycling of the condenser fans and unsteady operation of the unit under test. Specifically, the provisions require two one-hour tests be run: one at the upper bound of the tolerance on outdoor ambient temperature, and one at the lower bound. The test results for both one-hour tests are averaged to determine the capacity and efficiency for the rating point that is used in the IEER calculation. This issue was reviewed by DOE in the context of ACUACs in the December 2015 CUAC TP final rule. In that final rule, DOE clarified that head pressure controls must be active during the test, but DOE did not adopt the time-averaged head pressure control test specified in AHRI 340/360–2015, indicating that AHRI 340/360–2015 was a draft document at the time and that DOE would reconsider adoption of the provisions for testing units with head pressure control in a future rulemaking. 80 FR 79655, 79660 (Dec. 23, 2015). As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested information and data regarding testing of CUACs and CUHPs with head pressure controls that would require the special test provisions described in section F7.1 of AHRI 340/ 360–2015, including: (1) whether such units can be tested in compliance with the relaxed stability requirements of these test provisions; (2) whether the test results accurately represent field use; and (3) whether the test burden associated with these tests is appropriate. 82 FR 34427, 34441 (July 25, 2017). AHRI, Lennox, and Carrier stated that the time-average test method outlined in appendix F of AHRI 340/360–2015 is appropriate and that no problems have been encountered thus far. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 24; Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 3; Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0006 at p. 11) AHRI also commented that the burden of the time average test method is appropriate. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 24) Section E7.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft also specify provisions for a time average test procedure, consistent with AHRI 340/ 360–2015. Further, sections E7.3 and E7.4 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft provide additional direction for achieving stability to be used if the tolerances for PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56425 the head pressure control time average test cannot be met. In light of the head pressure control provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, DOE understands that the approach provided in sections E7.2, E7.3, and E7.4 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft represent industry consensus regarding the most appropriate and representative approach for testing CUACs and CUHPs with head pressure controls. DOE has tentatively determined the approach in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft appropriately represents the impact of head pressure controls and DOE is not proposing any deviations from the head pressure control provisions specified in these industry test standards. 7. Length of Refrigerant Line Exposed to Outdoor Conditions ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007, AHRI 340/ 360–2015, and AHRI 210/240–2008 require at least 25 feet of interconnecting refrigerant line when testing split systems. ANSI/AHRI 340/ 360–2007 and AHRI 340/360–2015 require at least 5 feet of the interconnecting refrigerant line to be exposed to outdoor test chamber conditions, whereas AHRI 210/240– 2008 requires at least 10 feet to be exposed to outdoor test chamber conditions. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and data regarding the typical length of refrigerant line that is exposed to outdoor conditions on split-system ACUAC, ECUAC, or WCUAC installations and whether this length varies depending on the capacity of the unit. 82 FR 34427, 34443 (July 25, 2017). DOE also requested comment and data on any measurements or calculations that have been made of the losses associated with refrigerant lines exposed to outdoor conditions. Id. DOE also estimated an upper bound of the capacity loss to be approximately 1 percent of the capacity of the unit per 10 feet of refrigerant line exposed to outdoor conditions and approximately 0.5 percent for 5 feet and requested comment on this estimate. Id. AHRI commented that the length of refrigerant line that is exposed is entirely dependent on the building in which the unit is being installed, and that AHRI chose 25 feet as a standard value to ensure consistent testing. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 27) Lennox stated that DOE’s calculation of capacity losses from refrigerant lines exposed to outdoor conditions is probably too high and that losses can be minimized with insulation. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT– E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56426 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 TP–0018–0008 at p. 6) Carrier acknowledged the difference in exposure to outdoor conditions across test standards and initially suggested to change the requirement for commercial equipment (e.g., equipment with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h) from 5 feet to 10 feet. Carrier requested more time to determine the length typically exposed to outdoor conditions in actual installations. Carrier also stated that DOE’s loss estimate is probably reasonable, but that they need more time to develop a more accurate estimate. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0006 at p. 15) Since publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, the industry specification has been changed in AHRI 340/360. Section 5.7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.11 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft require that at least 10 feet of interconnected tubing be exposed to outdoor conditions. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions regarding length of refrigerant line exposed to outdoor conditions in section 5.7 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and section 5.11 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A and appendix A1, respectively. 8. Indoor Airflow Condition Tolerance DOE’s current test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h specifies in section (6)(i) of appendix A that the indoor airflow for the full-load cooling test must be within ±3 percent of the rated airflow. DOE adopted a 3 percent tolerance on indoor airflow for testing ACUACs and ACUHPs to limit variation in EER and cooling capacity, based on test data and feedback provided by industry commenters. 80 FR 79655, 79659–79660 (Dec. 23, 2015). As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment and data showing whether variations in indoor airflow impact the measured efficiency or capacity of ECUACs and WCUACs more or less than ACUACs and ACUHPs and whether the ±3 percent tolerance is appropriate for ECUACs and WCUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017). In commenting on this issue, AHRI stated that the indoor airflow rate should not be influenced by the condenser heat rejection medium (i.e., air-cooled, water-cooled, or evaporatively-cooled) and that the ± 3 percent tolerance should be appropriate for testing ECUACs and WCUACs. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 26) Similarly, Goodman stated that ACUACs and WCUACs include similar indoor fans, and therefore, the test procedure provisions for setting indoor VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 airflow for WCUACs should match the existing provisions for ACUACs. (Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0014 at p. 5) Section 6.1.3.5.2.1 of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and section 5.19.13.1 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify that the indoor airflow for the full-load cooling test must be within ± 3 percent of the rated airflow for all CUACs and CUHPs. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt a 3-percent tolerance for ECUACs and WCUACs consistent with the requirement for ACUACs and ACUHPs, through adoption of AHRI 340/360– 2022 into appendix A and AHRI 1340– 202X Draft into appendix A1. 9. ECUACs and WCUACs With Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether there are differences between ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h and those with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h that justify the incorporation by reference of different industry test standards for the different cooling capacity ranges. DOE also asked whether there are differences in field installations and field use of this equipment and the extent to which these differences impact performance. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017). In response, DOE received comments from Carrier and AHRI that supported testing of ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/ h according to AHRI Standard 340/360 and stated that this equipment is not considered residential and is not subject to the residential efficiency metric, seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER). (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at pp. 15–16; AHRI, EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018–0011 at p. 28) Carrier added that field installations are similar for these types of equipment regardless of capacity. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0006 at p. 16) As previously discussed, the current industry standard referenced in DOE’s test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h is ANSI/AHRI 210/ 240–2008. However, AHRI published an updated version of AHRI 210/240 (i.e., AHRI 210/240–2023), in which ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h were removed from the scope of AHRI 210/240–2023. Instead, ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/ h were included in the scope of AHRI 340/360–2022. Furthermore, DOE did not identify any substantive differences between AHRI 210/240–2017 and AHRI 340/360–2022 with respect to the test PO 00000 Frm 00036 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h. Therefore, based on its review, DOE has tentatively determined that the test procedure in AHRI 340/360–2022 for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h is comparable to the current Federal test procedure for such equipment (which references ANSI/AHRI 210/240–2008). In January 2023, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1–2022, which included updates to the test procedure references for ECUACs and WCUACs with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h to reference AHRI 210/240–2023. However, as discussed earlier in this paragraph, ECUACs and WCUACs with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h are outside of the scope of AHRI 210/240– 2023 and are instead included in AHRI 340/360–2022. Given these changes to the relevant industry test standards, DOE believes that such reference was an oversight. Therefore, in appendix A DOE is proposing to reference AHRI 340/360–2022 for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE has tentatively concluded that this proposal would not require retesting solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of this proposed amendment to the test procedure, if made final. As discussed in section III.F.6.d of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to reference the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1 for measuring IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. Measuring IVEC pursuant to appendix A1 would not be required until such time as compliance is required with any amended energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of IVEC. 10. Additional Test Method Topics for ECUACs a. Outdoor Air Entering Wet-Bulb Temperature In the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on why the full-load outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature test condition for the 100-percent capacity test point used to calculate IEER was changed from 75.0 °F in ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 (the industry standard referenced in the current DOE test procedure) to 74.5 °F in AHRI 340/360– 2015, which differs from the outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature test condition (75.0 °F) for the standard rating conditions. DOE requested comment on whether the outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature should be 75.0 °F for both the standard rating conditions and the 100-percent capacity E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules test point used to calculate IEER. DOE also requested comment on whether the outdoor air entering dry-bulb temperatures for air-cooled units in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2015 apply to evaporatively-cooled units. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017). AHRI, Carrier, and Lennox all commented that the different rating conditions reflect an error in AHRI 340/ 360–2015 which will be corrected, and that the requirement should be 75.0 °F for both purposes. (AHRI, EERE–2017– BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 26; Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 13; Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 5) Additionally, AHRI stated that outdoor air entering dry-bulb temperature is not a significant factor for ECUAC performance because heat transfer is driven by the outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 26) AHRI stated that it plans to add outdoor air entering dry-bulb temperature requirements for evaporatively-cooled units in an addendum to AHRI 340/ 360–2015, without specifying whether these new dry-bulb temperature requirements would be the same as the dry-bulb temperatures currently specified for air-cooled units. (Id.) Since publication of the July 2017 RFI, this identified error has been corrected in AHRI 340/360–2022. The outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature for the 100-percent capacity test point used to calculate IEER in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360–2022 is now set at 75.0 °F, which aligns with the outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature requirement for the standard rating conditions. DOE is proposing to adopt the test conditions in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360–2022 in appendix A. The proposal would maintain the full-load outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature test condition for the 100-percent capacity test point at 75.0 °F as required under the current DOE test procedure, which is consistent with the condition specified in AHRI 340/360–2022. comparison to the heat rejected from the unit, and that, therefore, the impact on unit performance is negligible. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 28) Both AHRI 340/360–2019 and AHRI 340/360–2022 specify make-up water temperatures of 85 °F for the full-load cooling test, but the standards differ in the make-up water temperatures specified for part-load cooling tests. Specifically, Table 8 of AHRI 340/360– 2019 specifies make-up water temperatures of 81.5 °F, 68 °F, and 65 °F for the 75-percent, 50-percent, and 25percent part-load cooling tests, respectively. In contrast, Table 9 of AHRI 340/360–2022 specifies a make-up water temperature of 77 °F for all partload cooling tests, which aligns with the make-up water temperature specified in AHRI 210/240–2017 for ECUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE does not have data or information to indicate that the make-up water temperature specifications in AHRI 340/360–2022 are inappropriate. DOE understands that the make-up water temperatures specified in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360–2022 represent the prevailing industry consensus regarding the most appropriate method for testing ECUACs of all cooling capacities. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that, consistent with comments from AHRI, the difference between part-load make-up water temperature conditions specified in AHRI 340/360–2019 and AHRI 340/ 360–2022 would have a negligible effect on the measured IEER for ECUACs. Additionally, DOE does not specify standards for ECUACs in terms of IEER, so the part-load make-up water temperature does not affect the efficiency (i.e., EER) certified to DOE. For these reasons, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions regarding make-up water temperature in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360–2022 for adoption in appendix A. b. Make-Up Water Temperature In the July 2017 RFI, DOE noted that neither ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 nor AHRI 340/360–2015 provide any specifications on the make-up water temperature for full-load or part-load tests for ECUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017). Therefore, DOE requested comment and data regarding the impact that the make-up water temperature has on the performance of ECUACs. Id. AHRI responded that the heat rejection caused by differences in the condenser make-up water temperature is insignificant in As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether ECUACs that allow piping of evaporator condensate to the condenser sump (a variation not addressed in either the DOE or industry test procedures) present any complications (e.g., maintaining proper slope in the piping from the evaporator to the outdoor unit and test repeatability issues) when testing in a laboratory. DOE also requested comment and data indicating what kind of impact piping the evaporator condensate to the condenser sump has on the efficiency and/or VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 c. Piping Evaporator Condensate to Condenser Sump PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56427 capacity of ECUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017). In response, AHRI indicated that reusing the evaporator condensate would have a negligible impact on performance. AHRI also stated it was extremely important to follow the manufacturer’s supplemental PDF instructions when setting up a unit for test to avoid complications. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 29) Section E8.3 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify that if such a feature is an option for an ECUAC unit and the manufacturer’s installation instructions do not require the unit to be set up with this option, then the unit should be tested without it. In light of the provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, DOE surmises that the provisions regarding testing with such a feature represent the prevailing industry consensus regarding the most appropriate and representative approach for testing ECUACs. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that this provision would improve the repeatability of the test procedure by ensuring that any given ECUAC model is tested consistently with regards to this feature. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions regarding testing with this feature in section E8.3 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. d. Purge Water Settings Some ECUACs require, as indicated in product literature, that the sump water be continuously or periodically purged to reduce mineral and scale build-up on the condenser heat exchanger. If an ECUAC either continuously or periodically purges during the test, the purge rate may affect measured test results. DOE’s current test procedure for ECUACs does not address purge water settings. As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on how the purge water rate should be set for laboratory testing if the manufacturer’s instructions do not contain information on this topic. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017). AHRI responded that the length of a typical laboratory test is not long enough for there to be significant scale or fouling build-up; therefore, purge should not be necessary. (AHRI, EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 29) Section E8.4 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify that purge water settings shall be set per the manufacturer’s installation instructions, and also detail what purge rate to use in the case that the E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56428 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 manufacturer’s instructions do not provide sufficient guidance. In light of the provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, DOE understands that the purge water provisions in section E8.4 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft represent the prevailing industry consensus regarding the most appropriate and representative approach for testing these ECUACs. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that this provision would improve the repeatability of the test procedure by ensuring ECUACs are tested consistently with regards to purge water settings, particularly when the manufacturer’s instructions do not provide sufficient guidance. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions in section E8.4 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding purge water settings. e. Condenser Spray Pumps As discussed in the July 2017 RFI, the rate that water is sprayed on the condenser coil may have an impact on the performance of an ECUAC. 82 FR 34427, 34445 (July 25, 2017). For units with sumps, this rate may be affected by the pump set-up, and, for units without sumps, the incoming water pressure may have an impact. DOE noted that neither DOE’s current test procedures nor the industry test standards for ECUACs address these potential variations. Id. As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the pump flow can be adjusted on any ECUACs on the market that have circulation pumps. DOE also requested comment on whether ECUACs without a sump exist and, if so, whether there are requirements on the incoming water pressure to ensure proper operation of the spray nozzles. DOE also requested comment and data regarding the sensitivity of performance test results to these adjustments. Id. In response, AHRI indicated that it was not aware of any ECUACs with adjustable circulator pumps, but that if there are such units, they should be tested in accordance with the manufacturer’s certified supplemental test instructions. (AHRI, EERE–2017– BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 30) Subsequent to the July 2017 RFI, AHRI made relevant updates to AHRI 340/360. Section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and section XX of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft both generally state that units shall be installed per the manufacturer’s installation instructions, which would include condenser spray pump settings in the manufacturer’s supplemental test instructions. In the VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 case of conflicting information, section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft specify that priority shall be given to installation instructions on the unit’s label over installation instructions shipped with the unit. DOE believes that using manufacturer instructions provides a repeatable test set-up that is representative of the installation and operation of equipment in the field. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions in section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding installation of units per the manufacturer’s installation instructions. f. Additional Steps To Verify Proper Operation As discussed in the July 2017 RFI, some ECUACs may use spray nozzles with very small diameter openings that may become easily clogged, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the heat exchanger. DOE requested comment on whether there are any additional steps that should be taken to verify proper operation of ECUACs during testing, such as ensuring nozzles are not blocked. 82 FR 34427, 34445 (July 25, 2017). AHRI responded that additional steps, if any, should be outlined in the manufacturer’s supplemental test instructions. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018–0011 at p. 30) Section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft both generally state that units shall be installed per the manufacturer’s installation instructions, which would include additional steps to verify proper spray nozzle operation in the manufacturer’s supplemental test instructions. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions in section 5.2 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft regarding installation of units per the manufacturer’s installation instructions. H. General Comments Received in Response to the July 2017 TP RFI In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE received several general comments not specific to any one equipment category or test procedure provision. This section discusses those general comments received. NCI recommended that DOE follow the development of ASHRAE 221P, ‘‘Test Method to Measure and Score the Operating Performance of an Installed Constant Volume Unitary HVAC System,’’ and consider where it may be appropriately applied within EPCA test procedures. (NCI, EERE–2017–BT–TP– 0018–0004 at pp. 1–2) NCI stated that it PO 00000 Frm 00038 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 has collected data indicating that typical split systems and packaged units serving residential and small commercial buildings typically deliver 50 percent to 60 percent of the rated capacity to the occupied zone, thereby making laboratory tests unrepresentative of field performance. Id. As noted in section I.A, EPCA prescribes that if an industry testing procedure or rating procedure developed or recognized by industry (as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1) is amended, DOE must update 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)(A) and (B)) DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does not reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 221–2020, ‘‘Test Method to Field-Measure and Score the Cooling and Heating Performance of an Installed Unitary HVAC System’’ 29 (ASHRAE 221–2020) as the applicable test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. NCI also did not provide data on field performance or any correlations between field performance and laboratory test performance for CUACs and CUHPs for DOE to consider. Furthermore, ASHRAE 221–2020 does not provide a method to determine the efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. As discussed, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360– 2022, the most recently published version of the industry test procedure recognized by ASHRAE Standard 90.1 for CUACs and CUHPs, consistent with EPCA requirements. Additionally, DOE is proposing to incorporate the testing requirements and efficiency metric calculation method outlined in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet in appendix A1. The CA IOUs commented that while the July 2017 TP RFI expressed interest in reducing burden to manufacturers, DOE already took steps to reduce this burden by allowing alternative energy efficiency or energy use determination methods (AEDMs). (CA IOUs, EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018–0007 at pp. 1–2) The CA IOUs stated that there are no further opportunities to streamline test procedures to limit testing burden. Id. Additionally, the CA IOUs stressed the importance of accurate efficiency ratings for its incentive programs and for 29 Found online at webstore.ansi.org/Standards/ ASHRAE/ANSIASHRAEStandard2212020. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules customer knowledge, referencing the statutory provision that test procedures must produce results that are representative of the product’s energy efficiency. Id. Lennox stated that it generally supports DOE’s proposal to meet the statutory requirements for designing test procedures that measure energy efficiency during an average use cycle, but requested that DOE also consider overall impacts to consumers and manufacturers. (Lennox, EERE–2017– BT–TP–0018–0008 at pp. 1–2) Lennox stated that in commercial applications, predicting actual energy use from a single metric is difficult and that a metric better serves as a point of comparison rather than a measure of energy use. Id. Lennox suggested that DOE strike a balance between evaluating equipment in a meaningful way without introducing unwarranted regulatory burden from overly complex test procedures or calculations that provide little value to consumers. Id. In response to the CA IOUs and Lennox, DOE notes that its approach to test procedures is dictated by the requirements of EPCA. As discussed, EPCA prescribes that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment must be those generally accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or recognized by industry as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended, DOE must update 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 the 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) and (C)) In establishing or amending its test procedures, DOE must develop test procedures that are reasonably designed to produce test results reflecting energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of industrial equipment during a representative average use cycle and that are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(2)) DOE’s considerations of these requirements in relation to individual test method issues are discussed within the relevant sections of this NOPR. ASAP, ASE, et al. stated that there are a number of ambiguities in industry test procedures and that DOE should address these ambiguities in order to provide a level playing field for manufacturers and to ensure that any VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 verification or enforcement testing is consistent with manufacturers’ own testing. (ASAP, ASE, et al., EERE–2017– BT–TP–0018–0009 at p. 2) DOE notes that ASAP, ASE, et al. did not identify any specific test provisions that were the cause of their concern. In the context of the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs, DOE has evaluated the industry test standard in the context of the statutory criteria regarding representativeness of the measured energy efficiency and test burden. To the extent that existing provisions in the relevant industry test procedure may benefit from further detail, such provisions are discussed in the following sections of this document. I. Configuration of Unit Under Test 1. Summary CUACs and CUHPs are sold with a wide variety of components, including many that can optionally be installed on or within the unit both in the factory and in the field. The following sections address the required configuration of units under test. In all cases, these components are distributed in commerce with the CUAC and CUHP but can be packaged or shipped in different ways from the point of manufacture for ease of transportation. Each optional component may or may not affect a model’s measured efficiency when tested to the DOE test procedure proposed in this NOPR. For certain components not directly addressed in the DOE test procedure, this NOPR proposes more specific instructions on how each component should be handled for the purposes of making representations in 10 CFR part 429. Specifically, these proposed instructions would provide manufacturers with clarity on how components should be treated and how to group individual models with and without optional components for the purposes of representations to reduce burden. DOE is proposing these provisions in 10 CFR part 429 to allow for testing of certain individual models that can be used as a proxy to represent the performance of equipment with multiple combinations of components. In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to handle CUAC and CUHP components in two distinct ways to help manufacturers better understand their options for developing representations for their differing product offerings. First, DOE proposes that the treatment of certain components be specified by the test procedure, such that their impact on measured efficiency is limited. For example, a fresh air damper must be set in the closed position and sealed during PO 00000 Frm 00039 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56429 testing, resulting in a measured efficiency that would be similar or identical to the measured efficiency for a unit without a fresh air damper. Second, DOE is proposing provisions expressly allowing certain models to be grouped together for the purposes of making representations and allowing the performance of a model without certain optional components to be used as a proxy for models with any combinations of the specified components, even if such components would impact the measured efficiency of a model. A steam/hydronic coil is an example of such a component. The efficiency representation for a model with a steam/hydronic coil is based on the measured performance of the CUAC and CUHP as tested without the component installed because the steam/ hydronic coil is not easily removed from the CUAC and CUHP for testing.30 2. Background In 2013, ASRAC formed the Commercial HVAC Working Group to engage in a negotiated rulemaking effort regarding the certification of certain commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs. (See 78 FR 15653 (March 12, 2013)) This Commercial HVAC Working Group submitted a term sheet (Commercial HVAC Term Sheet) providing the Commercial HVAC Working Group’s recommendations. (See EERE–2013–BT–NOC–0023– 0052) 31 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 DOE 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 DOE testing. These features were listed under the heading 30 Note that in certain cases, as explained further in section III.I.3.b of this document, the representation may have to be based on an individual model with a steam/hydronic coil. 31 Available at www.regulations.gov/document/ EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 56430 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ‘‘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 DOE testing of commercial HVAC equipment. (See www.energy.gov/gc/downloads/ commercial-equipment-testingenforcement-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 that optional feature. (Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy 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. That is, each basic model includes a model either without the optional feature(s) listed in the policy or that is eligible for testing with the feature(s). Id. The features in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy for CUACs and CUHPs (Id. at pp. 1–3 and 5–6) align with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet’s list designated ‘‘Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy.’’ (EERE–2013–BT– NOC–0023–0052, pp. 9–15) By way of comparison, AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft include appendix D, ‘‘Unit Configuration for Standard Efficiency Determination—Normative.’’ Section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes a list of features that are optional for testing, and it 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 D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft. • For each optional feature, section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft includes explicit instructions on how to conduct testing for equipment with the optional feature present. The optional features provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340– 202X Draft are generally consistent with DOE’s Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, but the optional features in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 do not entirely align with the list of features included for CUACs and CUHPs in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy. DOE notes that the list of features and provisions in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340– 202X Draft conflate components that can be addressed by testing provisions with components 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. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that provisions more explicit than those included in section D3 of appendix D of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft are warranted to clarify treatment of models that include more than one optional component. 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 D of AHRI 340/360– 2022 or AHRI 1340–202X Draft and instead is proposing related provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1. 3. Proposed Approach for Exclusion of Certain Components DOE’s proposals for addressing treatment of certain components are discussed in the following sub-sections. Were DOE to adopt the provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1 as proposed, DOE would rescind the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy to the extent it is applicable to CUACs and CUHPs. Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on its proposals regarding specific components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1. a. Components Addressed Through Test Provisions of 10 CFR Part 431, Subpart F, Appendices A and A1 In 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1, DOE proposes test provisions for specific components, including all of the components listed in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft, for which there is a test procedure PO 00000 Frm 00040 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 action that limits the impacts on measured efficiency (i.e., test procedure provisions specific to the component that are not addressed by general provisions in AHRI 340/360–2022 or AHRI 1340–202X Draft that negate the component’s impact on performance). These provisions would specify how to test a unit with such a component (e.g., for a unit with hail guards, remove hail guards for testing). These proposed test provisions are consistent with the provision in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340– 202X Draft 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). Specifically, DOE is proposing to require in appendices A and A1 that steps be taken during unit set-up and testing to limit the impacts on the measurement of these components: • Air Economizers • Barometric Relief Dampers • Desiccant Dehumidification Components • Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air • Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers • Fresh Air Dampers • Hail Guards • High-Effectiveness Indoor Air Filtration • Power Correction Capacitors • Process Heat Recovery/Reclaim Coils/ Thermal Storage • Refrigerant Reheat Coils • Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils • UV Lights • Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems (VERS) The components are listed and described in Table 1 in section 4 of the amendments proposed for appendix A, and Table 1 in section 4 of the amendments proposed for appendix A1. Test provisions for the components are provided in the tables. b. Components Addressed Through Representation Provisions of 10 CFR 429.43 Consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions that explicitly allow representations for individual models with certain components to be based on testing for individual models without those components. DOE is proposing a table (Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43) at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) listing the components for which these provisions would apply. DOE is proposing the following components be listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43: E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules • Air Economizers • Desiccant Dehumidification Components • Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air • Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers • Indirect/Direct Evaporative Cooling of Ventilation Air • Non-Standard Ducted Condenser Fans • Non-Standard Indoor Fan Motors • Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans • Process Heat Recovery/Reclaim Coils/ Thermal Storage • Refrigerant Reheat Coils • Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators • Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils • Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems (VERS) In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to specify that the basic model representation must be based on the least efficient individual model that comprises a basic model, and clarifying how this long-standing basic model provision interacts with the proposed component treatment in 10 CFR 429.43. DOE believes that regulated entities may benefit from clarity in the regulatory text as to how the least efficient individual model within a basic model provision works in concert with the component treatment for CUACs and CUHPs. The amendments in this NOPR explicitly state that excluding the specified components from consideration in determining basic model efficiency in certain scenarios is an exception to basing representations on the least-efficient individual model within a basic model. In other words, the components listed in 10 CFR 429.43 are not being considered as part of the representation under DOE’s regulatory framework if certain conditions are met as discussed in the following paragraphs, and, thus, their impact on efficiency is not reflected in the representation. In this case, the basic model’s representation is generally determined by applying the testing and sampling provisions to the least efficient individual model in the basic model that does not have a component listed in 10 CFR 429.43. DOE is proposing clarifying instructions for instances when individual models within a basic model may have more than one of the specified components and there may be no individual model without any of the specified components. DOE is proposing the concept of an ‘‘otherwise comparable model group’’ (OCMG). An OCMG is a group of individual models within the basic model that do not differ in components that affect energy consumption as measured according to VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 the applicable test procedure other than the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 but may include individual models with any combination of such specified components. Therefore, a basic model can be composed of multiple OCMGs, each representing a unique combination of components that affect energy consumption as measured according to the applicable test procedure, other than the specified excluded components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43. For example, a manufacturer might include two tiers of control systems within the same basic model, in which one of the control systems has sophisticated diagnostics capabilities that require a more powerful control board with a higher wattage input. CUAC and CUHP individual models with the ‘‘standard’’ control system would be part of OCMG A, while individual models with the ‘‘premium’’ control system would be part of a different OCMG B, because the control system is not one of the specified exempt components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43. However, both OCMGs may include different combinations of specified exempt components. Also, both OCMGs may include any combination of characteristics that do not affect the efficiency measurement, such as paint color. An OCMG identifies which individual models are to be used to determine a represented value. Specifically, when identifying the individual model within an OCMG for the purpose of determining a representation for the basic model, only the individual model(s) with the least number (which could be zero) of the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 is considered. This clarifies which individual models are exempted from consideration for determination of represented values in the case of an OCMG with multiple specified components and no individual models with zero specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 (i.e., models with a number of specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 greater than the least number in the OCMG are exempted). In the case that the OCMG includes an individual model with no specific components listed in Table 1 to 10 CFR 429.43, then all individual models in the OCMG with specified components would be exempted from consideration. The least efficient individual model across the OCMGs within a basic model would be used to determine the representation of the basic model. In the case where there are multiple individual models within a PO 00000 Frm 00041 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56431 single OCMG with the same non-zero least number of specified components, the least efficient of these would be considered. DOE relies on the term ‘‘comparable’’ as opposed to ‘‘identical’’ to indicate that, for the purpose of representations, the components that impact energy consumption as measured by the applicable test procedure are the relevant components to consider. In other words, differences that do not impact energy consumption, such as unit color and presence of utility outlets, would not warrant separate OCMGs. The use of the OCMG concept results in the represented values of performance that are representative of the individual model(s) with the lowest efficiency found within the basic model, excluding certain individual models with the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43. Specifically with regard to basic models of CUACs and CUHPs distributed in commerce with multiple different heating capacities of furnaces, the individual model with the lowest efficiency found within the basic model (with the aforementioned exception) would likely include the furnace with the highest offered heating capacity. Additionally, selection of the individual model with the lowest efficiency within the basic model would be required to consider all options for factory-installed components and manufacturer-supplied fieldinstalled components (e.g., electric resistance supplementary heat), excluding the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43. If manufacturers were to want to represent more efficient models within the same group, they would be able to establish those units as new basic models and test and report the results accordingly. Further, the approach, as proposed, is structured to more explicitly address individual models with more than one of the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43, as well as instances in which there is no comparable model without any of the specified components. DOE developed a document of examples to illustrate the approach proposed in this NOPR for determining represented values for CUACs and CUHPs with specific components, and in particular the OCMG concept (see EERE–2023–BT– TP–0014). DOE’s proposed provisions in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) include each of the components specified in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 for which the test provisions for a unit with these components may result in differences in ratings compared to E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56432 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules testing a unit without these components. Non-standard indoor fan motors and coated coils are discussed in the following sub-sections. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 (1) High-Static Non-Standard Indoor Fan Motors The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy includes high-static indoor blowers or oversized motors as an optional feature for CUACs and CUHPs, among other equipment. The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy states that when selecting a unit of a basic model for DOE-initiated testing, if the basic model includes a variety of high-static indoor blowers or oversized motor options,32 DOE will test a unit that has a standard indoor fan assembly (as described in the STI that is part of the manufacturer’s certification, including information about the standard motor and associated drive that was used in determining the certified rating). This policy only applies where: (a) the manufacturer distributes in commerce a model within the basic model with the standard indoor fan assembly (i.e., standard motor and drive), and (b) all models in the basic model have a motor with the same or better relative efficiency performance as the standard motor included in the test unit, as described in a separate guidance document discussed subsequently. If the manufacturer does not offer models with the standard motor identified in the STI or offers models with high-static motors that do not comply with the comparable efficiency guidance, DOE will test any indoor fan assembly offered for sale by the manufacturer. DOE subsequently issued a draft guidance document (Draft Commercial HVAC Guidance Document) on June 29, 2015 to request comment on a method for comparing the efficiencies of a standard motor and a high-static indoor blower/oversized motor.33 As presented in the Draft Commercial HVAC Guidance Document, the relative efficiency of an indoor fan motor would be determined by comparing the percent losses of the standard indoor fan motor to the percent losses of the non-standard (oversized) indoor fan motor. The percent losses would be determined by comparing each motor’s wattage losses 32 The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy defines ‘‘high static indoors blower or oversized motor’’ as an indoor fan assembly, including a motor, that drives the fan and can deliver higher external static pressure than the standard indoor fan assembly sold with the equipment. (See www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/04/f62/ Enforcement_Policy-Commercial_HVAC.pdf at p.6) 33 Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/ appliance_standards/pdfs/draft-commercial-hvacmotor-faq-2015-06-29.pdf. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 to the wattage losses of a corresponding reference motor. Additionally, the draft method contains a table that includes a number of situations with different combinations of characteristics of the standard motor and oversized motor (e.g., whether each motor is subject to Federal standards for motors; whether each motor can be tested to the Federal test procedure for motors; whether each motor horsepower is less than 1 and specifies for each combination whether the non-standard fan enforcement policy would apply (i.e., whether DOE would not test a model with an oversized motor, as long as the relative efficiency of the oversized motor is at least as good as performance of the standard motor)). DOE has not issued a final guidance document and is instead addressing the issue for CUACs and CUHPs in this test procedure rulemaking. The current Federal test procedure does not address this issue. Section D4.1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft provide an approach for including an individual model with a non-standard indoor fan motor as part of the same basic model as an individual model with a standard indoor fan motor. Under the approach in section D4.1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft, the non-standard indoor fan motor efficiency must exceed the minimum value calculated using equation D1 in appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft. This minimum non-standard motor efficiency calculation is dependent on the efficiency of the standard fan motor and the reference efficiencies (determined per Table D1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft) of the standard and non-standard fan motors. Section D4.2 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft contain a method for how to compare performance for integrated fans and motors (IFMs). Because the fan motor in an IFM is not separately rated from the fan, this method compares the performance of the entire fan-motor assemblies for the standard and nonstandard IFMs, rather than just the fan motors. This approach enables comparing relative performance of standard and non-standard IFMs, for which motor efficiencies could otherwise not be compared using the method specified in section D4.1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 or AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Specifically, this method determines the ratio of the input power of the non-standard IFM to the input power of the standard IFM at the same duty point as defined in PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 section D4.2 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft (i.e., operating at the maximum ESP for the standard IFM at the rated airflow). If the input power ratio does not exceed the maximum ratio specified in Table D3 of appendix D of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft, the individual model with the nonstandard IFM may be included within the same basic model as the individual model with the standard IFM. Section D4.2 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft allow these calculations to be conducted using either test data or simulated performance data. The approaches in section D4 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft for high-static non-standard indoor fan motors and non-standard indoor IFMs generally align with the approaches of the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet, the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, and the Draft Commercial HVAC Guidance Document, while providing greater detail and accommodating a wider range of fan motor options. For the reasons presented in the preceding paragraphs, DOE proposes to adopt in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 the provisions for comparing performance of standard and high-static non-standard indoor fan motors/IFMs in section D4 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft 34 for the determination of the represented efficiency value for CUACs and CUHPs at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3). Were DOE to adopt the provisions of section D4 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340–202X Draft as proposed, the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy and draft guidance document, to the extent applicable to indoor fan motors for CUACs and CUHPs, would no longer apply. (2) Coated Coils DOE is proposing to exclude coated coils from the specific components list specified in 10 CFR 429.43 because DOE has tentatively concluded that the presence of coated coils does not result in a significant impact to performance of CUACs and CUHPs, and, therefore, models with coated coils should be rated based on performance of models with coated coils present (rather than 34 Per DOE’s existing certification regulations, if a manufacturer were to use the proposed approach to certify a basic model, the manufacturer would be required to maintain documentation of how the relative efficiencies of the standard and nonstandard fan motors or the input powers of the standard and non-standard IFMs were determined, as well as the supporting calculations. See 10 CFR 429.71. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules based on performance of an individual model within an OCMG without coated coils). c. Enforcement Provisions of 10 CFR 429.134 Consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions in 10 CFR 429.134(g)(2) regarding how DOE would assess compliance for basic models of CUACs and CUHPs that include individual models distributed in commerce if DOE cannot obtain for testing individual models without certain components consistent with the model that served as the basis of representation. Specifically, DOE proposes that if a basic model includes individual models with components listed at Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 and DOE is not able to obtain an individual model with the least number of those components within an OCMG (as defined in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A)(1) and discussed in section III.I.3.b of this NOPR), DOE may test any individual model within the OCMG. d. Testing Specially Built Units That Are Not Distributed in Commerce Unlike section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360–2022 and AHRI 1340– 202X Draft, DOE’s Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy does not allow a manufacturer to test a model that is specially built for testing without a feature if models without that feature are not actually distributed in commerce. Because testing such specially built models would not provide ratings representative of equipment distributed in commerce, DOE has tentatively concluded that this approach is not appropriate. Therefore, consistent with the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is not proposing to allow testing of specially built units in its representation and enforcement provisions. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 J. Represented Values In the following sections, DOE discusses requirements regarding represented values. To the extent DOE is proposing changes to the requirements specified in 10 CFR 429 regarding representations of CUACs and CUHPs, such amendments to 10 CFR part 429, if made final, would be required starting 360 days after publication in the Federal Register of the test procedure final rule. Prior to 360 days after publication in the Federal Register of the test procedure final rule, the current requirements would apply. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 1. Cooling Capacity For CUACs and CUHPs, cooling capacity determines equipment class, which in turn determines the applicable energy conservation standard. 10 CFR 431.97. Cooling capacity also dictates the minimum ESP test condition applicable under Table 7 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 (i.e., larger capacity units are required to be tested at higher ESPs), which in turn affects the performance of the unit. Cooling capacity is a required represented value for all CUACs and CUHPs, but the requirements currently specified in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(1)(iv) regarding how the represented value of cooling capacity is determined only apply to ACUACs and ACUHPs. DOE proposes to the make certain modifications to these provisions and expand the applicability of these provisions as amended to all of the CUACs and CUHPs that are the subject of this NOPR. DOE proposes that the represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 and 100 percent of the mean of the total cooling capacities measured for the units in the sample. DOE also proposes to require for units where the represented value is determined through an AEDM that the represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 and 100 percent of the total cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM. Additionally, DOE proposes to remove the existing requirement in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(1)(iv) that the represented value of cooling capacity correspond to the nearest appropriate Btu/h multiple according to Table 4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360–2007 in order to allow manufacturers flexibility in certifying a rated value that provides a representation of cooling capacity that may be more meaningful for commercial consumers. DOE currently outlines productspecific enforcement provisions at 10 CFR 429.134(g) for ACUACs and ACUHPs, specifically that the mean of cooling capacity measurements will be used to determine the applicable standards (which depend on cooling capacity) for purposes of compliance. First, DOE proposes to expand the scope of this requirement to include ECUACs and WCUACs. Second, DOE proposes for all CUACs and CUHPs that are the subject of this NOPR that if the mean of the cooling capacity measurements exceeds by more than 5 percent the cooling capacity certified by the manufacturer, the mean of the measurement(s) will be used to select the applicable minimum ESP test condition from Table 7 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 in appendix A or from Table PO 00000 Frm 00043 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56433 5 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1. These proposals would ensure the rated capacity is representative of the unit’s performance, that the unit is being tested to the appropriate ESP, and that the unit is being evaluated against the appropriate standard. The proposals would allow manufacturers to conservatively rate capacity if the manufacturer deemed such conservative rating necessary to ensure that equipment is capable of performing at the cooling capacity for which it is represented to consumers. This flexibility was requested by manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs as summarized in a test procedure final rule published on December 23, 2015. 80 FR 79655, 79662–79663. In addition to the flexibility these proposals would provide to manufacturers, DOE has also tentatively determined that they would ensure enforcement testing is based on representative cooling capacities. Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity. In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, the CA IOUs expressed concern that manufacturers are marketing equipment using the ‘‘nominal capacity’’ while rating it to a potentially substantially different ‘‘rated capacity’’ for compliance with DOE energy conservation standards. (CA IOUs, EERE–2022–BT–STD–0015–0012 at p. 5) The CA IOUs included an example of a 40-ton CUAC with a nominal capacity of 40 tons and 480,000 Btu/h, but was only rated at 35.4 tons and 425,000 Btu/ h. Id. The CA IOUs recommended that DOE address this potential issue, and suggested that DOE should require nominal and rated capacity to align within a certain percentage. Id. The CA IOUs included an example of AHRI Standard 1230–2014, an older edition of the VRF test procedure which had a requirement that the nominal capacity not be greater than 105 percent of the rated capacity. Id. DOE surmises that there is benefit in allowing manufacturers to group capacities nominally, such that some rounding of capacity values may be involved. DOE has not found sufficient evidence that any differences between nominal and rated capacity are problematic for consumers of this equipment, and notes that product literature provides specific ratings for each unit and is publicly accessible. Additionally, DOE notes that the CA IOUs were involved in the Working Group meetings, and that no mention of the issue between nominal and rated capacity was included in the ACUAC E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56434 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE does not have sufficient evidence to warrant any changes regarding this issue; therefore, DOE is not proposing any provisions regarding nominal capacity of CUACs and CUHPs. 2. Single-Zone Variable-Air-Volume and Multi-Zone Variable-Air-Volume AHRI 340/360–2015 added definitions and test provisions for SZVAV and MZVAV equipment. Specifically, AHRI 340/360–2015 (and the subsequent editions of AHRI 340/ 360) defines MZVAV units as those designed to vary the indoor air volume and refrigeration capacity/staging at a controlled discharge air temperature and static pressure as a means of providing space temperature control to independent multiple spaces with independent thermostats. AHRI 340/ 360–2015 (and the subsequent editions of AHRI 340/360) defines SZVAV units as those with a control system designed to vary the indoor air volume and refrigeration capacity/staging as a means to provide zone control to a single or common zones. The SZVAV definition further provides that the capacity, as well as the supply air shall be controlled either through modulation, discrete steps or combinations of modulation and step control based on the defined control logic. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a CUAC model that could operate as both a SZVAV unit and a MZVAV unit should be tested both ways, representing two separate basic models. If tested as one basic model, DOE requested information regarding how to determine which of the two test methods would apply. DOE also requested comment on whether status as a proportionally controlled unit would be the appropriate indication of whether a CUAC can be used as a MZVAV unit, or whether some other characteristics regarding variable capacity control would have to be satisfied. 82 FR 34427, 34443. Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox indicated that SZVAV and MZVAV models should be certified as different basic models. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT– TP–0018–0006 at p. 14; Goodman, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0014 at p. 5; Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 5) Lennox also stated that it has different model numbers for the two product types characterizing SZVAV and MZVAV models. (Lennox, EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 5) Carrier stated that typically a MZVAV model has fully variable speed fans and more stages of capacity than a SZVAV model. (Carrier, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0006 at p. 14) Goodman commented that VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 SZVAV and MZVAV models are capable of having different ratings based on control strategy. (Goodman, EERE– 2017–BT–TP–0018–0014 at p. 5) Lennox also stated that SZVAV and MZVAV models have different control algorithms and performance ratings. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018– 0008 at p. 5) AHRI stated that while some models are built to be specifically SZVAV or MZVAV units, other models can operate as both. AHRI further commented that if a unit can operate as both, it is possible for the IEER to be slightly different in each configuration. AHRI also stated that it is important to follow the STI when performing the test. (AHRI, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0011 at p. 27) AHRI 340/360–2022 includes definitions for SZVAV and MZVAV that align with AHRI 340/360–2015, and includes revised provisions for setting airflow for SZVAV and MZVAV equipment. However, Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies that for determining the IVEC and IVHE metrics there would be no separate test provisions for MZVAV units. Consistent with the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, AHRI 1340–202X Draft does not specify separate test provisions for testing MZVAV units— instead the provisions for setting airflow apply for all units, including those classified as MZVAV units in AHRI 340/ 360–2015 and AHRI 340/360–2022. As discussed, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360– 2022 for determining the current metrics for CUACs and CUHPs in appendix A, and to adopt the AHRI 1340–202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1. DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed test procedure in appendix A (referencing AHRI 340/360–2022) is sufficient for determining ratings for SZVAV and MZVAV equipment, and because provisions for MZVAV equipment are not included in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, DOE has tentatively determined that additional provisions for determining represented values for SZVAV and MZVAV equipment are not warranted for appendix A1. 3. Confidence Limit In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Lennox recommended that DOE harmonize the certification criteria in 10 CFR 429.43 applicable to commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, with that for central air conditioners, a consumer product, in 10 CFR 429.16. In particular, Lennox stated that commercial equipment currently has a PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 more stringent confidence limit of 95 percent (as compared to 90 percent for residential CACs) and stated that current testing technology does not support this level of precision. (Lennox, EERE–2017–BT–TP–0018–0008 at p. 6) Other manufacturers did not raise concerns regarding the confidence limit required for sampling commercial package air conditioners and heat pumps (including CUACs and CUHPs). DOE also notes that Lennox did not provide any data to support its view regarding the alleged variability of units in production and testing to support a difference confidence limit. Absent such data, DOE is unable to determine whether the more stringent confidence level for commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning equipment presents an actual problem. Consequently, DOE is not proposing a change to its confidence level at this time.35 4. AEDM Tolerance for IVEC and IVHE As discussed previously, DOE’s existing testing regulations allow the use of an AEDM, in lieu of testing, to simulate the efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. 10 CFR 429.43(a). For models certified with an AEDM, results from DOE verification tests are subject to certain tolerances when compared to certified ratings. In Table 2 to paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(B) at 10 CFR 429.70, DOE is proposing to specify a tolerance of 10 percent for CUAC and CUHP verification tests for IVEC and IVHE. This is identical to the current tolerance specified for IEER (for ACUACs and ACUHPs) and for integrated metrics for other categories of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps (e.g., integrated seasonal coefficient of performance 2 and integrated seasonal moisture removal efficiency 2 for DX– DOASes). DOE is also proposing to specify a tolerance of 5 percent for CUAC and CUHP verification testing for the optional EER2 and COP2 metrics. This is identical to the current tolerances specified for EER and COP for CUACs and CUHPs. 5. Minimum Part-Load Airflow As previously discussed in sections III.F.1.d, III.F.4, and III.F.5, the IVEC and IVHE metrics account for energy consumed (specifically that of the indoor fan) in mechanical cooling and heating as well as modes other than mechanical cooling and heating (e.g., 35 DOE notes that it has previously requested data regarding the variability of units in production and testing to enable DOE to review and make any necessary adjustments to the specified confidence levels. 80 FR 79655, 79659. DOE did not receive any relevant data in response to that request. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules economizer-only cooling, cooling season ventilation, heating season ventilation). IVEC and IVHE do not include separate tests or airflow rates for ventilation hours or economizer-only cooling (only applicable to IVEC). For example, for the economizer-only cooling hours in the D bin, the indoor fan power measured when operating at the lowest manufacturer-specified part-load airflow for a given load bin is applied for economizer-only cooling hours in that bin. Section 6.2.7 of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft requires that the lowest indoor fan power measured for all cooling or heating tests is applied for cooling-season ventilation hours in IVEC and heating-season ventilation hours in IVHE. Therefore, considering mechanical cooling and heating as well as other operating modes (economizeronly cooling, ventilation), the indoor fan power measured at the lowest manufacturer-specified part-load cooling and heating airflow rates represents a significant fraction of the power included in the IVEC and IVHE metrics (i.e., indoor fan power measured at these airflow rates is weighted by a significant number of hours), and differences in the lowest manufacturerspecified part-load airflow can significantly impact IVEC and IVHE ratings. Based on examination of publiclyavailable product literature, DOE understands that many basic models of a CUAC or CUHP have controls that allow for modulation of the minimum airflow used across a wide range of airflow turndown. DOE’s research suggests that many models are distributed in commerce with an ‘‘asshipped’’ minimum airflow and/or a default minimum airflow setting recommended in manufacturer installation instructions. However, in many cases DOE observed that the unit controls allow the installer to change this minimum airflow setting during installation to reflect any constraints specific to a particular installation. DOE understands that such constraints may include the duct distribution system, the thermostat the CUAC or CUHP is paired with, and the minimum ventilation rate for the conditioned space served by the CUAC or CUHP. To ensure that IVEC and IVHE ratings reflect indoor fan power that is generally representative of airflow rates that would be used in the field for a given basic model, DOE considered two options for requirements related to minimum part-load airflow used for representations of IVEC and IVHE: 1. Representations of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as applicable) must be based on setting the lowest stage of VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 airflow to the highest part-load airflow allowable by the basic model’s system controls. For example, if fan control settings for a basic model allow its lowest stage of airflow to range from 40 to 60 percent, the basic model would need to be represented based on the lowest stage of airflow set to 60 percent of the full-load airflow. 2. Representations of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as applicable) must be determined using minimum part-load airflow that is no lower than the highest of the following: (1) the minimum partload airflow obtained using the asshipped system control settings; (2) the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system control settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions (as applicable); and (3) the minimum airflow rate specified in Section 5.18.2 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE has tentatively concluded that option 1, which requires representations based on the highest minimum part-load airflow allowable by system controls, may result in unrepresentatively high airflow rates in cases in which a basic model allows configuration of minimum airflow to a very high percentage to accommodate a small fraction of installations in which minimum partload airflow must be high (e.g., in applications with very high minimum ventilation rates). In this NOPR, DOE is proposing option 2 as the default settings or as-shipped settings would provide IVEC and IVHE ratings representative of how the basic model is most typically installed in field applications. However, DOE welcomes comment on the approach laid out in option 1 or other alternative approaches not listed here. As discussed, DOE is not proposing amendments to certification requirements for CUACs and CUHPs in this rulemaking, but DOE may consider such amendments in a separate rulemaking for certification, compliance, and enforcement. As part of that rulemaking, DOE may consider certification requirements pertaining to this minimum airflow issue, such as requiring certification of the range of minimum part-load airflow allowed by system controls for each basic model. Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that a basic model’s representation(s) of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as applicable) must be determined using a minimum partload airflow that is no lower than the highest of the following: (1) the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the as-shipped system control settings; (2) the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56435 system control settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions (as applicable); and (3) the minimum airflow rate specified in section 5.18.2 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE also seeks feedback on the alternate option listed or any alternate options not listed that would ensure representations of IVEC and IVHE are based on minimum part-load airflow that is representative of field installations. K. Enforcement Procedure for Verifying Cut-In and Cut-Out Temperatures Recommendation #10 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet states that DOE will adopt product-specific enforcement provisions for ACUHPs that include a method to verify certified cut-out and cut-in temperatures based on the test method outlined in the Residential Cold-Climate Heat Pump Technology Challenge (‘‘CCHP Challenge’’).36 Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to adopt a method for verifying certified cut-out and cut-in temperatures at 10 CFR 429.134(g) consistent with Recommendation #10 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Specifically, consistent with the CCHP Challenge method and the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, the proposed method involves gradually ramping down outdoor air temperature until the unit cuts out and gradually ramping back up outdoor air temperature until the cuts back on, with the temperature ramp-up and ramp-down conducted at 1.0 °F every 5 minutes. DOE will address certification requirements for CUACs and CUHPs, including the potential requirement for certification of cut-out and cut-in temperatures, in a separate rulemaking for certification, compliance, and enforcement. L. Proposed Organization of the Regulatory Text for CUACs and CUHPs In addition to the substantive changes discussed previously in this document, DOE proposes to make organizational changes to Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96(b) and Tables 1 through 6 to 10 CFR 431.97. These proposed changes are not substantive and are intended to reflect terminology changes proposed in this document and to improve the overall readability of the tables. Specifically, in Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 (regarding test procedures for commercial air conditioners and heat pumps), DOE proposes to revise terminology to reflect the proposed definition for commercial unitary air conditioners with a rated 36 See www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/202110/bto-cchp-tech-challenge-spec-102521.pdf. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56436 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (CUACs) and commercial unitary heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (CUHPs), discussed further in section III.B.1 of this NOPR. Tables 1 through 6 to 10 CFR 431.97 currently specify cooling and heating standards for CUACs, CUHPs and water-source heat pumps (WSHPs). DOE proposes to revise terminology to reflect the proposed definition for CUACs and CUHPs, remove outdated standards no longer in effect, combine cooling and heating standards into the same tables, and create separate tables for standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs (in Table 1), WCUACs (in Table 2), ECUACs (in Table 3), double-duct systems (in Table 4), and WSHPs (in Table 5). In the proposed regulatory text, Tables 1 and 2 to 10 CFR 431.97 would specify cooling and heating standards, respectively, for ACUACs and ACUHPs with cooling capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h (other than double-duct systems), ECUACs, and WCUACs; Tables 3 and 4 to 10 CFR 431.97 would specify cooling and heating standards, respectively, for WSHPs; and Tables 5 and 6 to 10 CFR 431.97 would specify cooling and heating standards, respectively, for double-duct systems. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 M. Compliance Date EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) To the extent the modified test procedure proposed in this document is required only for the evaluation and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of the modified test procedure, if finalized, would not be required until the compliance date of updated energy conversation standards. 10 CFR part 430, subpart C, appendix A, section 8(e); 10 CFR 431.4. N. Test Procedure Costs and Impact EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes CUACs and CUHPs, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 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)) As discussed, DOE is proposing to revise the existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (consolidating for ACUACs and ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs) at appendix A and to adopt an amended test procedure at appendix A1. These proposals are discussed in the following sub-sections. DOE also proposes to amend its representation and enforcement provisions for CUACs and CUHPs. 1. Appendix A In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing Federal test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (including doubleduct systems), which is currently located at appendix A for ACUACs and ACUHPs and 10 CFR 431.96 for ECUACs and WCUACs. Specifically, DOE proposes to consolidate the test procedures for ACUACs and ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs at appendix A and to update the test procedure to incorporate by reference an updated version of the applicable industry test method, AHRI 340/360–2022. The proposed revisions to appendix A would retain the current efficiency metrics—EER, IEER, and COP. The proposed testing requirements in appendix A are generally consistent with those in AHRI 340/360–2022, which in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to appendix A would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and reproducibility of the test results and would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct or result in increased testing cost as compared to the current test procedure. The proposed revisions to the test procedure in appendix A for measuring EER, IEER, and COP per AHRI 340/360–2022 would not increase third-party laboratory testing costs per unit relative to the current DOE test procedure. DOE estimates the current costs of physical testing to the current required metrics to be $10,500 for ACUACs, $12,000 for ACUHPs, $6,800 for double-duct air conditioners, $8,500 for double-duct heat pumps, and $6,800 for ECUACs and WCUACs. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed revisions to the test procedure in appendix A would not change efficiency ratings for CUACs and CUHPs, and PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 therefore would not require retesting solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of this proposed amendment to the DOE test procedure, if made final.37 2. Appendix A1 DOE is proposing to amend the existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (including double-duct equipment) by adopting a new appendix A1 that utilizes the most recent draft version of the applicable industry consensus test procedure, AHRI 1340– 202X Draft, including the IVEC and IVHE energy efficiency metrics. To the extent that AHRI 1340 is finalized consistent with the draft standard, DOE intends to incorporate the industry test standard by reference. If there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions of AHRI 1340, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment. Should DOE adopt standards in a future energy conservation standards rulemaking in terms of the new metrics, the proposed test procedure in appendix A1 (which DOE proposes to be substantively the same as AHRI 1340– 202X Draft) would be required. DOE has tentatively determined that these proposed amendments would be representative of an average use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers to conduct. The proposed test procedure in appendix A1 would lead to an increase in test cost from the current Federal test procedure, as discussed in the following paragraphs. The following paragraphs include estimates for increases in cost of testing at a third-party laboratory. The change in ESP requirements discussed in section III.F.4 that apply to measuring the IVEC and IVHE metrics would require additional test setup that DOE expects would increase test costs. DOE has tentatively concluded that metal ductwork would need to be fabricated for testing to withstand the higher ESP requirements (as compared to foamboard ductwork typically used for testing to the current test procedure). DOE estimates a test cost increase ranging from $500 to $1500 per unit, depending on the unit size/cooling capacity, associated with this transition 37 Manufacturers are not required to perform laboratory testing on all basic models. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, CUAC and CUHP 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 to reduce the burden and cost associated with testing. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules to metal ductwork. To meet the return/ supply duct ESP requirement, DOE estimates an increase of $200 per unit for the time required to apply return duct restrictions. In combination, DOE estimates a total test cost increase of between $700 and $1700 per unit to meet the proposed ESP requirements. For determining IVEC, DOE has tentatively concluded that there would not be an increase in testing cost as compared to measuring IEER per the current Federal test procedure, beyond the costs associated with the proposed ESP requirements discussed previously. For determining IVHE, there are two required heating tests and several additional optional heating tests. The required heating tests are full-load tests at 47 °F and 17 °F. The full-load test at 47 °F is already required for the current Federal test procedure for determining COP. The full-load test at 17 °F which is currently required for the AHRI certification program. Because most CUHP manufacturers are AHRI members and participate in the AHRI certification program, DOE expects that that the required heating tests for IVHE would not increase test cost as compared to testing that is typically already conducted, beyond the costs associated with the proposed ESP requirements discussed previously. Optional heating tests for CUHPs would increase the cost of heating testing if conducted. The optional tests for IVHE are outlined in section III.F.5 of this NOPR, which include: (1) an additional full-load test at 5 °F; (2) partload tests at 17 °F and 47 °F (including up to 2 part-load tests at each temperature); and (3) for variable-speed units, boost tests at 17 °F and 5 °F. DOE estimates that each optional test conducted would increase the cost of heating testing by $2,000 to $4,000 depending on the test condition. For ECUACs, WCUACs, and doubleduct systems, the current Federal test procedure requires testing to EER for cooling tests—testing to IEER is not currently required for ECUACs, WCUACs, or double-duct systems. 56437 Because measuring EER requires only a single test, DOE expects that measuring IVEC for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems would increase the cost of cooling testing. Specifically, DOE estimates the cost of additional cooling tests to be $3,700 per unit. Further, the previously discussed costs associated with the proposed indoor air ESP requirements ($700 to $1,700 depending on unit size) would also apply to ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems. In addition, for double-duct systems DOE expects that testing to appendix A1 would require an additional $2000 per unit for setup to meet the proposed non-zero outdoor air ESP requirement. Otherwise, DOE expects similar test burden for determining IVHE for double-duct systems as for determining IVHE for conventional ACUHPs as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Table III.6 shows DOE’s estimates for testing to the current Federal test procedure and the proposed test procedure in appendix A1. TABLE III.5—TEST COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE IN APPENDIX A1 Test cost for current federal test procedure Equipment type ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 ACUACs .................................................. ACUHPs .................................................. Double-duct air conditioners ................... Double-duct heat pumps ......................... ECUACs and WCUACs .......................... $10,500 12,000 6,800 8,300 6,800 DOE has tentatively concluded that that the potential adoption of standards denominated in terms of IVEC and IVHE (and corresponding requirement to use the proposed test procedure in appendix A1) would alter the measured energy efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. Consequently, manufacturers would not be able to rely on data generated under the current test procedure and would therefore be required to re-rate CUAC and CUHP models. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, CUAC and CUHP manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs to rate models, which significantly reduces costs to industry. DOE estimates the cost to develop and validate an AEDM for determining IVEC (and IVHE as applicable) for CUACs and CUHPs (including double-duct systems) to be $19,000 per AEDM. Once the AEDM is developed, DOE estimates that it would take 1 hour of an engineer’s time (calculated based upon an engineering technician wage of $41 per hour) to determine efficiency for each basic model using the AEDM. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Test cost for proposed test procedure in appendix A1 $11,200–$12,200. $12,700–$13,700 (plus $2,000–$4,000 per optional heating test). $13,200–$14,200. $14,700–$15,700 (plus $2,000–$4,000 per optional heating test). $11,200–$12,200. Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its tentative understanding of the impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, particularly regarding DOE’s initial estimates of the cost impacts associated with the proposed appendix A1. IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094 Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review,’’ 58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,’’ 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, ‘‘Modernizing Regulatory Review,’’ 88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor regulations to impose the least burden on society, PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the Office of E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56438 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such techniques may include identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is consistent with these principles. Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit ‘‘significant regulatory actions’’ to OIRA for review. OIRA has determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under E.O. 12866. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 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 under the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 19, 2003. The following sections detail DOE’s IRFA for this test procedure proposed rulemaking. 1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for aircooled unitary air conditioners (ACUACs) and air-cooled unitary heat pumps (ACUHPs) with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, as well as evaporatively-cooled commercial package air conditioners (ECUACs) and water-cooled commercial package air conditioners (WCUACs) of all capacities (referred to collectively as CUACs and CUHPs) to reflect updates to the relevant industry test standard. DOE is proposing amendments to the test VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 procedures for CUACs and CUHPs to satisfy its statutory requirements under EPCA to remain consistent with updates to the applicable industry test procedure and to re-evaluate its test procedures at least once every 7 years. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A) and (B); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)) 2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule EPCA, as amended, requires that the test procedures for commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes CUACs and CUHPs, 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)) EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven years, DOE evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs, 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)) DOE is publishing this NOPR proposing amendments to the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs in satisfaction of the aforementioned obligations under EPCA. 3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated For manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs, the Small Business Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those entities classified as ‘‘small businesses’’ for the purposes of the statute. DOE used the SBA’s small business size standards to determine whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The equipment covered by this rule is classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 code 333415,38 ‘‘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. 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. DOE utilized DOE’s Compliance Certification Database (CCD) 39 and manufacturer websites to identify potential small businesses that manufacture CUACs and CUHPs covered by this rulemaking. DOE identified 18 companies that are original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of CUACs and CUHPs covered by this rulemaking. Next, DOE screened out companies that do not meet the definition of a ‘‘small business’’ or are foreign-owned and operated. Ultimately, DOE identified three small, domestic OEMs for consideration. All three companies are AHRI members. DOE used subscription-based business information tools (e.g., reports from Dun & Bradstreet 40) to determine headcount and revenue of the small business. Issue 9: DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs of CUACs and CUHPs. 4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to revise the existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (consolidating for ACUACs and ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs) at appendix A of subpart F of part 431 (appendix A) by adopting sections of AHRI 340/360–2022. DOE is also proposing an amended test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs at appendix A1 to subpart F of part 431 (appendix A1) that adopts the draft industry test standard AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Additionally, this NOPR seeks to amend representation and enforcement provisions for CUACs and CUHPs in 10 CFR part 429 and certain definitions for CUACs and CUHPs in 10 CFR part 431. Specific cost and compliance associated with each proposed appendix are discussed in the subsections that follow. 38 The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-sizestandards (Last accessed Apr. 4, 2023). 39 Certified equipment in the CCD is listed by equipment class and can be accessed at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/ #q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed Apr. 4, 2023). 40 Market research is available through the Dun & Bradstreet Hoovers login page at: app.dnbhoovers.com (Last accessed April 3, 2023). E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules a. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A In appendix A, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (relocated to appendix A for ECUACs and WCUACs, for which the current test procedure is located at 10 CFR 431.96) by incorporating by reference an updated version of the applicable industry test method, AHRI 340/360–2022, which includes the energy efficiency metrics IEER (required metric for ACUACs and ACUHPs), EER (required metric for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems), and COP (required metric for ACUHPs and double-duct heat pumps) and maintaining an existing reference to industry test method ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. The proposed test procedure at appendix A would not change efficiency ratings as compared to the current Federal test procedure, and therefore would not require retesting nor increase third-party laboratory testing costs per unit solely as a result of DOE’s adoption of this proposed amendment to the test procedure, if made final. DOE estimates the current costs of physical testing to the current required metrics to be: $10,500 for ACUACs; $12,000 for ACUHPs; $6,800 for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct air conditioners; and $8,300 for doubleduct heat pumps. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, CUAC and CUHP manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs to rate models which significantly reduces costs to industry. b. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A1 In appendix A1, DOE is proposing to adopt the test conditions and procedures in AHRI 1340–202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. The proposed test procedure in appendix A1 includes provisions for measuring CUAC and CUHP energy efficiency using the IVEC and IVHE metrics to be consistent with the updated draft industry test procedure. Should DOE adopt amended energy conservation standards in the future denominated in terms of IVEC and IVHE, the Department expects there would be an increase in third-partly lab testing cost relative to the current Federal test procedure, outlined in the following paragraphs: The proposed change in external static pressure (ESP) requirements discussed that apply to measuring the IVEC and IVHE metrics would require additional test setup that DOE expects would increase test costs. DOE has tentatively concluded that metal ductwork would need to be fabricated for testing to withstand the higher ESP requirements (as compared to foamboard ductwork typically used for testing to the current test procedure). DOE estimates a test cost increase ranging from $500 to $1500 per unit, depending on the unit size/cooling capacity, associated with this transition to metal ductwork. To meet the proposed requirement regarding split of ESP between return and supply ductwork, DOE estimates an increase of $200 per unit for the time required to apply return duct restrictions. In combination, DOE estimates a total test cost increase of between $700 and $1700 per unit to meet the proposed ESP requirements. For determining IVEC, DOE has tentatively concluded that there would not be an increase in testing cost as compared to measuring IEER per the current Federal test procedure, beyond the costs associated with the proposed ESP requirements discussed previously. For determining IVHE, there are two required heating tests and several additional optional heating tests. The required heating tests are full-load tests at 47 °F and 17 °F. The full-load test at 47 °F is already required for the current Federal test procedure for determining COP. The full-load test at 17 °F which is currently required for the AHRI certification program. Because most CUHP manufacturers are AHRI members and participate in the AHRI certification program, DOE expects that that the required heating tests for IVHE would not increase test cost as compared to testing that is typically already conducted, beyond the costs associated with the proposed ESP requirements discussed previously. Optional heating tests for CUHPs would increase the cost of heating testing if conducted. The optional tests for IVHE are outlined in section III.F.5, which include: (1) an additional fullload test at 5 °F; (2) part-load tests at 17 °F and 47 °F (including up to 2 partload tests at each temperature); and (3) for variable-speed units, boost tests at 17 °F and 5 °F. DOE estimates that each optional test conducted would increase the cost of heating testing by $2,000 to $4,000 depending on the test condition. For ECUACs, WCUACs, and doubleduct systems, the current Federal test procedure requires testing to EER for cooling tests—testing to IEER is not currently required for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems. Because measuring EER requires only a single test while IVEC requires testing at four different test conditions, DOE expects that measuring IVEC for WCUACs, ECUACs, and double-duct systems would increase the cost of cooling testing. Specifically, DOE estimates the cost of additional cooling tests to be $3,700 per unit. Further, the previously discussed costs associated with the proposed indoor air ESP requirements ($700 to $1,700 depending on unit size) would also apply to ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems. In addition, for double-duct systems DOE expects that testing to appendix A1 would require an additional $2,000 per unit for setup to meet the proposed non-zero outdoor air ESP requirement associated with the IVEC and IVHE metrics. Otherwise, DOE expects similar test burden for determining IVHE for double-duct systems as for determining IVHE for conventional ACUHPs as discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Table IV.1 shows DOE’s estimates for testing to the current Federal test procedure and the proposed test procedure in appendix A1. TABLE IV.1—TEST COST ESTIMATES FOR THE PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURE IN APPENDIX A1 Test cost for current federal test procedure ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Equipment type ACUACs .................................................. ACUHPs .................................................. Double-duct air conditioners ................... Double-duct heat pumps ......................... ECUACs and WCUACs .......................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Test cost for proposed test procedure in appendix A1 $10,500 12,000 6,800 8,300 6,800 $11,200–$12,200. $12,700–$13,700 (plus $2,000–$4,000 per optional heating test). $13,200-$14,200. $14,700–$15,700 (plus $2,000–$4,000 per optional heating test). $11,200–$12,200. Frm 00049 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56439 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56440 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Testing in accordance with appendix A1 would not be required until such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation standards for CUACs and CUHPs based on the proposed new IVEC and IVHE metrics, should DOE adopt such standards. If CUAC and CUHP manufacturers conduct physical testing to certify a 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 manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs.41 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. Small businesses would be expected to have different potential regulatory costs depending on whether they are a member of AHRI. DOE understands that all AHRI members and all manufacturers currently certifying to the AHRI Directory will be testing their CUAC and CUHP models in accordance with the final version of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft, the industry test procedure DOE is proposing to adopt (if finalized and consistent with the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft), and using AHRI’s certification program. The proposed test procedure amendments would not add any additional testing burden to manufacturers which are members of AHRI. As discussed, DOE did not identify any small, domestic OEMs that are not AHRI members. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed test procedure amendments would not add additional testing burden, as those members soon will be using the finalized version of the AHRI 1340–202X draft test procedure. Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on its estimate of the potential impacts of its proposed amendments to the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs on small business manufacturers. 5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today. 41 In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic models. The use of an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of CUAC and CUHP models, including double-duct systems. DOE estimates the cost to develop an AEDM to be $19,000 per AEDM. The development of the AEDM would reduce the need for physical testing if the manufacturer expands its model offerings. Once the AEDM is developed, DOE estimates that it would take 1 hour of an engineer’s time (calculated based upon an engineering technician’s fullyburdened wage of $41 per hour) to determine efficiency for each basic model using the AEDM. Additionally, DOE considered alternative test methods and modifications to the proposed test procedures in appendices A and A1 for CUACs and CUHPs, referencing AHRI 340/360–2022 and the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, respectively. However, DOE has tentatively determined that there are no better alternatives than the proposed 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 CUACs and CUHPs through incorporation by reference of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 in appendix A, and adoption of AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1. In addition, individual manufacturers may petition for a waiver of the applicable test procedure. (See 10 CFR 431.401) Also, section 504 of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order to prevent ‘‘special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of burdens’’ that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional details. C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 Manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs 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 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 products and commercial equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs. (See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 1910–1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting requirements for CUACs and CUHPs in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to amend the certification requirements and reporting for CUACs and CUHPs under a separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB Control Number 1910–1400 at that time, as necessary. Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays a currently valid OMB Control Number. D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 In this NOPR, DOE proposes test procedure amendments that it expects will be used to develop and implement future energy conservation standards for CUACs and CUHPs. DOE has determined that this proposed rule falls into a class of actions that are categorically excluded from review under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and DOE’s implementing regulations at 10 CFR part 1021. Specifically, DOE has determined that adopting test procedures for measuring energy efficiency of consumer products and industrial equipment is consistent with activities identified in 10 CFR part 1021, subpart D, appendix A, sections A5, and A6. Accordingly, neither an environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is required. E. Review Under Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132, ‘‘Federalism,’’ 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) imposes certain requirements for agencies formulating and implementing policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism implications. The E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 unreasonable to meet one or more of them. DOE has completed the required review and determined that, to the extent permitted by law, the proposed rule meets the relevant standards of Executive Order 12988. G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the private sector. Pub. L. 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. 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. PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56441 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%20 Final%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 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56442 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules the energy efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs 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. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974 Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act (Pub. L. 95– 91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on competition. The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs would incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections of the following commercial standards: AHRI 340/360–2022 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 they were developed in a manner that fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE will consult with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition prior to prescribing a final rule. M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the following test standards: AHRI Standard 340/360–2022. This test standard is an industry-accepted test procedure for measuring the performance of air-cooled, evaporatively-cooled, and water-cooled unitary air-conditioning and heat pump equipment. Copies of AHRI Standard 340/360– 2022 can be obtained from AHRI, 2311 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524–8800, or found online at: www.ahrinet.org. AHRI Standard 1340–202X Draft. This test standard is in draft form and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review only during the drafting of this NOPR. DOE intends to update the reference to the final published version of AHRI 1340 in the subsequent final rule. If there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions for which DOE receives stakeholder comments in response to this NOPR recommending that DOE adopt provisions consistent with the published version of AHRI 1340–202X, then DOE may consider adopting those provisions. If there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions for which stakeholder comments do not express support, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft or provide additional opportunity for comment on the changes to the industry consensus test procedure. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. This test standard is an industry-accepted test procedure that provides a method of test for many categories of air conditioning and heating equipment. Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009 is available on ASHRAE’s website at www.ashrae.org. The following standards included in the proposed regulatory text were previously approved for incorporation by reference for the locations where they appear in this proposed rule: AHRI 210/240–2008 and AHRI 340/360–2007. V. Public Participation A. Participation in the Webinar The time and date of the webinar meeting 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/publicmeetings-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 NOPR, 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. Such persons may submit to ApplianceStandardsQuestions@ PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 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. 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 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. 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 and until the end of the comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the proceedings and any aspect of the proposed rulemaking. The webinar will be conducted in an informal conference style. DOE will a general overview of the topics addressed in this proposed rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues affecting this proposed 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. Participants should be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this proposed rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar 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. A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of this NOPR. 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 before or after the public meeting, but 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. 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. Otherwise, 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 (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, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/courier, or postal mail 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 on a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any comments. Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail or hand delivery/ courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in English, and that are 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 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56443 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 seeks comment on its proposed definition for CUACs and CUHPs. Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to adopt the IVEC and IVHE metrics as determined under AHRI 1340–202X Draft in appendix A1 of the Federal test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs (including double-duct systems), ECUACs, and WCUACs. Issue 3: DOE requests comment in its proposal to adopt the IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft, including the test temperature requirements. Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the IVEC and IVHE metrics for double-duct systems in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on its proposals regarding specific components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1. Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity. Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that a basic model’s representation(s) of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as applicable) must be determined using a minimum partload airflow that is no lower than the highest of the following: (1) the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the as-shipped system control settings; (2) the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system control settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56444 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules (as applicable); and (3) the minimum airflow rate specified in section 5.18.2 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. DOE also seeks feedback on the alternate option listed or any alternate options not listed that would ensure representations of IVEC and IVHE are based on minimum part-load airflow that is representative of field installations. Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its tentative understanding of the impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, particularly regarding DOE’s initial estimates of the cost impacts associated with the proposed appendix A1. Issue 9: DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs of CUACs and CUHPs. Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on its estimate of the potential impacts of its proposed amendments to the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs on small business manufacturers. Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the conduct of this proposed rulemaking that may not be specifically identified in this document. VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment. 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. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 10 CFR Part 431 Administrative practice and procedure, Confidential business information, Energy conservation test procedures, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Signing Authority This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 20, 2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting 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 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 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 July 21, 2023. Treena V. Garrett, Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy. For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as set forth: 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: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 2. Amend § 429.4 by: a. Revising paragraph (c)(2); b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) through (7) as (c)(7) through (8); and ■ c. Adding new paragraph (c)(6). The revision and addition read as follows. ■ ■ ■ § 429.4 Materials incorporated by reference. * * * * * (c) * * * (2) AHRI Standard 340/360–2022 (I– P) (‘‘AHRI 340/360–2022’’), 2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, AHRI-approved January 26, 2022; IBR approved for §§ 429.43 and 429.134. * * * * * (6) AHRI Standard 1340–202X Draft (I–P) (‘‘AHRI 1340–202XDraft’’), 202X Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary AirConditioning and Heat Pump Equipment [publication expected 2023]; IBR approved for §§ 429.43 and 429.134. * * * * * § 429.12 [Amended] 3. Amend § 429.12 paragraph (b)(8)(ii) by removing the words ‘‘small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’. ■ 4. Amend § 429.43 by: ■ a. Revising the section heading; ■ b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(iv); ■ PO 00000 Frm 00054 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 c. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(ii); ■ d. Adding paragraph (a)(3)(v); ■ e. Revising introductory paragraphs of (b)(2)(i) and (ii); ■ f. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), in the first sentence removing the words ‘‘Commercial package air-conditioning equipment (except commercial package air conditioning equipment that is aircooled with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):’’ and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Commercial unitary air conditioners (except air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h):’’; and ■ g. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), in the first sentence removing the words ‘‘Commercial package heating equipment (except commercial package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):’’ and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Commercial unitary heat pumps (except air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h):’’. The revisions and addition read as follows. ■ § 429.43 Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) equipment (excluding air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 British thermal units per hour and air-cooled, three-phase, variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps with less than 65,000 British thermal units per hour cooling capacity). (a) * * * (3) * * * (v) Commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h). Before [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the provisions in § 429.43 of this title as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200–499 edition revised as of January 1, 2023 are applicable. When certifying on or after [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the following provisions apply. (A) Individual model selection: (1) Representations for a basic model must be based on the least-efficient individual model(s) distributed in commerce among all otherwise comparable model groups comprising the basic model, with selection of the least-efficient individual model considering all options for factoryinstalled components and manufacturersupplied components for field installation, except as provided in E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section for individual models that include components listed in table 6 to paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) of this section. For the purpose of this paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A)(1), ‘‘otherwise comparable model group’’ means a group of individual models distributed in commerce within the basic model that do not differ in components that affect energy consumption as measured according to the applicable test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.96 other than those listed in table 6 to paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) of this section. An otherwise comparable model group may include individual models distributed in commerce with any combination of the components listed in table 6 (or none of the components listed in table 6). An otherwise comparable model group may consist of only one individual model. (2) For a basic model that includes individual models distributed in commerce with components listed in table 6 to paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) of this 56445 section, the requirements for determining representations apply only to the individual model(s) of a specific otherwise comparable model group distributed in commerce with the least number (which could be zero) of components listed in table 6 included in individual models of the group. Testing under this paragraph shall be consistent with any component-specific test provisions specified in section 4 of appendix A and section 4 of appendix A1 to subpart F of part 431. TABLE 6 TO PARAGRAPH (a)(3)(v)(A)—SPECIFIC COMPONENTS FOR COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS [Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h] Component Description 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. An assembly that reduces the moisture content of the supply air through moisture transfer with solid or liquid desiccants. Water is evaporated into the air entering the air-cooled condenser to lower the dry-bulb temperature and thereby increase efficiency of the refrigeration cycle. Desiccant Dehumidification Components. Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air. Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers. Indirect/Direct Evaporative Cooling of Ventilation Air. Non-Standard Ducted Condenser Fans (not applicable to Double-duct Systems). Non-Standard High-Static Indoor Fan Motors. Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Process Heat recovery/Reclaim Coils/Thermal Storage. Refrigerant Reheat Coils ...... Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators. Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils .. Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS). VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 A damper assembly including means to open and close the damper mounted at the supply or return duct opening of the equipment. Water is used indirectly or directly to cool ventilation air. In a direct system the water is introduced directly into the ventilation air and in an indirect system the water is evaporated in secondary air stream and the heat is removed through a heat exchanger. A higher-static condenser fan/motor assembly designed for external ducting of condenser air that provides greater pressure rise and has a higher rated motor horsepower than the condenser fan provided as a standard component with the equipment. The standard indoor fan motor is the motor specified in the manufacturer’s installation instructions for testing and shall be distributed in commerce as part of a particular model. A non-standard motor is an indoor fan motor that is not the standard indoor fan motor and that is distributed in commerce as part of an individual model within the same basic model. For a non-standard high-static indoor fan motor(s) to be considered a specific component for a basic model (and thus subject to the provisions of (a)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section), the following provisions must be met: (i) If testing per appendix A to subpart F of part 431, non-standard high-static indoor fan motor(s) must meet the minimum allowable efficiency determined per section D4.1 of AHRI 340/360–2022 (incorporated by reference, see § 429.4) for non-standard high-static indoor fan motors or per section D4.2 of AHRI 340/360–2022 for nonstandard high-static indoor integrated fan and motor combinations. (ii) If testing per appendix A1 to subpart F of part 431, non-standard high-static indoor fan motor(s) must meet the minimum allowable efficiency determined per section D4.1 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft (incorporated by reference, see § 429.4) for non-standard high-static indoor fan motors or per section D4.2 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft for non-standard high-static indoor integrated fan and motor combinations. (iii) If the standard indoor fan motor can vary fan speed through control system adjustment of motor speed, all non-standard high-static indoor fan motors must also allow speed control (including with the use of variable-frequency drive). 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. A heat exchanger located inside the unit that conditions the equipment’s supply air using energy transferred from an external source using a vapor, gas, or liquid. 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. Coils used to provide supplemental heating. 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. Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56446 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules (B) The represented value of total cooling capacity must be between 95 percent and 100 percent of the mean of the total cooling 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 total cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM as described in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. (C) Representations of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as applicable) must be determined using a minimum part-load airflow that is no lower than the highest of the following: (1) The minimum part-load airflow obtained using the as-shipped system control settings; (2) The minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system control settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions (as applicable); and (3) The minimum airflow rate specified in section 5.18.2 of AHRI 1340–202XDraft. (b) * * * (2) * * * (i) Commercial unitary air conditioners (except air-cooled, threephase, commercial unitary air conditioners with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h): * * * (ii) Commercial unitary heat pumps (except air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h): * * * * * * * * § 429.67 [Amended] 5. Amend § 429.67 by: a. In the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (c)(1), removing the words ‘‘small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’; ■ b. In paragraph (f)(2)(i), removing the words ‘‘Commercial package air conditioning equipment that is aircooled with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h (3-Phase)’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Aircooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h’’; ■ c. In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), removing the words ‘‘Commercial package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h (3-Phase)’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h’’; and ■ d. In paragraph (f)(3)(i), removing the words ‘‘Air cooled commercial package air conditioning equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h (3-phase)’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners ■ ■ with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h’’. ■ e. In paragraph (f)(3)(ii), removing the words ‘‘Commercial package heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h (3-Phase)’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h’’; and ■ 6. Amend § 429.70 by: ■ a. Removing the words ‘‘commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’ and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’ in paragraph heading (c); ■ b. Revising table 1 to paragraph (c)(2)(iv); ■ c. Revising table 2 to paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(B); and ■ d. Removing the words ‘‘commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’ and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’ in the headings for paragraph (l), and in paragraphs (l)(1)(i), (l)(1)(ii), and (l)(3). The revisions read as follows: § 429.70 Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and energy use. * * * (c) * * * (2) * * * (iv) * * * * * TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (C)(2)(iv) Minimum number of distinct models that must be tested per AEDM Validation class ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 (A) Commercial HVAC Validation Classes Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity. Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners, All Capacities .................................................................................. Evaporatively-Cooled, Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners, All Capacities ..................................................................... Water-Source HPs, All Capacities ...................................................................................................................................... Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs ............................................................................................................................... Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs ...................................................................................................................................... Air-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs ......................................................................................................... Water-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs .................................................................................................... Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air Cooled .................................................................................................................... Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-Cooled and Glycol-Cooled ................................................................................ Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems, Air-cooled or Air-source Heat Pump, Without Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems. Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems, Air-cooled or Air-source Heat Pump, With Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems. Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems, Water-cooled, Water-source Heat Pump, or Ground Source Closed-loop Heat Pump, Without Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems. Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems, Water-cooled, Water-source Heat Pump, or Ground Source Closed-loop Heat Pump, With Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems. 2 Basic Models. 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. (B) Commercial Water Heater Validation Classes Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons ................................................................ Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to 10 Gallons ......................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00056 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. 56447 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (C)(2)(iv)—Continued Minimum number of distinct models that must be tested per AEDM Validation class Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons ................................................................... Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to 10 Gallons ........................................... Electric Water Heaters ........................................................................................................................................................ Heat Pump Water Heaters .................................................................................................................................................. Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks ...................................................................................................................................... 2 2 2 2 2 Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. 2 2 2 2 2 2 Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. (C) Commercial Packaged Boilers Validation Classes Gas-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ................................................................................................. Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ....................................................................................................... Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ............................................................................................... Oil-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ................................................................................................... Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial Packaged Boilers ......................................................................................................... Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial Packaged Boilers ................................................................................................. (D) Commercial Furnace Validation Classes Gas-fired Furnaces ............................................................................................................................................................. Oil-fired Furnaces ................................................................................................................................................................ 2 Basic Models. 2 Basic Models. (E) Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Validation Classes 1 Self-Contained Open Refrigerators ..................................................................................................................................... Self-Contained Open Freezers ........................................................................................................................................... Remote Condensing Open Refrigerators ........................................................................................................................... Remote Condensing Open Freezers .................................................................................................................................. Self-Contained Closed Refrigerators .................................................................................................................................. Self-Contained Closed Freezers ......................................................................................................................................... Remote Condensing Closed Refrigerators ......................................................................................................................... Remote Condensing Closed Freezers ................................................................................................................................ 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Basic Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. Models. 1 The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the minimum number of tests that need to be conducted. * * * (5) * * * (vi) * * * * * (B) * * * TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (C)(5)(vi)(B) Metric Commercial Packaged Boilers .................................................... Combustion Efficiency ............................................................... Thermal Efficiency ..................................................................... Thermal Efficiency ..................................................................... Standby Loss ............................................................................. R-Value ...................................................................................... Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio 2 .......................................................... Coefficient of Performance ........................................................ Coefficient of Performance 2 ..................................................... Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................ Integrated Ventilation, Economizing, and Cooling ..................... Integrated Ventilation and Heating Efficiency ............................ Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio 2 .......................................................... Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................ Integrated Ventilation, Economizing, and Cooling ..................... Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Energy Efficiency Ratio 2 .......................................................... Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................ Integrated Ventilation, Economizing, and Cooling ..................... Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Coefficient of Performance ........................................................ Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................ Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Commercial Water Heaters or Hot Water Supply Boilers .......... Unfired Storage Tanks ................................................................ Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity. Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners, All Cooling Capacities. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Applicable tolerance Equipment Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners, All Capacities. Water-Source HPs, All Capacities .............................................. Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs ....................................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 23:33 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00057 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 10% (0.1) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 56448 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 2 TO PARAGRAPH (C)(5)(vi)(B)—Continued Equipment Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs .............................................. Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs and HPs .................................... Computer Room Air Conditioners ............................................... Direct Expansion- Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems ................... Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces Commercial Refrigeration Equipment. * * * * * 7. Amend § 429.134 by: a. Revising paragraph (g); and b. In paragraph heading (y), removing the words ‘‘small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’. The revision reads as follows: ■ ■ ■ § 429.134 Product-specific enforcement provisions. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 * * * * * (g) Commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h). Before [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the provisions in this section of this title as it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200– 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2023 are applicable. On and after [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the following provisions apply. (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 A or appendix A1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431. The mean of the cooling capacity measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable standards for purposes of compliance. If the mean of the cooling capacity measurements exceeds the certified cooling capacity by more than 5 percent of the certified value, the mean of the cooling capacity measurement(s) will be used to determine the applicable minimum external static pressure test condition specified in Table 7 of AHRI 340/360–2022 (incorporated by reference, see § 429.4) when testing in accordance with appendix A or in Table 5 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft when testing in accordance with appendix A1. (2) Specific Components. If a basic model includes individual models with VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Applicable tolerance Metric Coefficient of Performance ........................................................ Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Coefficient of Performance ........................................................ Energy Efficiency Ratio .............................................................. Coefficient of Performance ........................................................ Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio ............................................ Sensible Coefficient of Performance ......................................... Net Sensible Coefficient of Performance .................................. Integrated Seasonal Coefficient of Performance 2 ................... Integrated Seasonal Moisture Removal Efficiency 2 ................. Thermal Efficiency ..................................................................... Daily Energy Consumption ........................................................ components listed at Table 6 to § 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) and DOE is not able to obtain an individual model with the least number (which could be zero) of those components within an otherwise comparable model group (as defined in § 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A)(1)), DOE may test any individual model within the otherwise comparable model group. (3) Verification of cut-out and cut-in temperatures. (i) For assessment and enforcement testing of models of commercial unitary heat pumps subject to energy conservation standards denominated in terms of IVHE, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be verified using the method in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section. If this method is conducted, the cut-in and cut-out temperatures determined using this method will be used to calculate IVHE for purposes of compliance. (ii) Test method for verification of cutout and cut-in temperatures. (A) Capacity does not need to be measured. Measure a parameter that provides positive indication that the heat pump is operating in heat pump mode (e.g., power or discharge pressure). Also monitor the temperature of air entering the outdoor coil using one or more air samplers or parallel thermocouple grid(s) on each side of the heat pump that has air inlets. Record measurements at a time interval of one minute or shorter. (B) Ensure that the heat pump is operating. Compensation load on the indoor room may be reduced during the test to avoid compressor temporary boost mode or excessive room temperature reduction. Set outdoor chamber temperature to the lower of (1) 17.0 °F or (2) 3.0 °F warmer than the certified cut-out temperature. Maintain the outdoor chamber at this temperature for 3 minutes to allow conditions to stabilize. (C) Reduce outdoor chamber temperature in steps or continuously at PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) 10% (0.1) 10% (0.1) 5% (0.05) 5% (0.05) an average rate of 1.0 °F every 5 minutes. When the heat pump stops operating, continue recording data for 5 minutes. At this point, reverse the temperature ramp and increase outdoor chamber temperature 1.0 °F every 5 minutes. Continue the test until 5 minutes after the heat pump operation restarts. Note the average outdoor coil air inlet temperature when the heat pump stops operation as the cut-out temperature and the temperature 30 seconds after it restarts as the cut-in temperature. * * * * * PART 431—ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT 8. The authority citation for part 431 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 6291–6317; 28 U.S.C. 2461 note. 9. Amend § 431.92 by: a. Revising the definition for ‘‘Basic model’’ and ‘‘Coefficient of performance, or COP’’; ■ b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ‘‘Coefficient of performance 2, or ‘‘COP2’’ and ‘‘Commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump’’; ■ c. Revising the definitions for ‘‘Double-duct air conditioner or heat pump’’ and ‘‘Energy efficiency ratio, or EER’’; ■ d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ‘‘Energy efficiency ratio 2, or EER2’’; ■ e. Revising the definition for ‘‘Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER’’; and ■ f. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ‘‘Integrated ventilation and heating efficiency, or IVHE’’ and ‘‘Integrated ventilation, economizing, and cooling, or IVEC’’. The revisions and additions read as follows: ■ ■ E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules § 431.92 Definitions concerning commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 * * * * * Basic model means: (1) For air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h and air-cooled, three-phase, variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h: All units manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source, and, which have essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, or water efficiency; where essentially identical electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics means: (i) For split systems manufactured by outdoor unit manufacturers (OUMs): all individual combinations having the same model of outdoor unit, which means comparably performing compressor(s) [a variation of no more than five percent in displacement rate (volume per time) as rated by the compressor manufacturer, and no more than five percent in capacity and power input for the same operating conditions as rated by the compressor manufacturer], outdoor coil(s) [no more than five percent variation in face area and total fin surface area; same fin material; same tube material], and outdoor fan(s) [no more than ten percent variation in airflow and no more than twenty percent variation in power input]; (ii) For split systems having indoor units manufactured by independent coil manufacturers (ICMs): all individual combinations having comparably performing indoor coil(s) [plus or minus one square foot face area, plus or minus one fin per inch fin density, and the same fin material, tube material, number of tube rows, tube pattern, and tube size]; and (iii) For single-package systems: all individual models having comparably performing compressor(s) [no more than five percent variation in displacement rate (volume per time) rated by the compressor manufacturer, and no more than five percent variations in capacity and power input rated by the compressor manufacturer corresponding to the same compressor rating conditions], outdoor coil(s) and indoor coil(s) [no more than five percent variation in face area and total fin surface area; same fin material; same tube material], outdoor fan(s) [no more than ten percent variation in outdoor VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 airflow], and indoor blower(s) [no more than ten percent variation in indoor airflow, with no more than twenty percent variation in fan motor power input]; (iv) Except that, (A) For single-package systems and single-split systems, manufacturers may instead choose to make each individual model/combination its own basic model provided the testing and represented value requirements in 10 CFR 429.67 of this chapter are met; and (B) For multi-split, multi-circuit, and multi-head mini-split combinations, a basic model may not include both individual small-duct, high velocity (SDHV) combinations and non-SDHV combinations even when they include the same model of outdoor unit. The manufacturer may choose to identify specific individual combinations as additional basic models. (2) For commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h): All units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving system(s) that have a common ‘‘nominal’’ cooling capacity. (3) For computer room air conditioners: All units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving system(s) that have a common ‘‘nominal’’ cooling capacity. (4) For direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system: All units manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), within a single equipment class; with the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, ventilation energy recovery system(s) (if present), and air moving system(s) that have a common ‘‘nominal’’ moisture removal capacity. (5) For packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) or packaged terminal heat pump (PTHP): All units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparable compressors, same or comparable heat exchangers, and same or comparable air moving systems that have a cooling capacity within 300 Btu/h of one another. PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 56449 (6) For single package vertical units: All units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving system(s) that have a rated cooling capacity within 1500 Btu/h of one another. (7) For variable refrigerant flow systems (excluding air-cooled, threephase, variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/ h): All units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparably performing compressor(s) that have a common ‘‘nominal’’ cooling capacity and the same heat rejection medium (e.g., air or water) (includes VRF water source heat pumps). (8) For water-source heat pumps: All units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparable compressors, same or comparable heat exchangers, and same or comparable ‘‘nominal’’ capacity. * * * * * Coefficient of performance, or COP means the ratio of the produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump (or its produced heating effect, depending on the mode of operation) to its net work input, when both the cooling (or heating) effect and the net work input are expressed in identical units of measurement. For air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/ h), COP is measured per appendix A to this subpart. Coefficient of performance 2, or COP2 means the ratio of the produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump (or its produced heating effect, depending on the mode of operation) to its net work input, when both the cooling (or heating) effect and the net work input are expressed in identical units of measurement. COP2 must be used with a subscript to indicate the outdoor temperature in degrees Fahrenheit at which the COP2 was measured (e.g., COP217 for COP2 measured at 17 °F). For air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/ E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56450 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 h), COP2 is measured per appendix A1 to this subpart. * * * * * Commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump means any small, large, or very large aircooled, water-cooled, or evaporativelycooled commercial package airconditioning and heating equipment that consists of one or more factorymade assemblies that provide space conditioning; and does not include: (1) Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps, (2) Variable refrigerant flow multisplit air conditioners and heat pumps, (3) Water-source heat pumps, (4) Equipment marketed only for use in computer rooms, data processing rooms, or other information technology cooling applications, and (5) Equipment only capable of providing ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air, or marketed only for ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air. * * * * * Double-duct air conditioner or heat pump means an air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioner or heat pump that meets the following criteria— (1) Is either a horizontal single package or split-system unit; or a vertical unit that consists of two components that may be shipped or installed either connected or split; or a vertical single packaged unit that is not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; (2) Is intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air from the building exterior to and from the unit (e.g., the unit and/or all of its components are non-weatherized); (3) If it is a horizontal unit, the complete unit shall have a maximum height of 35 inches or the unit shall have components that do not exceed a maximum height of 35 inches. If it is a vertical unit, the complete (split, connected, or assembled) unit shall have components that do not exceed a maximum depth of 35 inches; and (4) Has a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 300,000 Btu/h. * * * * * Energy efficiency ratio, or EER means the ratio of the produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump to its net work input, expressed in Btu/watthour. For commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), EER is measured per appendix A to this subpart. Energy efficiency ratio 2, or EER2 means the ratio of the produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump to its net work input, expressed in Btu/ watt-hour. For commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), EER2 is measured per appendix A1 to this subpart. * * * * * Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means a weighted average calculation of mechanical cooling EERs determined for four load levels and corresponding rating conditions, expressed in Btu/watt-hour. IEER is measured: (1) Per appendix A to this subpart for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h); (2) Per appendix D1 to this subpart for variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps (other than air-cooled with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h); and (3) Per appendix G1 to this subpart for single package vertical air conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps. * * * * * Integrated ventilation and heating efficiency or IVHE, means a sum of the space heating provided (Btu) divided by the sum of the energy consumed (Wh), including mechanical heating, supplementary electric resistance heating, and heating season ventilation operating modes. IVHE with subscript C (IVHEC) refers to the IVHE of heat pumps using a cold-climate heating load line. For air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), IVHE and IVHEC are measured per appendix A1 to this subpart. Integrated ventilation, economizing, and cooling or IVEC, means a sum of the space cooling provided (Btu) divided by the sum of the energy consumed (Wh), including mechanical cooling, economizing, and cooling season ventilation operating modes. For commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), IVEC is measured per appendix A1 to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 10. Amend § 431.95 by: ■ a. Revising paragraph (b)(4); ■ b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(10) as paragraph (b)(11); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (b)(10); and ■ d. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the words ‘‘appendices A’’ and adding in its place, the words ‘‘appendices A, A1’’. The revision and addition reads as follows: § 431.95 Materials incorporated by reference. * * * * * (b) * * * (4) AHRI Standard 340/360–2022 (I– P), (‘‘AHRI 340/360–2022’’), ‘‘2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Airconditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ published in January 2022; IBR approved for appendix A to this subpart. * * * * * (10) AHRI Standard 1340(I–P)–202X Draft, (‘‘AHRI 1340–202X Draft’’), ‘‘202X Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,’’ [publication expected 2023]; IBR approved for appendix A1 to this subpart. * * * * * ■ 11. Amend § 431.96 by revising Table 1 to paragraph (b) to read as follows: § 431.96 Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps. * * * (b) * * * * * TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS Equipment Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. VerDate Sep<11>2014 Use tests, conditions, and procedures 1 in ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. EER, IEER, and COP .... Appendix A 3 to this subpart. None. ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. EER2, COP2, IVEC, and IVHE. Appendix A1 3 to this subpart. None. Cooling capacity Air-Cooled AC and HP (excluding double-duct AC and HP). Air-Cooled AC and HP (excluding double-duct AC and HP). 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed paragraphs of this section Energy efficiency descriptor Category PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules 56451 TABLE 1 TO PARAGRAPH (b)—TEST PROCEDURES FOR COMMERCIAL AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS—Continued Equipment Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners. Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners. Water-Source Heat Pumps. Packaged Terminal Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps. Computer Room Air Conditioners. Computer Room Air Conditioners. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems, Aircooled. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems, Aircooled. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems, Water-source. Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-split Systems, Water-source. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps. Single Package Vertical Air Conditioners and Single Package Vertical Heat Pumps. Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air Systems. Category Cooling capacity Energy efficiency descriptor Use tests, conditions, and procedures 1 in Additional test procedure provisions as indicated in the listed paragraphs of this section Double-duct AC and HP ≥65,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h. EER, IEER, and COP .... Appendix A 3 to this subpart. None. Double-duct AC and HP ≥65,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h. EER2, COP2, IVEC, and IVHE. Appendix A1 3 to this subpart. None. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. Water-Cooled and Evaporatively-Cooled AC. HP ................................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and IEER ............... None. <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER2 and IVEC ............. <135,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ AC and HP ..................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ Appendix A 3 to this subpart. Appendix A1 3 to this subpart. ISO Standard 13256–1 (1998). Paragraph (g) of this section. AC ................................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... SCOP ............................. E to this sub- None. AC ................................... <760,000 Btu/h or <930,000 Btu/h 4. <65,000 Btu/h (3-phase) NSenCOP ....................... Appendix part 3. Appendix part 3. Appendix part 3. Appendix part 3. Appendix part 3. E1 to this sub- None. F to this sub- None. F1 to this sub- None. F to this sub- None. AC ................................... AC ................................... HP ................................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. <65,000 Btu/h (3-phase) SEER .............................. SEER2 ............................ EER and COP ................ None. Paragraph (e). Paragraphs (c), (e), and (g). HP ................................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h. IEER and COP ............... Appendix F1 to this subpart 3. None. HP ................................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ Appendix D to this subpart 3. None. HP ................................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... IEER and COP ............... Appendix D1 to this subpart 3. None. AC and HP ..................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER and COP ................ Appendix G to this subpart 3. None. AC and HP ..................... <760,000 Btu/h ............... EER, IEER, and COP .... Appendix G1 to this subpart 3. None. All .................................... <324 lbs. of moisture removal/hr. ISMRE2 and ISCOP2 ..... Appendix B to this subpart. None. 1 Incorporated by reference; see § 431.95. removal capacity applies only to direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air systems. equipment with multiple appendices listed in this table, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to determine the applicable appendix to use for 2 Moisture 3 For testing. 4 For upflow ducted and downflow floor-mounted computer room air conditioners, the test procedure in appendix E1 of this subpart applies to equipment with net sensible cooling capacity less than 930,000 Btu/h. For all other configurations of computer room air conditioners, the test procedure in appendix E1 applies to equipment with net sensible cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h. * * * * * 12. Amend § 431.97 by: ■ a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b); ■ b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (h) as paragraphs (d) through (i); ■ c. Adding new paragraph (c); ■ d. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the words ‘‘tables 7 to this paragraph (c)’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 6 to this paragraph’’, removing the words ‘‘Table 7 of this section’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 6 to this paragraph’’, removing the words ‘‘table 8 to this paragraph (c)’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 7 to this paragraph’’, redesignating Table 7 to § 431.97(c) as Table 6 to § 431.97(d), and redesignating ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 ■ VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 Table 8 to § 431.97(c) as Table 7 to § 431.97(d); ■ e. In newly redesignated paragraph (e), redesignating Table 9 to § 431.97(d)(1) as Table 8 to § 431.97(e)(1), redesignating Table 10 to § 431.97(d)(2) as Table 9 to § 431.97(e)(2), and redesignating Table 11 to § 431.97(d)(3) as Table 10 to § 431.97(e)(3); ■ f. In newly redesignated paragraph (f), removing the words ‘‘table 12 to this paragraph (e)(1)’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 11 to this paragraph’’, redesignating Table 12 to § 431.97(e)(1) as Table 11 to § 431.97(f)(1), removing the words ‘‘tables 13 and 14 to this paragraph (e)(2)’’ and adding in their PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 place ‘‘tables 12 and 13 to this paragraph’’, redesignating Table 13 to § 431.97(e)(2) as Table 12 to § 431.97(f)(2), and redesignating Table 14 to § 431.97(e)(2) as Table 13 to § 431.97(f)(2); ■ g. In newly redesignated paragraph (g), removing the words ‘‘table 15 to this paragraph (f)(1)’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 14 to this paragraph’’, redesignating Table 15 to § 431.97(f)(1) as Table 14 to § 431.97(g)(1), removing the words ‘‘table 16 to this paragraph (f)(2.)’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 15 to this paragraph.’’, and redesignating Table 16 to § 431.97(f)(2) as Table 15 to § 431.97(g)(2); E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56452 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules h. In newly redesignated paragraph (h), removing the words ‘‘table 17 to this paragraph (g)’’ and adding in their place ‘‘table 16 to this paragraph’’, and redesignating Table 17 to § 431.97(g) as Table 16 to § 431.97(h); and ■ i. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (i). The revisions and addition read as follows: ■ § 431.97 Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates. (a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable DOE test procedure in § 431.96, be compliant with the applicable standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section, and be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 429. (b) Each commercial unitary air conditioner or heat pump (excluding air-cooled equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) manufactured starting on the compliance date listed in the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1 through 4 of this section. TABLE 1 TO § 431.97(b)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS WITH A COOLING CAPACITY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 65,000 Btu/h (EXCLUDING DOUBLEDUCT AIR-CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS) Cooling capacity Subcategory Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . Minimum efficiency 1 Supplementary heating type Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps with a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-Duct Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps) ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... AC ................. AC ................. HP ................. Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... HP ................. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... AC ................. AC ................. HP ................. Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... HP ................. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ......................... AC ................. AC ................. HP ................. Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. ≥240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h ......................... HP ................. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... IEER = 14.8 IEER = 14.6 IEER = 14.1 COP = 3.4. IEER = 13.9 COP = 3.4. IEER = 14.2 IEER = 14.0 IEER = 13.5 COP = 3.3. IEER = 13.3 COP = 3.3. IEER = 13.2 IEER = 13.0 IEER = 12.5 COP = 3.2. IEER = 12.3 COP = 3.2. ......... ......... ......... January 1, 2023. January 1, 2023. January 1, 2023. ......... January 1, 2023. ......... ......... ......... January 1, 2023. January 1, 2023. January 1, 2023. ......... January 1, 2023. ......... ......... ......... January 1, 2023. January 1, 2023. January 1, 2023. ......... January 1, 2023. January 1, 2018. 1 Per section 3 of Appendix A to this Subpart, COP standards for commercial unitary heat pumps are based on performance at the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady-State Heating)’’ condition specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022. TABLE 2 TO § 431.97(b)—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER-COOLED COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS Cooling capacity Supplementary heating type Minimum efficiency Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................ ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ....................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ....................... ≥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 ..................... All ......................................................................... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ......... All Other Types of Heating .................................. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ......... All Other Types of Heating .................................. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ......... All Other Types of Heating .................................. EER EER EER EER EER EER EER = = = = = = = 12.1 12.1 11.9 12.5 12.3 12.4 12.2 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... October 29, 2003. June 1, 2013. June 1, 2013. June 1, 2014. June 1, 2014. June 1, 2014. June 1, 2014. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 TABLE 3 TO § 431.97(b)—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS Cooling capacity Supplementary heating type Minimum efficiency Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners <65,000 Btu/h ........................................................ ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ....................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ....................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ..................... VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 All ......................................................................... No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ......... All Other Types of Heating .................................. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ......... Frm 00062 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 EER EER EER EER E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM = = = = 12.1 12.1 11.9 12.0 17AUP3 ........... ........... ........... ........... October 29, 2003. June 1, 2013. June 1, 2013. June 1, 2014. 56453 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 3 TO § 431.97(b)—MINIMUM COOLING EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR EVAPORATIVELY-COOLED COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS—Continued Cooling capacity Supplementary heating type Minimum efficiency ≥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 ..................... All Other Types of Heating .................................. No Heating or Electric Resistance Heating ......... All Other Types of Heating .................................. EER = 11.8 ........... EER = 11.9 ........... EER = 11.7 ........... Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . June 1, 2014. June 1, 2014. June 1, 2014. TABLE 4 TO § 431.97(b)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR DOUBLE-DUCT AIR-CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS Minimum efficiency 1 Cooling capacity Subcategory Supplementary heating type ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... AC ................. AC ................. HP ................. Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ........................... HP ................. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... AC ................. AC ................. HP ................. Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. ≥135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h ......................... HP ................. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ......................... ≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ......................... AC ................. AC ................. HP ................. Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Electric Resistance Heating or No Heating .............. ≥240,000 Btu/h and <300,000 Btu/h ......................... HP ................. All Other Types of Heating ....................................... Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . Double-Duct Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps EER = 11.2 .......... EER = 11.0 .......... EER = 11.0 .......... COP = 3.3. EER = 10.8 .......... COP = 3.3. EER = 11.0 .......... EER = 10.8 .......... EER = 10.6 .......... COP = 3.2. EER = 10.4 .......... COP = 3.2. EER = 10.0 .......... EER = 9.8 ............ EER = 9.5 ............ COP = 3.2. EER = 9.3 ............ COP = 3.2. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. January 1, 2010. 1 Per section 3 of Appendix A to this Subpart, COP standards for commercial unitary heat pumps are based on performance at the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady-State Heating)’’ condition specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022. (c) Each water-source heat pump manufactured starting on the compliance date listed in the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Table 5 of this section. TABLE 5 TO § 431.97(c)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR WATER-SOURCE HEAT PUMPS (WATER-TO-AIR, WATERLOOP) Cooling capacity Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . Minimum efficiency Water-Source Heat Pumps (Water-to-Air, Water-Loop) <17,000 Btu/h .............................................................. ≥17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h ............................... ≥65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h ............................. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 * * * * * (i) Each air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioner and heat pump with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h and air-cooled, VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 EER = 12.2 ................................................................ COP = 4.3. EER = 13.0 ................................................................ COP = 4.3. EER = 13.0 ................................................................ COP = 4.3. three-phase variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioning and heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after the compliance date listed in the PO 00000 Frm 00063 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 October 9, 2015. October 9, 2015. October 9, 2015. corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 17 and 18 of this section. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56454 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 17 TO § 431.97(i)—MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H AND AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Minimum efficiency Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ............................................. Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ............................................. Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. Split-System ..................... Single-Package ................ Split-System ..................... Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................. Single-Package ................ VRF Air Conditioners ...................................................................... VRF Heat Pumps ............................................................................ <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. .......................................... .......................................... 13.0 SEER 14.0 SEER 14.0 SEER 8.2 HSPF. 14.0 SEER 8.0 HSPF. 13.0 SEER 13.0 SEER 7.7 HSPF. Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . ........... ........... ........... June 16, 2008.1 January 1, 2017.1 January 1, 2017.1 ........... January 1, 2017.1 ........... ........... June 16, 2008.1 June 16, 2008.1 1 And manufactured before January 1, 2025. For equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, see Table 19 to paragraph (h) of this section for updated efficiency standards. TABLE 18 TO § 431.97(i)—UPDATED MINIMUM EFFICIENCY STANDARDS FOR AIR-COOLED, THREE-PHASE, COMMERCIAL UNITARY AIR CONDITIONERS AND HEAT PUMPS WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H AND AIRCOOLED, THREE-PHASE, SMALL VARIABLE REFRIGERANT FLOW MULTI-SPLIT AIR CONDITIONING AND HEATING EQUIPMENT WITH A COOLING CAPACITY OF LESS THAN 65,000 BTU/H Equipment type Cooling capacity Subcategory Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ............................................. Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ............................................. Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. Split-System ..................... Single-Package ................ Split-System ..................... Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ................................................... <65,000 Btu/h .................. Single-Package ................ Space-Constrained Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ............. Space-Constrained Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ............. Space-Constrained Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ................... ≤30,000 Btu/h .................. ≤30,000 Btu/h .................. ≤30,000 Btu/h .................. Split-System ..................... Single-Package ................ Split-System ..................... Space-Constrained Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ................... ≤30,000 Btu/h .................. Single-Package ................ Small-Duct, High-Velocity Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners ... Small-Duct, High-Velocity Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps ......... <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. Split-System ..................... Split-System ..................... VRF Air Conditioners ...................................................................... VRF Heat Pumps ............................................................................ <65,000 Btu/h .................. <65,000 Btu/h .................. .......................................... .......................................... 13. Appendix A to subpart F of part 431 is revised to read as follows: ■ ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431— Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h) Note: Prior to [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance with: (a) The applicable provisions (Appendix A for air-cooled equipment, and Table 1 to § 431.96 for water-cooled and evaporativelycooled equipment) as they appeared in subpart F of this part, in the 10 CFR parts 200 VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2023; or (b) This appendix. Beginning [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], and prior to the compliance date of amended standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on integrated ventilation, economizing, and cooling (‘‘IVEC’’) and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency (IVHE), representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance with this appendix. Beginning on the compliance date of amended standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on IVEC and IVHE, representations with respect to energy use or PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Minimum efficiency 13.4 SEER2 13.4 SEER2 14.3 SEER2 7.5 HSPF2. 13.4 SEER2 6.7 HSPF2. 12.7 SEER2 13.9 SEER2 13.9 SEER2 7.0 HSPF2. 13.9 SEER2 6.7 HSPF2. 13.0 SEER2 14.0 SEER2 6.9 HSPF2. 13.4 SEER2 13.4 SEER2 7.5 HSPF2. Compliance date: equipment manufactured starting on . . . ......... ......... ......... January 1, 2025. January 1, 2025. January 1, 2025. ......... January 1, 2025. ......... ......... ......... January 1, 2025. January 1, 2025. January 1, 2025. ......... January 1, 2025. ......... ......... January 1, 2025. January 1, 2025. ......... ......... January 1, 2025. January 1, 2025. efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding aircooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance with appendix A1 to this subpart. Manufacturers may also certify compliance with any amended energy conservation standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding aircooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on IVEC or IVHE prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards, and those compliance certifications must be based on testing in accordance with appendix A1 to this subpart. 1. Incorporation by Reference DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.95, the entire standard for AHRI 340/360–2022 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. However, certain enumerated provisions of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009, as set forth in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of this section are inapplicable. To the extent there is a conflict between the terms or provisions E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules of a referenced industry standard and the CFR, the CFR provisions control. 1.1. AHRI 340/360–2022: (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable, (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable, (c) The following subsections of Section 3 Definitions are inapplicable: 3.2 (Basic Model), 3.4 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning Equipment), 3.5 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Heat Pump), 3.7 (Double-duct System), 3.8 (Energy Efficiency Ratio (EER)), 3.12 (Heating Coefficient of Performance (COPH)), 3.14 (Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio (IEER)), 3.23 (Published Rating), 3.26 (Single Package Air-Conditioners), 3.27 (Single Package Heat Pumps), 3.29 (Split System Air-conditioners), 3.30 (Split System Heat Pump), 3.36 (Year Round Single Package Air-conditioners), (d) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is inapplicable, (e) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable, (f) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable, (g) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable, (h) Appendix B References—Informative is inapplicable, (i) Sections D1 (Purpose), D2 (Configuration Requirements), and D3 (Optional System Features) of Appendix D Unit Configuration For Standard Efficiency Determination—Normative are inapplicable, (j) Appendix F International Rating Conditions—Normative is inapplicable, (k) Appendix G Examples of IEER Calculations—Informative is inapplicable, (l) Appendix H Example of Determination of Fan and Motor Efficiency for Non-standard Integrated Indoor Fan and Motors— Informative is inapplicable, and (m) Appendix I Double-duct System Efficiency Metrics with Non-Zero Outdoor Air External Static Pressure (ESP)— Normative is inapplicable. 1.2. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009: (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable, and (c) Section 4 Classification is inapplicable. 2. General Determine the applicable energy efficiency metrics (IEER, EER, and COP) in accordance with the specified sections of AHRI 340/360– 2022 and the specified sections of ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009. Sections 3 and 4 of this Appendix provide additional instructions for testing. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 340/360–2022, followed by ANSI/ ASHRAE 37–2009. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced document by the 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. 56455 3. Test Conditions The following conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 apply when testing to certify to the energy conservation standards in § 431.97. For cooling mode tests for equipment subject to standards in terms of EER, test using the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Cooling’’. For cooling mode tests for equipment subject to standards in terms of IEER, test using the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Cooling’’ and the ‘‘Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IEER)’’. For heat pump heating mode tests, test using the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady State Heating)’’. For equipment subject to standards in terms of EER, representations of IEER made using the ‘‘Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IEER)’’ in Table 6 of AHRI 340/ 360–2022 are optional. For equipment subject to standards in terms of IEER, representations of EER made using the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions Cooling’’ in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 are optional. Representations of COP made using the ‘‘Standard Rating Conditions (Low Temperature Steady State Heating)’’ in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360–2022 are optional. 4. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components When testing equipment that includes any of the features listed in Table 1, test in accordance with the set-up and test provisions specified in Table 1. TABLE 1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS Component Description Test provisions 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. Barometric Relief Dampers .. 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. An assembly that reduces the moisture content of the supply air through moisture transfer with solid or liquid desiccants. Water is evaporated into the air entering the air-cooled condenser to lower the dry-bulb temperature and thereby increase efficiency of the refrigeration cycle. A damper assembly including means to open and close the damper mounted at the supply or return duct opening of the equipment. 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 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. Desiccant Dehumidification Components. ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air. Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers. 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. Indoor air filters with greater air filtration effectiveness than the filters used for testing. High-Effectiveness Indoor Air Filtration. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00065 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Disable desiccant dehumidification components for testing. Disconnect the unit from a water supply for testing i.e., operate without active evaporative cooling. 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. 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. Test with the standard filter. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56456 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS—Continued Component Description Power Correction Capacitors A capacitor that increases the power factor measured at the line connection to the equipment. A heat exchanger located inside the unit that conditions the equipment’s supply air using energy transferred from an external source using a vapor, gas, or liquid. 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. Coils used to provide supplemental heating ................... Process Heat recovery/Reclaim Coils/Thermal Storage. Refrigerant Reheat Coils ..... Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils .. UV Lights ............................. Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS). 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. 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. 14. Add appendix A1 to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows: ■ ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Appendix A1 to Subpart F of Part 431— Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps (Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h) Note: Prior to [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register] representations with respect to the energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance with: (a) The applicable provisions (Appendix A for air-cooled equipment, and Table 1 to § 431.96 for water-cooled and evaporativelycooled equipment) as it appeared in subpart F of this part, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of January 1, 2023; or (b) Appendix A to this subpart. Beginning [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], and prior to the compliance date of amended standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on integrated ventilation, economizing, and cooling (IVEC)) and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency (IVHE), representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Test provisions Jkt 259001 Remove power correction capacitors for testing. Disconnect the heat exchanger from its heat source for testing. De-activate refrigerant reheat coils for testing so as to provide the minimum (none if possible) reheat achievable by the system controls. Test with steam/hydronic heat coils in place but providing no heat. Turn off UV lights 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. based on testing conducted in accordance with appendix A to this subpart. Beginning on the compliance date of amended standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on IVEC and IVHE, representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding aircooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance with this appendix. Manufacturers may also certify compliance with any amended energy conservation standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding aircooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on IVEC or IVHE prior to the applicable compliance date for those standards, and those compliance certifications must be based on testing in accordance with this appendix. 1. Incorporation by Reference DOE incorporated by reference in § 431.95, the entire standard for AHRI 1340–202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. However, certain enumerated provisions of AHRI 1340–202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 37– 2009, as listed in this section 1 are inapplicable. To the extent there is a conflict between the terms or provisions of a referenced industry standard and the CFR, the CFR provisions control. 1.1. AHRI 1340–202X Draft: (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable, (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable, (c) The following subsections of section 3 Definitions: 3.3 (Basic Model), 3.5 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Airconditioning Equipment), 3.6 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Heat Pump), 3.12 PO 00000 Frm 00066 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 (Double-duct System), 3.14.3 (Standard Energy Efficiency Ratio), 3.18 (Heating Coefficient of Performance 2), 3.21 (Integrated Ventilation, Economizing, and Cooling Efficiency), 3.22 (Integrated Ventilation and Heating Efficiency), 3.29 (Published Rating), 3.32 (Single Package AirConditioners), 3.33 (Single Package Heat Pumps), 3.34 (Split System Air-conditioners), 3.35 (Split System Heat Pump), 3.41 (Year Round Single Package Air-conditioners) are inapplicable, (d) The following subsections of section 6 Rating Requirements are inapplicable: 6.4 (Rating Values), 6.5 (Uncertainty), and 6.6 (Verification Testing), (e) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is inapplicable (f) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable, (g) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable, (h) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable, (i) Appendix B References—Informative is inapplicable, and (j) Sections D1 (Purpose), D2 (Configuration Requirements), and D3 (Optional System Features) of Appendix D Unit Configuration For Standard Efficiency Determination—Normative are inapplicable. 1.2. ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009: (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable, and (c) Section 4 Classification is inapplicable. 2. General For air conditioners and heat pumps, determine IVEC and IVHE (as applicable). Representations of energy efficiency ratio 2 (EER2) and IVHEC may optionally be made. Representations of coefficient of performance 2 (COP2) at 5 °F, 17 °F, and 47 °F may optionally be made. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules Sections 3 and 4 of this appendix provide additional instructions for testing. In cases where there is a conflict, the language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 1340–202X Draft, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37–2009. Any subsequent amendment to a referenced document by the 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. 3. Test Conditions The following conditions specified in AHRI 1340–202X Draft apply when testing to certify to the energy conservation standards in § 431.97. For cooling mode, use the rating conditions in Table 7 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. For heat pump heating mode tests, use the rating conditions in Table 26 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft and the IVHE U.S. Average building load profile in Table 25 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. Representations of EER2 made using the ‘‘Cooling Bin A’’ conditions in Table 7 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft are optional. Representations of IVHEC made using the 56457 IVHEC Cold Average building load profile in Table 25 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft are optional. Representations of COP247 made using the H47H test, COP217 made using the H17H test, and COP25 made using the H5H test in Table 26 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft are optional. 4. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components When testing equipment that includes any of the features listed in Table 1 of this appendix, test in accordance with the set-up and test provisions specified in Table 1 of this appendix. TABLE 1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS Component Description Test provisions 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. Barometric Relief Dampers .. 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. An assembly that reduces the moisture content of the supply air through moisture transfer with solid or liquid desiccants. Water is evaporated into the air entering the air-cooled condenser to lower the dry-bulb temperature and thereby increase efficiency of the refrigeration cycle. A damper assembly including means to open and close the damper mounted at the supply or return duct opening of the equipment. 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 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. Desiccant Dehumidification Components. Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air. Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers. 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. Indoor air filters with greater air filtration effectiveness than the filters used for testing. A capacitor that increases the power factor measured at the line connection to the equipment. A heat exchanger located inside the unit that conditions the equipment’s supply air using energy transferred from an external source using a vapor, gas, or liquid. 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. Coils used to provide supplemental heating ................... High-Effectiveness Indoor Air Filtration. Power Correction Capacitors ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Process Heat recovery/Reclaim Coils/Thermal Storage. Refrigerant Reheat Coils ..... Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils .. UV Lights ............................. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 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. Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00067 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 Disable desiccant dehumidification components for testing. Disconnect the unit from a water supply for testing i.e., operate without active evaporative cooling. 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. 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. Test with the standard filter. Remove power correction capacitors for testing. Disconnect the heat exchanger from its heat source for testing. De-activate refrigerant reheat coils for testing so as to provide the minimum (none if possible) reheat achievable by the system controls. Test with steam/hydronic heat coils in place but providing no heat. Turn off UV lights for testing. E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 56458 Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / Proposed Rules TABLE 1—TEST PROVISIONS FOR SPECIFIC COMPONENTS—Continued Component Description Test provisions Ventilation Energy Recovery System (VERS). 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. 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. 5. Test Provisions for Coil-Only Systems 5.1. When testing coil-only systems, follow the applicable provisions in sections 5.17.4, 5.18.4, 6.2.4.2, and 6.3.6 of the AHRI 1340– 202X Draft, as modified by the following instructions. part-load tests in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft Appendix F to Subpart F of Part 431 [Amended] 15. Amend appendix F to subpart F of part 431 by: ■ a. In the appendix heading, removing the words ‘‘Small Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps’’; and ■ b. In the appendix note, and paragraph 2.1, by removing the words ‘‘small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’. Appendix F1 to Subpart F of Part 431 [Amended] 16. Amend appendix F1 to subpart F of part 431 by: ■ a. In the appendix heading by removing the words ‘‘Small Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps’’; and ■ b. In the appendix note by removing the words ‘‘small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment’’, and adding in their place, the words ‘‘commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps’’. ■ [FR Doc. 2023–15857 Filed 8–16–23; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6450–01–P EP17AU23.116</GPH> ■ cooling airflow, set airflow using a target airflow rate that is the higher of: (1) the manufacturer-specified airflow for the test; or (2) 67 percent of the airflow measured for the full-load cooling test. Calculate the capacity adjustment and fan power adjustment using the following equations. VerDate Sep<11>2014 22:41 Aug 16, 2023 Jkt 259001 PO 00000 Frm 00068 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 9990 E:\FR\FM\17AUP3.SGM 17AUP3 EP17AU23.115</GPH> ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS3 Where: DFPCadj = adjusted default fan power coefficient for test using airflow lower than full-load cooling airflow DFPCFL = default fan power coefficient specified for full-load tests in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft DFPCPL = default fan power coefficient specified for part-load tests in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340–202X Draft %FL Airflow = airflow measured for the test divided by the measured airflow for the full-load cooling test DCAadj = adjusted default capacity adjustment for test using airflow lower than full-load cooling airflow DCAFL = default capacity adjustment specified for full-load tests in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340–202X DraftDCAPL = default capacity adjustment specified for 5.2. For tests using the full-load cooling airflow, use the applicable airflow capacity adjustment and fan power adjustment specified for full-load tests in Table 8 of AHRI 1340–202X Draft. 5.3. For tests with a manufacturer-specified airflow that is lower than the full-load

Agencies

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56392-56458]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-15857]



[[Page 56391]]

Vol. 88

Thursday,

No. 158

August 17, 2023

Part III





Department of Energy





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





10 CFR Parts 429 and 431





Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air-Cooled, 
Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2023 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 56392]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

10 CFR Parts 429 and 431

[EERE-2023-BT-TP-0014]
RIN 1904-AD93


Energy Conservation Program: Test Procedures for Air-Cooled, 
Evaporatively-Cooled, and Water-Cooled Commercial Package Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps

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

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) proposes to amend the 
Federal test procedures for air-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners and heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater than 
or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, evaporatively-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners, and water-cooled commercial package air conditioners to 
incorporate by reference the latest versions of the applicable industry 
test standards. Specifically, DOE proposes: to amend the current test 
procedure for this equipment for measuring the current cooling and 
heating metrics--integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER) and 
coefficient of performance (COP), respectively; and to establish a new 
test procedure for this equipment that would adopt two new metrics--
integrated ventilation, economizer, and cooling (IVEC) and integrated 
ventilation and heating efficiency (IVHE). Testing to the IVEC and IVHE 
metrics would not be required until such time as compliance is required 
with any amended energy conservation standard based on the new metrics. 
Additionally, DOE proposes to amend certain provisions of DOE's 
regulations related to representations and enforcement for the subject 
equipment. DOE welcomes written comments from the public on any subject 
within the scope of this document (including topics not raised in this 
proposal), as well as the submission of data and other relevant 
information.

DATES: 
    Comments: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding 
this notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) no later than October 16, 
2023. See section V, ``Public Participation,'' for further details.
    Meeting: DOE will hold a public meeting via webinar on Thursday, 
September 7, 2023, from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. See section V, ``Public 
Participation,'' for webinar registration information, participant 
instructions, and information about the capabilities available to 
webinar participants.

ADDRESSES: Interested persons are encouraged to submit comments using 
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov under docket 
number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0014. Follow the instructions for submitting 
comments. Alternatively, interested persons may submit comments, 
identified by docket number EERE-2023-BT-TP-0014 and/or RIN 1904-AD93, 
by any of the following methods:
    Email: [email protected]. Include the docket number EERE-
2023-BT-TP-0014 and/or RIN 1904-AD93 in the subject line of the 
message.
    Postal Mail: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, U.S. 
Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 
1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, 
please submit all items on a compact disc (CD), in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    Hand Delivery/Courier: Appliance and Equipment Standards Program, 
U.S. Department of Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza SW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 287-1445. 
If possible, please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not 
necessary to include printed copies.
    No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted. For detailed 
instructions on submitting comments and additional information on this 
process, see section V of this document (Public Participation).
    Docket: The docket for this activity, which includes Federal 
Register notices, public meeting webinar attendee lists and transcripts 
(if a public meeting is held), 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, not all documents listed in the index may be publicly 
available, such as information that is exempt from public disclosure.
    The docket web page can be found at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-TP-0014. 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: Mr. Lucas Adin, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Building 
Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (202) 287-5904. Email: 
[email protected].
    Ms. Melanie Lampton, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the 
General Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 
20585-0121. Telephone: (240) 571-5157. Email: 
[email protected].
    For further information on how to submit a comment, review other 
public comments and the docket, or participate in the 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 to incorporate by reference the 
following industry standards into parts 429 and 431:
    AHRI Standard 340/360-2022 (I-P), 2022 Standard for Performance 
Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat 
Pump Equipment, AHRI approved January 26, 2022 (AHRI 340/360-2022).
    Copies of AHRI 340/360-2022 can be obtained from the Air-
Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute (AHRI), 2311 Wilson 
Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201 (703) 524-8800, or online at: 
www.ahrinet.org/standards/search-standards.
    AHRI Standard 1340(I-P)-202X Draft, Performance Rating of 
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment (AHRI 1340-202X Draft). AHRI 1340-202X Draft is in draft form 
and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review only during 
the drafting of this NOPR. If this industry test standard is formally 
adopted, DOE intends to incorporate by reference the final published 
version of AHRI 1340 in DOE's subsequent test procedure final rule. If 
there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions 
for which DOE receives stakeholder comments in response to this NOPR 
recommending that DOE adopt provisions consistent with the published 
version of AHRI 1340, then DOE may consider adopting those provisions. 
If there are substantive changes between the draft and published 
versions for which

[[Page 56393]]

stakeholder comments do not express support, DOE may adopt the 
substance of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft or provide additional opportunity 
for comment on the changes to the industry consensus standard.
    A copy of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft is provided in the docket for 
this rulemaking for review.
    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 37-2009).
    Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 can be obtained from the American 
Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers, 180 
Technology Parkway, Peachtree Corners, GA 30092, (404) 636-8400, or 
online at: www.ashrae.org.
    See section IV.M of this document for a further discussion of these 
standards.

Table of Contents

I. Authority and Background
    A. Authority
    B. Background
II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
III. Discussion
    A. Scope of Applicability
    B. Definitions
    1. CUAC and CUHP Definition
    2. Basic Model Definition
    3. Double-Duct Definition
    4. Metric Definitions
    C. Updates to Industry Test Standards
    1. AHRI 340/360
    2. AHRI 1340
    3. ASHRAE 37
    D. Consideration of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet
    E. DOE Proposed Test Procedures
    F. Efficiency Metrics and Test Conditions
    1. Comments Received on Metrics
    a. IEER Test Conditions and Weighting Factors
    b. Energy Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs
    c. Cyclic Degradation Factor for Cooling
    d. Economizing and Ventilation
    e. External Static Pressure Requirements
    f. Damper Leakage, Energy Recovery Systems, and Crankcase 
Heaters
    g. Controls Verification Procedure
    h. Heating Efficiency Metric
    2. Test Conditions Used for Current Metrics in Appendix A
    3. Test Conditions Used for New Metrics in Proposed Appendix A1
    4. IVEC
    5. IVHE
    a. IVHE for Colder Climates
    6. Additions and Revisions to the IVEC and IVHE Metrics Not 
Included in the Term Sheet
    a. Cooling Weighting Factors Adjustment
    b. ESP Testing Target Calculation
    c. Test Instructions for Splitting ESP Between Return and Supply 
Ductwork
    d. Default Fan Power and Maximum Pressure Drop for Coil-Only 
Systems
    e. Component Power Measurement
    f. IVHE Equations
    g. Non-Standard Low-Static Indoor Fan Motors
    7. Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs
    a. Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs
    8. Efficiency Metrics for Double-Duct Systems
    G. Test Method Changes in AHRI Standard 340/360
    1. Vertical Separation of Indoor and Outdoor Units
    2. Measurement of Air Conditions
    3. Refrigerant Charging Instructions
    4. Primary and Secondary Methods for Capacity Measurements
    5. Atmospheric Pressure
    a. Adjustment for Different Atmospheric Pressure Conditions
    b. Minimum Atmospheric Pressure
    c. Atmospheric Pressure Measurement
    6. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
    7. Length of Refrigerant Line Exposed to Outdoor Conditions
    8. Indoor Airflow Condition Tolerance
    9. ECUACs and WCUACs With Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/
h
    10. Additional Test Method Topics for ECUACs
    a. Outdoor Air Entering Wet-Bulb Temperature
    b. Make-Up Water Temperature
    c. Piping Evaporator Condensate to Condenser Sump
    d. Purge Water Settings
    e. Condenser Spray Pumps
    f. Additional Steps To Verify Proper Operation
    H. General Comments Received in Response to the July 2017 TP RFI
    I. Configuration of Unit Under Test
    1. Summary
    2. Background
    3. Proposed Approach for Exclusion of Certain Components
    a. Components Addressed Through Test Provisions of 10 CFR Part 
431, Subpart F, appendices A and A1
    b. Components Addressed Through Representation Provisions of 10 
CFR 429.43
    c. Enforcement Provisions of 10 CFR 429.134
    d. Testing Specially Built Units That Are Not Distributed in 
Commerce
    J. Represented Values
    1. Cooling Capacity
    2. Single-Zone Variable-Air-Volume and Multi-Zone Variable-Air-
Volume
    3. Confidence Limit
    4. AEDM Tolerance for IVEC and IVHE
    5. Minimum Part-Load Airflow
    K. Enforcement Procedure for Verifying Cut-In and Cut-Out 
Temperatures
    L. Proposed Organization of the Regulatory Text for CUACs and 
CUHPs
    M. Compliance Date
    N. Test Procedure Costs and Impact
    1. Appendix A
    2. Appendix A1
IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review
    A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094
    B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
    1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    a. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A
    b. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A1
    5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and 
Regulations
    6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969
    E. Review Under Executive Order 13132
    F. Review Under Executive Order 12988
    G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    H. Review Under the Treasury and General Government 
Appropriations Act, 1999
    I. Review Under Executive Order 12630
    J. Review Under Treasury and General Government Appropriations 
Act, 2001
    K. Review Under Executive Order 13211
    L. Review Under Section 32 of the Federal Energy Administration 
Act of 1974
    M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference
V. Public Participation
    A. 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

    Small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning 
and heating equipment 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)) Commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment includes as equipment 
categories the air-cooled commercial unitary air conditioners with a 
rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (ACUACs) 
and air-cooled commercial unitary heat pumps with a rated cooling 
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (ACUHPs), evaporatively-
cooled commercial unitary air conditioners (ECUACs), and water-cooled 
commercial unitary air conditioners (WCUACs), which are the subject of 
this NOPR.\1\ (ECUACs,

[[Page 56394]]

WCUACs, and ACUACs and ACUHPs including double-duct equipment are 
collectively referred to as CUACs and CUHPs in this document.) The 
current DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs are codified at title 
10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 431, subpart F, 
section 96, Table 1. The following sections discuss DOE's authority to 
establish and amend test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs, as well as 
relevant background information regarding DOE's proposed amendments to 
the test procedures for this equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ While ACUACs with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 
Btu/h are included in the broader category of CUACs, they are not 
addressed in this NOPR. The test procedure for ACUACs with rated 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h have been addressed in a 
separate rulemaking: see Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0031. All 
references within this NOPR to ACUACs and ACUHPs exclude equipment 
with rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Authority

    The Energy Policy and Conservation Act, Public Law 94-163 (42 
U.S.C. 6291-6317, as codified), as amended (EPCA),\2\ 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 
\3\ 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 covered equipment includes small, large, and 
very large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. 
(42 U.S.C. 6311(1)(B)-(D)) Commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment includes CUACs and CUHPs, which are the subject of 
this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ All references to EPCA in this document refer to the statute 
as amended through the Energy Act of 2020, Public Law 116-260 (Dec. 
27, 2020), which reflect the last statutory amendments that impact 
Parts A and A-1 of EPCA.
    \3\ For editorial reasons, upon codification in the U.S. Code, 
Part C was redesignated Part A-1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The energy conservation program under EPCA consists essentially of 
four parts: (1) testing, (2) labeling, (3) Federal energy conservation 
standards, and (4) certification and enforcement procedures. Relevant 
provisions of EPCA include definitions (42 U.S.C. 6311), energy 
conservation standards (42 U.S.C. 6313), test procedures (42 U.S.C. 
6314), labeling provisions (42 U.S.C. 6315), and the authority to 
require information and reports from manufacturers (42 U.S.C. 6316; 42 
U.S.C. 6296).
    The Federal testing requirements consist of test procedures that 
manufacturers of covered equipment must use as the basis for: (1) 
certifying to DOE that their equipment complies with the applicable 
energy conservation standards adopted pursuant to EPCA (42 U.S.C. 
6316(b); 42 U.S.C. 6296), and (2) making representations about the 
efficiency of that equipment (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)). Similarly, DOE uses 
these test procedures to determine whether the equipment complies with 
relevant standards promulgated under EPCA.
    Federal energy efficiency requirements for covered equipment 
established under EPCA generally supersede State laws and regulations 
concerning energy conservation testing, labeling, and standards. (42 
U.S.C. 6316(a) and (b); 42 U.S.C. 6297) DOE may, however, grant waivers 
of Federal preemption in limited circumstances for particular State 
laws or regulations, in accordance with the procedures and other 
provisions of EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6316(b)(2)(D))
    Under 42 U.S.C. 6314, EPCA also sets forth the general criteria and 
procedures DOE is required to follow when prescribing or amending test 
procedures for covered equipment. Specifically, EPCA requires that any 
test procedure prescribed or amended under this section must be 
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect energy 
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating cost of a given type of 
covered equipment (or class thereof) during a representative average 
use cycle and requires that such test procedures not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)-(3))
    As discussed, CUACs and CUHPs are classified as 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 AHRI or 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 update 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 the 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, in which case DOE may establish an amended test 
procedure that does satisfy those statutory provisions. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(4)(B) and (C))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven years, DOE 
evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including 
CUACs and CUHPs, 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)-(3))
    In addition, if DOE determines that a test procedure amendment is 
warranted, the Department 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 in the Federal Register its determination not to amend the 
test procedures. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A)(ii))
    DOE is proposing amendments to the test procedures for CUACs and 
CUHPs in satisfaction of its aforementioned statutory obligations under 
EPCA. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) and (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(1)-(3))

B. Background

    DOE's existing test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs appears at 10 CFR 
431.96 (Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency of 
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps). The test procedure for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling capacity of greater than or 
equal to 65,000 Btu/h specified in 10 CFR 431.96 references appendix A 
to subpart F of part 431 (Uniform Test Method for the Measurement of 
Energy Consumption of Air-Cooled Small (>=65,000 Btu/h), Large, and 
Very Large Commercial Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment, 
referred to as appendix A in this document). Appendix A references 
certain sections of ANSI/AHRI Standard 340/360-2007, 2007 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, approved by ANSI on October 27, 
2011 and updated by addendum 1 in December 2010 and addendum 2 in June 
2011 (ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007); ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 37-2009, Methods of 
Testing for Rating Electrically Driven Unitary Air-Conditioning and 
Heat Pump Equipment (ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009); and specifies other test 
procedure requirements related to minimum external static pressure 
(ESP), optional break-in period, refrigerant charging, setting indoor 
airflow, condenser head pressure controls, standard airflow and air 
quantity, tolerance on capacity at

[[Page 56395]]

part-load test points, and condenser air inlet temperature for part-
load tests.
    The DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling 
capacity of greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h specified in 10 CFR 
431.96 incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 (excluding 
section 6.3 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and including paragraphs (c) and 
(e) of Sec.  431.96.\4\) The DOE test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs 
with a rated cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h incorporates by 
reference ANSI/AHRI Standard 210/240-2008, ``2008 Standard for 
Performance Rating of Unitary Air-Conditioning & Air-Source Heat Pump 
Equipment,'' approved by ANSI on October 27, 2011 and updated by 
addendum 1 in June 2011 and addendum 2 in March 2012 (ANSI/AHRI 210/
240-2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ Paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 address optional 
break-in provisions and additional provisions regarding set up, 
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On October 26, 2016, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016, 
which included updates to the test procedure references for CUACs and 
CUHPs (excluding CUACs and CUHPs with a rated cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h) to reference AHRI Standard 340/360-2015, 2015 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/360-2015).\5\ This 
action by ASHRAE triggered DOE's obligations under 42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(4)(B), as outlined previously. On July 25, 2017, DOE published 
a request for information (RFI) (July 2017 TP RFI) in the Federal 
Register to collect information and data to consider amendments to 
DOE's test procedures for certain categories of commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment including CUACs and CUHPs. 82 FR 
34427. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE identified several aspects 
of the currently applicable Federal test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs 
that might warrant modifications, in particular: incorporation by 
reference of the most recent version of the relevant industry 
standard(s); efficiency metrics and calculations; and clarification of 
test methods. Id. at 82 FR 34439-34445. DOE also requested 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 procedures' accuracies. Id. at 82 FR 34448.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The previous version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 (i.e., ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2013) references ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE received a number of comments regarding CUACs and CUHPs in 
response to the July 2017 TP RFI from interested parties. Table I.1 
lists the commenters that provided comments relevant to CUACs and 
CUHPs, along with each commenter's abbreviated name used throughout 
this NOPR.\6\ Discussion of the relevant comments, and DOE's responses, 
are provided in the appropriate sections of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in a docket related to DOE's rulemaking to 
develop test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs. As noted, the July 2017 
RFI addressed a variety of different equipment categories and is 
available under docket number EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018, which is 
maintained at www.regulations.gov. As this NOPR addresses only CUACs 
and CUHPs, it has been assigned a separate docket number (i.e., 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015). The references are arranged as follows: 
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).

Table I.1--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the July 2017 TP RFI Relevant to CUACs and
                                                      CUHPs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Comment No. in
                Name of commenter                    Abbreviation used      the docket        Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration      AHRI..................              11  Trade Association.
 Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, Alliance   ASAP, ASE, et al......               9  Efficiency Advocacy
 to Save Energy, American Council for an Energy-                                           Organizations.
 Efficient Economy, Northwest Energy Efficiency
 Alliance, and Northwest Power and Conservation
 Council.
Carrier Corporation.............................  Carrier...............               6  Manufacturer.
Goodman Global Inc..............................  Goodman...............              14  Manufacturer.
Ingersoll Rand..................................  Trane.................              12  Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc........................  Lennox................               8  Manufacturer.
National Comfort Institute......................  NCI...................               4  Trade Association.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern        CA IOUs...............               7  Utilities.
 California Gas Company, San Diego Gas and
 Electric, and Southern California Edison;
 (collectively referred to as the ``California
 Investor-Owned Utilities'').
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A parenthetical reference at the end of a comment quotation or 
paraphrase provides the location of the item in the public record.\7\ 
For cases in which this NOPR references comments received in response 
to the July 2017 TP RFI (which are contained within a different docket 
\8\), the full docket number (rather than just the document number) is 
included in the parenthetical reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ The parenthetical reference provides a reference for 
information located in the relevant docket, which is maintained at 
www.regulations.gov. The references are arranged as follows: 
(commenter name, comment docket ID number, page of that document).
    \8\ Comments submitted in response to the July 2017 TP RFI are 
available in Docket No. EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    At the time DOE published the July 2017 TP RFI, the applicable 
version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1 was the 2016 edition, which referenced 
AHRI Standard 340/360-2015, 2015 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump 
Equipment as the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. On October 24, 
2019, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019, which updated the 
relevant AHRI Standard 340/360 reference to the 2019 edition, 2019 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/360-2019). In 
January 2022, AHRI published additional updates to its test procedure 
standard for CUACs and CUHPs, with the publication of AHRI Standard 
340/360-2022, 2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and 
Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 340/
360-2022), which DOE is proposing to reference in the amended test 
procedure in appendix A to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431 in this NOPR. 
These industry test standards are discussed further in section III.C of 
this NOPR. To the extent that comments on the July 2017 TP RFI are 
still relevant to AHRI 340/360-2022, DOE addresses such comments in the 
following sections.

[[Page 56396]]

    For ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2016 references ANSI/AHRI 210/240-
2008. After the publication of the July 2017 RFI, AHRI published AHRI 
Standard 210/240-2017, 2017 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary 
Air-conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 210/240-2017). 
ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2019 references AHRI 210/240-2017 as the test 
procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with rated cooling capacities less than 
65,000 Btu/h. After the publication of AHRI 210/240-2017, AHRI released 
two updates to that industry standard: (1) AHRI Standard 210/240-2017 
with Addendum 1, 2017 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 210/240-2017 with 
Addendum 1), which was published in April 2019; and (2) AHRI Standard 
210/240-2023, 2023 Standard for Performance Rating of Unitary Air-
conditioning & Air-source Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 210/240-2023), 
which was published in May 2020.
    On May 12, 2020, DOE published an RFI in the Federal Register 
regarding energy conservation standards for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and 
commercial warm air furnaces (May 2020 ECS RFI). 85 FR 27941. In 
response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE received comments from various 
stakeholders, including ones related to the test procedure for ACUACs 
and ACUHPs. Table I.2 lists the stakeholders whose comments in response 
to the May 2020 ECS RFI were related to the ACUAC and ACUHP test 
procedures and have been considered in this rulemaking. For cases in 
which this NOPR references comments received in response to the May 
2020 ECS RFI (which are contained within a different docket \9\), the 
full docket number (rather than just the item entry number) is included 
in the parenthetical reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Comments submitted in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI are 
available in Docket No. EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042.

 Table I.2--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2020 ECS RFI Relevant to CUAC and
                                              CUHP Test Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Comment No. in
                Name of commenter                    Abbreviation used      the docket        Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American   ASAP, ACEEE, et al....              23  Efficiency Advocacy
 Council for an Energy Efficient Economy,                                                  Organizations and
 California Energy Commission, Natural Resources                                           State Agency.
 Defense Council, and Northeast Energy
 Efficiency Partnerships.
Carrier Corporation.............................  Carrier...............              13  Manufacturer.
Goodman Manufacturing Company...................  Goodman...............              17  Manufacturer.
John Walsh......................................  Walsh.................              18  Individual.
Kristin Heinemeier..............................  Heinemeier............              12  Individual.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance............  NEEA..................              24  Efficiency Advocacy
                                                                                           Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas   CA IOUs...............              20  Utilities.
 and Electric, and Southern California Edison;
 (collectively referred to as the ``California
 Investor-Owned Utilities'').
Trane Technologies..............................  Trane.................              16  Manufacturer.
Verified Inc....................................  Verified..............              11  Efficiency Advocacy
                                                                                           Organization.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On May 25, 2022, DOE published an RFI in the Federal Register 
regarding test procedures and energy conservations standards for CUACs 
and CUHPs (May 2022 TP/ECS RFI). 87 FR 31743. In response to the May 
2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE notes that it received comments from various 
stakeholders related to the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. Table 
I.3 lists the stakeholders whose comments in response to the May 2022 
TP/ECS RFI were related to the CUAC and CUHP test procedures and have 
been considered in this proposed rulemaking. For cases in which this 
NOPR references comments received in response to the May 2022 TP/ECS 
RFI (which are contained within a different docket \10\), the full 
docket number (rather than just the item entry number) is included in 
the parenthetical reference.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Comments submitted in response to the May 2022 ECS/TP RFI 
are available in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015.

 Table I.3--List of Commenters With Written Submissions in Response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI Relevant to CUAC
                                            and CUHP Test Procedures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                          Comment No. in
                Name of commenter                    Abbreviation used      the docket        Commenter type
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Conditioning Heating and Refrigeration        AHRI..................               8  Manufacturer.
 Institute.
Appliance Standards Awareness Project, American   ASAP and ACEEE........              11  Efficiency Advocacy
 Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy.                                                  Organizations.
Carrier Corporation.............................  Carrier...............              10  Manufacturer.
Lennox International Inc........................  Lennox................               9  Manufacturer.
New York State Energy Research and Development    NYSERDA...............               7  State Agency.
 Authority.
Northwest Energy Efficiency Alliance............  NEEA..................              13  Efficiency Advocacy
                                                                                           Organization.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Diego Gas   CA IOUs...............              12  Utilities.
 and Electric, and Southern California Edison;
 (collectively referred to as the ``California
 Investor-Owned Utilities'').

[[Page 56397]]

 
Trane Technologies..............................  Trane.................              14  Manufacturer.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On July 29, 2022, DOE published in the Federal Register a notice of 
intent to establish a working group for commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (Working Group) to negotiate proposed test 
procedures and amended energy conservation standards for this equipment 
(July 2022 Notice of Intent). 87 FR 45703. The Working Group was 
established under the Appliance Standards and Rulemaking Federal 
Advisory Committee (ASRAC) in accordance with the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (FACA) (5 U.S.C App 2) and the Negotiated Rulemaking Act 
(NRA) (5 U.S.C. 561-570, Pub. L. 104-320). The purpose of the Working 
Group was to discuss, and if possible, reach consensus on recommended 
amendments to the test procedures and energy conservation standards for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs. The Working Group consisted of 14 voting members, 
including DOE. (See appendix A, Working Group Members, Document No. 65 
in Docket No. EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015) On December 15, 2022, the Working 
Group signed a term sheet of recommendations regarding ACUAC and ACUHP 
test procedures to be submitted to ASRAC, the contents of which are 
referenced throughout this NOPR (referred to hereafter as the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet). (See Id.) The ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet was approved by ASRAC on March 2, 2023. 
These recommendations are discussed further in section III.D of this 
NOPR.
    In January 2023, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022, which 
included updates to the test procedure references for CUACs and CUHPs 
with cooling capacities greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, 
specifically referencing AHRI 340/360-2022. For ECUACs and WCUACs with 
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 references 
AHRI 210/240-2023.
    Notably, ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h were removed from the scope of AHRI 210/240-2023, and are 
instead included in the scope of AHRI 340/360-2022. DOE discusses this 
change in scope to the industry test procedure and comments received 
related to ECUACs and WCUACs with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 
Btu/h in section III.G.9 of this NOPR.
    Following the publication of ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022, AHRI is 
currently working on an update to the AHRI standard 340/360 \11\ (i.e., 
AHRI Standard 1340(I-P)-202X Draft, Performance Rating of Commercial 
and Industrial Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment (AHRI 
1340-202X Draft)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ DOE has provided a copy of AHRI 1340-202X Draft in the 
docket for this rulemaking, available at www.regulations.gov/docket/EERE-2023-BT-TP-0014. AHRI Standard 1340 is in draft form and its 
text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review only during the 
drafting of this NOPR. Note that the draft AHRI Standard 1340 may be 
further revised, edited, delayed, or withdrawn prior to publication 
by the AHRI Standards Technical Committee (STC).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Synopsis of the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to update its test procedures for CUACs 
and CUHPs by: (1) updating the reference in the Federal test procedure 
to the most recent version of the industry test procedure, AHRI 340/
360-2022, for measuring integrated energy efficiency ratio (IEER), 
energy efficiency ratio (EER), and coefficient of performance (COP); 
and (2) establishing a new test procedure that references the most 
recent draft version of industry test procedure, AHRI 1340-202X Draft, 
and is consistent with recommendations from the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet that DOE should include new efficiency metrics 
(integrated ventilation, economizer, and cooling (IVEC) and integrated 
ventilation and heating efficiency (IVHE)) and new testing 
requirements. If a finalized version of AHRI 1340-202X Draft is not 
published before the final rule or if there are substantive changes 
between the draft and published versions of AHRI 340/360, DOE may adopt 
the substance of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft or provide additional 
opportunity for comment on the final version of that industry consensus 
standard.
    To implement the proposed changes, DOE proposes: (1) to amend 
appendix A to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360-2022 for CUACs and 
CUHPs, while maintaining the current efficiency metrics; and (2) to add 
a new appendix A1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 431. At 10 CFR part 
431.96, ``Uniform test method for the measurement of energy efficiency 
of commercial air conditioners and heat pumps,'' DOE would list 
appendix A1 as the applicable test method for CUACs and CUHPs for any 
standards denominated in terms of IVEC and IVHE. Appendix A1 would 
utilize the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, including the new IVEC and IVHE 
efficiency metrics recommended by the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet. Use of appendix A1 would not be required until such time as 
compliance is required with any amended energy conservation standard 
based on the new metrics, should DOE adopt such standards. After the 
date on which compliance with appendix A1 would be required, appendix A 
would no longer be used as part of the Federal test procedure. DOE is 
also proposing more general updates to establish a definition for the 
terms ``commercial unitary air conditioner'' and ``commercial unitary 
heat pump.'' Lastly, DOE is proposing to amend certain provisions 
within DOE's regulations for representation and enforcement consistent 
with the proposed test procedure amendments.
    Table I.1 summarizes the current DOE test procedure for CUACs and 
CUHPs, DOE's proposed changes to that test procedure, and the reason 
for each proposed change.

[[Page 56398]]



  Table II.1--Summary of Changes in Proposed Test Procedure Relative to
                         Current Test Procedure
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Proposed test
  Current DOE test procedure           procedure           Attribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Incorporates by reference.....  Incorporate by          Update to the
1. ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 for    reference AHRI 340/     most recent
 CUACs and CUHPs with a          360-2022 and ANSI/      industry test
 cooling capacity greater than   ASHRAE 37-2009 in       procedures.
 or equal to 65,000 Btu/h; and.  appendix A. Utilize
2. ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008 for    AHRI 1340-202X Draft
 ECUACs and WCUACs with a        and incorporate by
 cooling capacity less than      reference ANSI/ASHRAE
 65,000 Btu/h.                   37-2009 in a new
                                 appendix A1.
Includes provisions for         Appendix A maintains    Updates to the
 determining EER, IEER, and      provisions for          applicable
 COP.                            determining EER,        industry test
                                 IEER, and COP.          procedures.
                                 Appendix A1 includes
                                 provisions for
                                 determining EER2,
                                 COP2, IVEC, and IVHE.
Does not include certain CUAC   Includes provisions in  Improve
 and CUHP provisions regarding   10 CFR 429.43           representativen
 over-rating capacity and        specific to CUACs and   ess of test
 specific components for         CUHPs to determine      procedure.
 determination of represented    represented values
 values in 10 CFR 429.43.        for units with
                                 specific components,
                                 and to prevent
                                 cooling capacity over-
                                 rating.
Does not include certain CUAC-  Adopts product-         Clarify how DOE
 and CUHP-specific enforcement   specific enforcement    will conduct
 provisions in 10 CFR 429.134.   provisions for CUACs    enforcement
                                 and CUHPs regarding:    testing.
                                 (1) verification of
                                 cooling capacity for
                                 determining ESP
                                 requirements and (2)
                                 testing of units with
                                 specific components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Should DOE adopt the amendments described in this proposed rule, 
the effective date for the amended test procedure would be 30 days 
after publication of the test procedure final rule in the Federal 
Register.
    DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to the 
CUAC and CUHP test procedures would not be unduly burdensome. 
Furthermore, DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed 
amendments to appendix A, if made final, would not alter the measured 
efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs or require retesting or recertification 
solely as a result of DOE's adoption of the proposed amendments to the 
test procedure. Additionally, DOE has tentatively determined that the 
proposed amendments to appendix A, if made final, would not increase 
the cost of testing. If finalized, representations of energy use or 
energy efficiency would be required to be based on testing in 
accordance with the amended test procedure in appendix A beginning 360 
days after the date of publication of the test procedure final rule in 
the Federal Register.
    DOE has tentatively determined, however, that the newly proposed 
test procedure at appendix A1 would alter the measured efficiency of 
CUACs and CUHPs, in part because the amended test procedure would adopt 
different energy efficiency metrics than in the current test procedure. 
DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to appendix 
A1, if made final, would increase the cost of testing relative to the 
current test procedure. Tentative cost estimates are discussed in 
section III.M of this document. As discussed, use of appendix A1 would 
not be required until the compliance date of any amended energy 
conservation standard denominated in terms of the new metrics in 
appendix A1, should DOE adopt such standards.
    The proposed amendments to representation requirements in 10 CFR 
429.43 would not be required until 360 days after publication in the 
Federal Register of a test procedure final rule.
    Discussion of DOE's proposed actions are addressed in detail in 
section III of this NOPR.

III. Discussion

    In the following sections, DOE proposes certain amendments to its 
test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs. For each proposed amendment, DOE 
provides relevant background information, explains why the amendment 
merits consideration, discusses relevant public comments, and proposes 
a potential approach.

A. Scope of Applicability

    This rulemaking applies to ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated cooling 
capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h, including double-duct 
air conditioners and heat pumps, as well as ECUACs and WCUACs of all 
capacities. Definitions that apply to CUACs and CUHPs are discussed in 
section III.B of this NOPR.
    DOE's regulations for CUACs and CUHPs cover both single-package 
units and split systems. See the definition of ``commercial package 
air-conditioning and heating equipment'' at 10 CFR 431.92. A split 
system consists of a condensing unit--which includes a condenser coil, 
condenser fan and motor, and compressor--that is paired with a separate 
component that includes an evaporator coil to form a complete 
refrigeration circuit for space conditioning. One application for 
condensing units is to be paired with an air handler (which includes an 
evaporator coil), such that the combined system (i.e., the condensing 
unit with air handler) meets the definition of a split system CUAC or 
CUHP. It should be pointed out that AHRI has a certification program 
for unitary large equipment that includes certification of CUACs, 
CUHPs, and condensing units. DOE notes that as part of the AHRI 
certification program for unitary large equipment, manufacturers who 
sell air-cooled condensing units with a rated cooling capacity greater 
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and less than 135,000 Btu/h must certify 
condensing units as a complete system (i.e., paired with an air 
handler) according to the AHRI 340/360 test procedure.\12\ However, for 
condensing units with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 
135,000 Btu/h and less than 250,000 Btu/h, the AHRI certification 
program allows manufacturers to certify condensing units as a complete 
system according to AHRI 340/360 or optionally certify as a condensing 
unit only according to AHRI Standard 365, ``Standard for Performance 
Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-Conditioning Condensing 
Units'' (AHRI 365). DOE emphasizes that these AHRI testing and 
certification requirements differ from the Federal test procedure at 10 
CFR 431.96, which requires testing to ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and does 
not permit certifying to DOE as a condensing unit only according to 
AHRI 365. Additionally, the AHRI

[[Page 56399]]

certification program does not include unitary split systems or 
condensing units with cooling capacities above 250,000 Btu/h, whereas 
the Federal test procedure and standards (codified at 10 CFR 431.96 and 
10 CFR 431.97, respectively) cover all CUACs and CUHPs with cooling 
capacities up to 760,000 Btu/h. Once again, DOE emphasizes that 
condensing unit models distributed in commerce with air handlers with 
cooling capacities up to 760,000 Btu/h are covered as commercial 
package air-conditioning and heating equipment (see definition at 10 
CFR 431.92) and as such are subject to the Federal regulations 
specified for CUACs and CUHPs regarding test procedures (10 CFR 
431.96), energy conservation standards (10 CFR 431.97), and 
certification and representation requirements (10 CFR 429.43).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See appendix A of the AHRI Unitary Large Equipment 
Certification Program Operations Manual (January 2021). This can be 
found at https://www.ahrinet.org/sites/default/files/2022-08/ULE_OM.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Definitions

1. CUAC and CUHP Definition
    In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the 
definitions that apply to CUACs and CUHPs (including the definitions 
for small, large, and very large commercial package air conditioning 
and heating equipment) require any revisions--and if so, how those 
definitions should be revised. 85 FR 27941, 27945 (May 12, 2020). DOE 
also requested comment on whether additional equipment definitions are 
necessary to close any potential gaps in coverage between equipment 
types. Id.
    Trane commented that the overall definition for commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment is very broad and covers 
equipment that is used in specific industrial applications (e.g., 
computer room air conditioners (CRACs), dedicated outdoor air systems 
(DOASes), and indoor agricultural systems) for which the CUAC/CUHP test 
procedure and IEER metric should not apply.\13\ Trane recommended that 
DOE should separately regulate these categories of equipment with 
specific definitions, test procedures, and energy conservation 
standards. (Trane, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0016, pp. 2-3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ The IEER metric represents a weighted average of full-load 
and part-load efficiencies, weighted according to the average amount 
of time operating at each load point. Additionally, IEER 
incorporates reduced condenser temperatures (i.e., reduced outdoor 
ambient temperatures) for part-load operation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Goodman commented that ambiguity exists regarding DOASes used for 
dry-climate applications, as these systems could be rated and tested in 
accordance with AHRI Standard 340/360, as well as AHRI Standard 920, 
and that updating definitions to address these specific system types 
based on mixed-air or 100-percent air applications would provide some 
clarity in the marketplace. (Goodman, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0017, p. 2)
    Regarding DOASes, in a final rule published in the Federal Register 
on July 27, 2022, DOE defined a direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air 
system (DX-DOAS) as a unitary dedicated outdoor air system that is 
capable of dehumidifying air to a 55 [deg]F dew point--when operating 
under Standard Rating Condition A as specified in Table 4 or Table 5 of 
AHRI 920-2020 (incorporated by reference, 10 CFR 431.95) with a 
barometric pressure of 29.92 in Hg--for any part of the range of 
airflow rates advertised in manufacturer materials, and has a moisture 
removal capacity of less than 324 lb/h. 87 FR 45164, 45170, 45198. DOE 
has tentatively concluded that this definition provides the requisite 
specificity sought by Goodman's comment.
    More broadly, as in this NOPR, DOE has previously used the 
colloquial terms ``commercial unitary air conditioners'' and 
``commercial unitary heat pump'' (i.e., CUACs and CUHPs), to refer to 
certain commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment, 
recognizing that CUAC is not a statutory term and is not currently used 
in the CFR. See 79 FR 58948, 58950 (Sept. 30, 2014); 80 FR 52676, 52676 
(Sept. 1, 2015). As codified in regulation, the classes for which EPCA 
prescribed standards have been grouped under the headings ``commercial 
air conditioners and heat pumps'' (10 CFR 431.96, Table 1) and ``air 
conditioning and heating equipment'' (10 CFR 431.97, Table 1), although 
these are not defined terms. These classes have also been identified by 
the broader equipment type with which they are associated (i.e., small, 
large, or very large commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment). Id. DOE agrees with the commenters that a more tailored 
definition regarding the equipment categories covered by these umbrella 
terms may provide additional benefits in terms of clarity.
    Consequently, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to establish a definition 
for ``commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat 
pump'' to assist in distinguishing between the regulated categories of 
commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment. The proposed 
definition is structured to indicate categories of commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment that are excluded from the 
definition, rather than stipulating features or characteristics of 
CUACs and CUHPs. Specifically, the proposed definition would exclude 
single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps (SPVUs), 
variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps, 
and water-source heat pumps. To the extent that a unit could be 
considered either a CUAC or a CRAC, such unit would be excluded from 
the CUAC definition if marketed solely for applications specific to the 
CRAC equipment category. To the extent that a unit could be either a 
CUAC or a DX-DOAS, such unit would be excluded from the CUAC definition 
if it is only capable of providing ventilation and conditioning of 100-
percent outdoor air or it is marketed in all materials as only having 
such capability. DOE notes that, when gathering information for 
potential enforcement of CRAC, CUAC or a DX-DOAS standards, DOE may 
consider marketing materials claiming that a unit is a CRAC, CUAC or 
DX-DOAS by any party. Any marketing, by any party, could signal that a 
unit is not only a CRAC, CUAC, or a DX-DOAS. DOE notes that to the 
extent that a basic model is covered under more than one equipment 
category (e.g., CRAC and CUAC) it would be subject to the regulations 
applicable to each equipment class that covers that basic model.
    DOE proposes the following definition: Commercial unitary air 
conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump means any small, large, or 
very large air-cooled, water-cooled, or evaporatively-cooled commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment that consists of one or 
more factory-made assemblies that provide space conditioning; but does 
not include:
    (1) single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps,
    (2) variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat 
pumps,
    (3) water-source heat pumps;
    (4) equipment marketed only for use in computer rooms, data 
processing rooms, or other information technology cooling applications, 
and
    (5) equipment only capable of providing ventilation and 
conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air marketed only for ventilation 
and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air.
    DOE recognizes that there may be models on the market that would be 
covered by DOE regulations for multiple equipment categories. As 
discussed in a previous notice addressing CRACs, such models would have 
to be tested and rated according to the requirements for each 
applicable equipment class of

[[Page 56400]]

standards (e.g., CRAC and CUAC). See 77 FR 16769, 16773 (March 22, 
2012).
    Issue 1: DOE seeks comment on its proposed definition for CUACs and 
CUHPs.
2. Basic Model Definition
    The current definition for ``basic model'' in DOE's regulations 
includes a provision applicable for ``small, large, and very large air-
cooled or water-cooled commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment (excluding air-cooled, three-phase, small commercial package 
air conditioning and heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less 
than 65,000 Btu/h).'' 10 CFR 431.92. Consistent with DOE's proposed 
definition for ``commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial 
unitary heat pump,'' DOE proposes to similarly update the definition of 
``basic model'' so that this provision instead applies to the proposed 
term ``commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat 
pump.'' DOE notes that the term in the current ``basic model'' 
definition includes ACUACs, ACUHPs, and WCUACs, but does not explicitly 
include ECUACs, (DOE notes that the definition of ``commercial package 
air-conditioning and heating equipment'' at 10 CFR 431.92 makes clear 
that that term includes evaporatively-cooled equipment. Consequently, 
ECUACs are clearly part of the relevant basic model definition, so the 
omission of the term ``evaporatively-cooled'' from the heading should 
not impact the proper functioning and use of the test procedure. 
However, DOE is proposing to update the relevant heading to dispel any 
confusion in that regard.) This proposal thereby includes ECUACs in 
this provision of the ``basic model'' definition--i.e., because ECUACs 
are included within the proposed term ``commercial unitary air 
conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump,'' as discussed in section 
III.B.1 of this NOPR. It would further clarify that this provision of 
the ``basic model'' definition refers only to CUACs and CUHPs, and not 
to any other category of equipment that is ``small, large, and very 
large commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment''.
    DOE also proposes editorial changes more generally to the 
definition of ``basic model'' specified in 10 CFR 431.92. The current 
definition begins with ``Basic model includes'' and each equipment 
category-specific provision of the definition begins with the equipment 
category name, followed by the word ``means,'' followed by the basic 
model definition for that category (e.g., ``Computer room air 
conditioners means all units . . .''). However, this wording could be 
misinterpreted to read as a definition of each equipment category, 
rather than as the definition of what constitutes a basic model for 
each equipment category. Therefore, DOE proposes to revise the 
definition to instead begin with ``Basic model means'' and then revise 
each equipment category specific provision to begin with ``For'' and 
replace the word ``means'' with a colon (e.g., ``For Computer room air 
conditioners: all units . . .''). These proposed changes to the basic 
model definition are editorial and would not change the current 
understanding of what constitutes a basic model for each equipment 
category.
3. Double-Duct Definition
    DOE established a definition for ``double-duct air conditioner or 
heat pump'' at 10 CFR 431.92 (referred to as ``double-duct air 
conditioners and heat pumps'' or ``double-duct systems'') in an energy 
conservation standards direct final rule published in the Federal 
Register on January 15, 2016 (January 2016 Direct Final Rule). 81 FR 
2420, 2529. This definition was included in a term sheet by the ASRAC 
working group for commercial package air conditioners (Commercial 
Package Air Conditioners Working Group) as part of the rulemaking that 
culminated with the January 2016 Direct Final Rule. (See Document No. 
93 in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007, pp. 4-5) DOE defines double-
duct systems as air-cooled commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment that: (1) Is either a horizontal single package or 
split-system unit; or a vertical unit that consists of two components 
that may be shipped or installed either connected or split; (2) Is 
intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air from the 
building exterior to and from the unit, as evidenced by the unit and/or 
all of its components being non-weatherized, including the absence of 
any marking (or listing) indicating compliance with UL 1995,\14\ 
``Heating and Cooling Equipment,'' or any other equivalent requirements 
for outdoor use; (3) If it is a horizontal unit, a complete unit has a 
maximum height of 35 inches; if it is a vertical unit, a complete unit 
has a maximum depth of 35 inches; and (4) Has a rated cooling capacity 
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h and up to 300,000 Btu/h. 10 CFR 
431.92.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Underwriters Laboratory (UL) 1995, UL Standard for Safety 
for Heating and Cooling Equipment (UL 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the 
definitions that apply to ACUACs and ACUHPs, including double-duct 
systems, require any revisions--and if so, how those definitions should 
be revised. 85 FR 27941, 27945. (May 12, 2020).
    In response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, Carrier recommended that DOE 
review the current definitions for double-duct systems, as well as the 
definition for SPVUs, asserting that the current definitions for 
double-duct systems and SPVUs do not clearly delineate the two 
equipment categories. Carrier stated that while double-duct systems and 
SPVUs are extraordinarily similar in application, double-duct systems 
have longer ductwork to bring air from outside the building to the 
condensing section of the unit, whereas SPVUs must remain in close 
proximately to an exterior wall. (Carrier, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0013 
at p. 2)
    In response, DOE notes that section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft specify the following 
definition for double-duct systems: an air conditioner or heat pump 
that complies with all of the following: (1) Is either a horizontal 
single package or split-system unit; or a vertical unit that consists 
of two components that can be shipped or installed either connected or 
split; or a vertical single packaged unit that is not intended for 
exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall; 
(2) Is intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air 
from the building exterior to and from the unit, where the unit and/or 
all of its components are non-weatherized; (3) If it is a horizontal 
unit, the complete unit shall have a maximum height of 35 in. or the 
unit shall have components that do not exceed a maximum height of 35 
in. If it is a vertical unit, the complete (split, connected, or 
assembled) unit shall have components that do not exceed maximum depth 
of 35 in.; (4) Has a rated cooling capacity greater than and equal to 
65,000 Btu/h and less than or equal to 300,000 Btu/h.
    In comparison to DOE's definition, DOE notes the following 
regarding the definition for double-duct system in section 3.7 of AHRI 
340/360-2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft: (1) vertical 
single packaged units not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent 
interior to, or through an outside wall can be classified as double-
duct systems; (2) the maximum dimensions apply to each component of a 
split system; and (3) the AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
definition does not include compliance with UL 1995 as a criterion for 
determining whether a model is non-

[[Page 56401]]

weatherized. For the reasons discussed in the following paragraphs, DOE 
has tentatively concluded that the definition for double-duct system in 
section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 3.12 of the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft more appropriately classifies double-duct systems and 
differentiates this equipment from other categories of commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment.
    Regarding vertical single package units, the DOE definitions for 
SPVUs at 10 CFR 431.92 include models that are intended for exterior 
mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall. In the 
January 2016 Direct Final Rule, DOE agreed with the exclusion of 
vertical single package units from the definition for ``double-duct 
system'' because SPVUs are separately regulated.\15\ 81 FR 2420, 2446 
(Jan. 15, 2016). However, the exclusion of all vertical single package 
units from the definition for ``double-duct system'' adopted in the 
January 2016 Direct Final Rule means that vertical single package 
models that do not meet the SPVU definition (i.e., are not intended for 
exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an outside wall) 
are not explicitly covered by the definitions for SPVUs or double-duct 
systems. Because the reasoning provided in the January 2016 Direct 
Final Rule was to exclude SPVUs from the double-duct definition, DOE 
has tentatively concluded that vertical single package units that do 
not meet the SPVU definition were inadvertently excluded from the DOE 
double-duct definition. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined that 
the clarification in the AHRI 340/360-2022 definition for ``double-duct 
systems'' (i.e., inclusion of vertical single package units not 
intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or through an 
outside wall) is appropriate and consistent with the intent of the 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group that initially 
drafted the current ``double-duct system'' definition. See 81 FR 2420, 
2446. (Jan. 15, 2016). This clarification also addresses Carrier's 
concern that the current definitions do not clearly differentiate 
double-duct systems from SPVUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ Specifically, DOE stated in the January 2016 Direct Final 
Rule that single package vertical units are already covered under 
separate standards (10 CFR 431.97(d)). As a result, to ensure that 
SPVUs are not covered under the definition of double-duct equipment, 
DOE agrees with the ASRAC Term Sheet recommendations that for 
vertical double-duct units, only those with split configurations 
(that may be installed with the two components attached together) 
should be included as part of this separate equipment class.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding maximum height and depth dimensions, the revised 
definition in section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 3.12 of the 
AHRI 1340-202X draft specifies that for systems with multiple 
components, the maximum dimensions apply to each component of the unit. 
Because split systems are installed separately from each other, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that it is appropriate for the maximum dimensions 
for split systems to apply to each component, rather than the combined 
system.
    Regarding determination of whether a model is non-weatherized, the 
AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft definition does not include 
the criterion regarding the absence of any marking (or listing) 
indicating compliance with UL 1995 as an indication that the unit is 
intended for indoor installation. Upon examination of UL 1995, DOE 
recognizes that the scope of the standard is not limited to models 
intended for outdoor installation, and therefore, that compliance with 
UL 1995 does not necessarily indicate that a model is intended for 
outdoor installation and/or is weatherized. Therefore, DOE tentatively 
agrees with removing the reference to UL 1995 in the double-duct 
definition, and instead specifying that double-duct systems are 
intended for indoor installation (e.g., the unit and/or all of its 
components are non-weatherized).
    Based on the preceding discussion, DOE has tentatively determined 
that the definition for ``double-duct system'' in AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft better implements the intent of DOE and the 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group to create a separate 
equipment class of ACUACs and ACUHPs that are designed for indoor 
installation and that would require ducting of outdoor air from the 
building exterior. 81 FR 2420, 2446 (Jan. 15, 2016). Thus, DOE is 
proposing to revise the definition of double-duct air conditioners and 
heat pumps in 10 CFR 431.92 to reflect the updated definition for 
double-duct systems in section 3.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 
3.12 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
4. Metric Definitions
    As mentioned in section II and discussed in further detail in 
sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt 
new cooling and heating metrics in appendix A1 (i.e., IVEC and IVHE). 
Additionally, DOE is proposing three metrics for optional 
representations in appendix A1, as discussed further in section III.F.3 
of this NOPR: energy efficiency ratio 2 (EER2), coefficient of 
performance 2 (COP2), and IVHE for colder climates (IVHEC). 
Consistent with this approach, DOE is proposing to add new definitions 
for the terms ``IVEC,'' ``IVHE,'' ``EER2,'' and ``COP2'' to 10 CFR 
431.92. The proposed definitions describe what each metric represents, 
the test procedure used to determine each metric, and specific 
designations applicable to each metric (e.g., IVHEC).

C. Updates to Industry Test Standards

    The following sections discuss the changes included in the most 
recent updates to AHRI 340/360 and ASHRAE 37, which are incorporated by 
reference in the current DOE test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs with 
a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h at 10 
CFR 431.96 and 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendix A. AHRI 340/360 is 
also incorporated by reference in the current DOE test procedure for 
ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal 
to 65,000 Btu/h at 10 CFR 431.96.
1. AHRI 340/360
    As noted previously, DOE's current test procedures for ACUACs, 
ACUHPs, and ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity greater 
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h incorporates by reference ANSI/AHRI 340/
360-2007. DOE's current test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with a 
rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h incorporates by reference 
ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008.
    The most recent version of ASHRAE Standard 90.1, (i.e., ASHRAE 
Standard 90.1-2022), references AHRI 340/360-2022 as the test procedure 
for ACUACs, ACUHPs, and ECUACs and WCUACs with a rated cooling capacity 
greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022 
included updates to the test procedure references for ECUACs and WCUACs 
with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h to reference AHRI 210/240-2023. 
However, ECUACs and WCUACs with capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h are 
outside of the scope of AHRI 210/240-2023 and are instead included in 
AHRI 340/360-2022. Given these changes to the relevant industry test 
standards, DOE believes that such reference was an oversight.
    The following list includes substantive additions in AHRI 340/360-
2022 as compared to ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, which is edition referenced 
in the current Federal test procedure and applies to CUACs and CUHPs:
    1. A method for testing double-duct systems at non-zero ESP (see 
section

[[Page 56402]]

6.1.3.7 and appendix I of AHRI 340/360-2022);
    2. A method for comparing relative efficiency of indoor integrated 
fan and motor combinations (IFMs) that allows CUACs and CUHPs with non-
standard (i.e., higher ESP) IFMs to be rated in the same basic model as 
otherwise identical models with standards IFMs (see section D4.2 of 
Appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022);
    3. Requirements for indoor and outdoor air condition measurement 
(see appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2022);
    4. Detailed provisions for setting indoor airflow and ESP (see 
sections 6.1.3.4-6.1.3.6 of AHRI 340/360-2022) and refrigerant charging 
instructions to be used in cases in which manufacturer's instructions 
conflict or are incomplete (see section 5.8 of AHRI 340/360-2022); and
    5. ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h 
are included within the scope of the standard.
    As discussed, DOE is proposing to amend its test procedure for 
CUACs and CUHPs by incorporating by reference AHRI 340/360-2022 in 
appendix A.
2. AHRI 1340
    The recommendations of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet are being incorporated into an updated version of AHRI 340/360 
currently being drafted (i.e., AHRI 1340-202X Draft) that will 
supersede AHRI 340/360-2022.
    The AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes recommendations from the ACUAC 
and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet described in section III.D of 
this NOPR (including the IVEC and IVHE metrics). The AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft also includes the following revisions and additions to the IVEC 
and IVHE metrics not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet, which are discussed in detail in sections III.F.5.a, 
III.F.6, and III.F.7.a of this NOPR:
    1. Detailed test instructions for splitting ESP between the return 
and supply ductwork, consistent with ESP requirements recommended in 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet;
    2. Corrections to the hour-based IVEC weighting factors included in 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet;
    3. Correction of the equation in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group 
TP Term Sheet for calculating adjusted ESP for any cooling or heating 
tests conducted with an airflow rate that differs from the full-load 
cooling airflow;
    4. Addition of separate hour-based weighting factors and bin 
temperatures to calculate a separate version of IVHE that is 
representative of colder climates, designated IVHEC
    5. Changes to the default fan power and maximum pressure drop used 
for testing coil-only systems;
    6. Additional instruction for component power measurement during 
testing;
    7. Corrections to equations used for calculating IVHE;
    8. Provisions for testing with non-standard low-static indoor fan 
motors; and
    9. Revision to the power adder for WCUACs that reflects power that 
would be consumed by field-installed heat rejection components.
    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft in its appendix A1 test procedure. AHRI Standard 1340 
is in draft form and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of 
review for this NOPR. Note that the draft AHRI Standard 1340 may be 
further revised, edited, delayed, or withdrawn prior to publication by 
the AHRI Standards Technical Committee. If AHRI has published a final 
version, DOE intends to update its incorporation by reference to the 
final published version of AHRI 1340, unless there are substantive 
changes between the draft and published versions, in which case DOE may 
adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft or provide additional 
opportunity for comment on the changes to the industry consensus 
standard.
3. ASHRAE 37
    ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009, which provides a method of test for many 
categories of air conditioning and heating equipment, is referenced for 
testing CUACs and CUHPs by both AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft. More specifically, sections 5 and 6 and appendices C, D, 
and E of AHRI 340/360-2022 and sections 5 and 6 and appendices C, D, 
and E of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft reference methods of test in ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009. DOE currently incorporates by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-
2009 in 10 CFR 431.95, and the current incorporation by reference 
applies to the current Federal test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs 
specified at appendix A. The current Federal test procedures at 10 CFR 
431.96 for ECUACs and WCUACs do not explicitly reference ANSI/ASHRAE 
37-2009. Given that DOE is proposing to expand the scope of appendix A 
to include testing of ECUACs and WCUACs as well as the fact that AHRI 
340/360-2022 references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 for several test 
instructions, DOE has tentatively concluded that it is appropriate for 
the existing incorporation by reference of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 in 
appendix A to apply to testing ECUACs and WCUACs. Given that the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 for several test 
instructions, DOE is proposing to additionally incorporate by reference 
ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 for use with appendix A1.

D. Consideration of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet

    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE received comments from 
several stakeholders indicating support for the formation of an ASRAC 
working group to convene and discuss representative test conditions for 
CUACs and CUHPs. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at pp. 1-2; CA 
IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at pp. 1-2; Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0015-0009, at pp. 1-2; NEEA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0013, at pp. 6-7; 
Trane, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0014, at p. 2)
    As a result, DOE published in the Federal Register the July 2022 
Notice of Intent. 87 FR 45703 (July 29, 2022). DOE then established the 
Working Group in accordance with FACA and NRA. The Working Group 
consisted of 14 members and met six times, while the Working Group's 
subcommittee met an additional seven times. The Working Group meetings 
were held between September 20, 2022, and December 15, 2022, after 
which the Working Group successfully reached consensus on an amended 
test procedure. The Working Group signed a term sheet of 
recommendations on December 15, 2022. (See EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0065) 
The Working Group addressed the following aspects of the test procedure 
for ACUACs and ACUHPs:
    1. Mathematical representation of cooling efficiency: The current 
cooling metric specified by AHRI 340/360-2022 (i.e., IEER) represents a 
weighted average of the measured energy efficiency ratios (EER) 
measured at four distinct test conditions, whereas the proposed IVEC 
metric is calculated as the total annual cooling capacity divided by 
the total annual energy use, as discussed further in section III.F.4 of 
this document. The Working Group agreed that this calculation approach 
provides a more mathematically accurate way of representing the cooling 
efficiency of ACUACs and ACUHPs compared to the current approach used 
for IEER. As part of this equation format,

[[Page 56403]]

the IVEC metric also uses hour-based weighting factors to represent the 
time spent per year in each operating mode.
    2. Integrated heating metric: The current heating metric for ACUHPs 
(i.e., COP) represents the ratio of heating capacity to the power 
input, calculated at a single test condition of 47 [deg]F. COP does not 
account for the performance at part-load or over the range of 
temperatures seen during an average heating season, and it does not 
include energy use in heating season ventilation mode. IVHE accounts 
for both full-load and part-load operation at a range of typical 
ambient temperatures seen during the heating season, and it includes 
energy use in heating season ventilation mode. Analogous to IVEC, the 
proposed IVHE metric is calculated as the total annual heating load 
divided by the total annual energy use, as discussed further in section 
III.F.5 of this document, and the metric also uses hour-based weighting 
factors to represent the time spent per year in each operating mode.
    3. Operating modes other than mechanical cooling: The IEER metric 
currently does not include the energy use of operating modes other than 
mechanical cooling, such as economizer-only cooling and cooling season 
ventilation. The newly established IVEC metric includes the energy use 
of these other modes.
    4. ESP: The IVEC and IVHE metrics require increased ESPs--in 
comparison to the ESPs required for determining IEER and COP--to more 
accurately represent ESPs and corresponding indoor fan power that would 
be experienced in real-world installations.
    5. Crankcase heater operation: The current IEER metric includes 
crankcase heater power consumption only when operating at part-load 
compressor stages (i.e., for part-load cooling operation, crankcase 
heater power is included only for higher-stage compressors that are 
staged off, and it is not included for lower-stage compressors when all 
compressors are cycled off). The COP metric does not include any 
crankcase heater power consumption. In contrast, the IVEC and IVHE 
metrics include all annual crankcase heater operation, including when 
all compressors are cycled off in part-load cooling or heating, 
ventilation mode, unoccupied no-load hours, and in heating season (for 
ACUACs only).
    6. Oversizing: The current IEER and COP metrics do not consider 
that ACUACs and ACUHPs are typically oversized in field installations. 
In contrast, the proposed IVEC and IVHE metrics include an oversizing 
factor of 15 percent (i.e., it is assumed that the unit's measured 
full-load cooling capacity is 15 percent higher than the peak building 
cooling load and peak building heating load). Accounting for oversizing 
is more representative of the load fractions seen in field applications 
and better enables the test procedure to differentiate efficiency 
improvements from the use of modulating/staged components.
    Based on discussions related to these six topics, the Working Group 
developed the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, which 
includes the following recommendations:
    1. A recommendation to adopt the latest version of AHRI 340/360-
2022 with IEER and COP metrics required for compliance beginning 360 
days from the date a test procedure final rule publishes (See 
Recommendation #0);
    2. The IVEC efficiency metric, to be required on the date of 
amended energy conservation standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs (See 
Recommendation #1);
    3. Hour-based weighting factors for the IVEC metric (See 
Recommendation #2);
    4. Details on determination of IVEC, including provisions for 
determining IVEC in appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet (See Recommendation #3);
    5. Target load fractions and temperature test conditions for IVEC, 
which account for oversizing (See Recommendation #4);
    6. A requirement that representations of full-load EER be made in 
accordance with the full-load ``A'' test (See Recommendation #5); \16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Similar to the current test procedure for determining IEER, 
the test procedure recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group 
TP Term Sheet includes four cooling tests designated with letters 
``A'', ``B'', ``C'', and ``D.'' The ``A'' test is a full-load 
cooling test, while the ``B,'' ``C,'' and ``D'' tests are part-load 
cooling tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    7. A requirement to provide representations of airflow used for the 
full load ``A'' test and the part load ``D'' test (i.e., the airflow 
used in the lowest-stage test for the D point), and a provision for 
determining the minimum airflow that can be used for testing (See 
Recommendation #6);
    8. The IVHE efficiency metric (See Recommendation #7);
    9. Hour-based weighting factors, load bins, and outdoor air 
temperatures for each bin (i.e., temperatures used for the building 
heating load line, not test temperature conditions) for the IVHE metric 
(See Recommendation #8);
    10. The test conditions and list of required and optional tests and 
representations for the IVHE metric (See Recommendation #9);
    11. Provisions for manufacturers to certify cut-in and cut-out 
temperatures for heat pumps to DOE and provisions for a DOE 
verification test of those temperatures (See Recommendation #10);
    12. Commitment of the Working Group to analyze ventilation and fan-
only operation included in the IVEC and IVHE metrics to validate that 
these metrics adequately capture fan energy use during the energy 
conservation standards portion of the negotiated rulemaking. If the 
IVEC and IVHE levels do not adequately drive more efficient air moving 
systems that are technologically feasible and economically justified, 
the Working Group committed to developing a metric addressing furnace 
fan energy use (See Recommendation #11);
    13. ESP requirements for the IVEC and IVHE metrics, requirements 
for splitting the ESP requirements between the return and supply ducts, 
and a requirement that certified airflow for full load and D bin be 
made public in the DOE Compliance Certification Database (See 
Recommendation #12);
    14. Provisions requiring manufacturers to certify crankcase heater 
wattages and tolerances for certification (See Recommendation #13); and
    15. Provisions that the contents of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet be implemented in a test procedure NOPR and final 
rule, with the final rule issuing no later than any energy conservation 
standards direct final rule. (See Recommendation #14)

E. DOE Proposed Test Procedures

    As discussed, EPCA requires that test procedures for covered 
equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs, be reasonably designed to produce 
test results that reflect energy efficiency, energy use, and estimated 
operating costs of a type of industrial equipment (or class thereof) 
during a representative average use cycle (as determined by the 
Secretary), and shall not be unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 
6314(a)(2)) DOE has tentatively determined that the recommendations 
specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet are 
consistent with this EPCA requirement and is proposing amendments to 
the existing test procedure in appendix A and a new test procedure in 
appendix A1 in accordance with the Term Sheet.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to maintain the current efficiency 
metrics of IEER, EER, and COP in appendix A, and is proposing to 
reference AHRI 340/360-2022 in appendix A for measuring the existing 
metrics. Thus, the proposed

[[Page 56404]]

amendments to appendix A would not affect the measured efficiency of 
CUACs and CUHPs or require retesting solely as a result of DOE's 
adoption of the proposed amendments to the appendix A test procedure, 
if made final. Additionally, DOE is proposing to establish a new test 
procedure at appendix A1 that would adopt the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, 
including the newly proposed IVEC and IVHE metrics, ideally through 
incorporation by reference of a finalized version of that industry test 
standard. (If a finalized version of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft is not 
published before the test procedure final rule, or if there are 
substantive changes between the draft and published versions of the 
standard that are not supported by stakeholder comments in response to 
this NOPR, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft or 
provide additional opportunity for comment on the final version of that 
industry consensus standard.) Use of appendix A1 would not be required 
until the compliance date of any amended standards denominated in terms 
of the new metrics in appendix A1, should such standards be adopted.
    Specifically, in appendix A, DOE is proposing to adopt the 
following sections of AHRI 340/360-2022: sections 3 (with certain 
exclusions \17\), 4, 5, and 6, and appendices A, C, D (excluding 
sections D1 through D3 \18\), and E.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ DOE is not proposing to reference the following provisions 
in section 3 of AHRI 340/360-2022 because the terms are either 
defined at 10 CFR 431.92 or are not needed for the proposed DOE test 
procedure: 3.2 (Basic Model), 3.4 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-conditioning Equipment), 3.5 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Heat Pump), 3.7 (Double-duct System), 3.8 (Energy Efficiency Ratio), 
3.12 (Heating Coefficient of Performance), 3.14 (Integrated Energy 
Efficiency Ratio), 3.23 (Published Rating), 3.26 (Single Package 
Air-Conditioners), 3.27 (Single Package Heat Pumps), 3.29 (Split 
System Air-conditioners), 3.30 (Split System Heat Pump), 3.36 (Year 
Round Single Package Air-conditioners).
    \18\ For reasons discussed in section III.I of this NOPR, DOE is 
proposing provisions regarding configuration of unit under test at 
10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A), appendix A, and appendix A1 that are 
distinct from the provisions in sections D1 through D3 of AHRI 340/
360-2022.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As previously mentioned in section I.B of this NOPR, DOE's test 
procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs currently specifies additional test 
procedure requirements in sections 3 through 10 of the current appendix 
A that are not included in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and that are related 
to minimum ESP, optional break-in period, refrigerant charging, setting 
indoor airflow, condenser head pressure controls, tolerance on capacity 
at part-load test points, and condenser air inlet temperature for part-
load tests. Similarly, DOE's test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs 
currently specifies additional test procedure requirements in 
paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 regarding optional break-in 
period and additional provisions for equipment setup. DOE has 
tentatively determined that these DOE test procedure requirements that 
are specified in appendix A and paragraphs (c) and (e) of 10 CFR 431.96 
no longer need to be separately specified due to the addition of 
equivalent provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft. Therefore, DOE is proposing to remove these provisions from 
appendix A and to revise Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 such that paragraphs 
(c) and (e) are no longer listed as requirements for ECUACs and WCUACs, 
instead utilizing the relevant provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022.
    Further, in both appendix A and appendix A1, DOE is proposing to 
incorporate by reference ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 and to utilize all 
sections of that industry test method except sections 1 (Purpose), 2 
(Scope), and 4 (Classifications).
    Specifically for appendix A1, DOE is proposing to adopt sections of 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft for measuring the IVEC and IVHE metrics, which are 
generally consistent with the recommendations from the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet. In the proposed appendix A1, DOE is 
proposing to adopt the following sections of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft: 
sections 3 (with certain exclusions) 4, 5, and 6.1 through 6.3, and 
appendices A, C, D (excluding D1 through D3), and E. Sections III.F.3, 
III.F.4, III.F.5, and III.F.6 of this NOPR include further discussion 
on the IVEC and IVHE metrics, as well as additions and revisions to the 
IVEC and IVHE metrics that are included in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft but 
not in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Sections 
III.F.7 and III.F.6.d of this NOPR include further discussion on the 
IVEC and IVHE metrics specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft that DOE is 
proposing to adopt in appendix A1 for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct 
systems.
    The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet applies only to the 
test procedures for ACUACs and ACUHPs excluding double-duct systems. 
However, AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes additional provisions for 
determining IVEC and IVHE for double-duct systems, ECUACs, and WCUACs--
indicating industry consensus that these metrics are appropriate for 
these categories of CUACs and CUHPs. DOE has tentatively determined 
that the test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs as proposed would improve 
the representativeness of the current Federal test procedure for CUACs 
and CUHPs and would not be unduly burdensome to conduct. Specifically, 
DOE has tentatively concluded that testing CUACs and CUHPs (including 
double-duct systems, ECUACs, and WCUACs) in accordance with the test 
provisions in the most recent draft of the applicable consensus 
industry test procedure AHRI 1340-202X Draft (which incorporates 
recommendations of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, 
including adopting the new IVEC and IVHE metrics) would provide more 
representative results and more fully comply with the requirements of 
42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2) than testing strictly in accordance with AHRI 340/
360-2022. Therefore, DOE is proposing to amend the test procedure for 
CUACs and CUHPs to adopt in the proposed new appendix A1 the test 
provisions in AHRI 1340-202X Draft and ASHRAE 37-2009.
    Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to adopt the IVEC 
and IVHE metrics as determined under AHRI 1340-202X Draft in appendix 
A1 of the Federal test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs (including 
double-duct systems), ECUACs, and WCUACs.

F. Efficiency Metrics and Test Conditions

    In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, May 2020 ECS RFI, and May 2022 
TP/ECS RFI, DOE received comment on a number of topics related to 
changing the metrics and/or test conditions used for determining CUAC 
and CUHP efficiency. The following sections: (1) summarize comments 
received on these topics; (2) discuss the current test conditions and 
metrics in appendix A; (3) discuss the test conditions and metrics 
proposed to be included in appendix A1; (4) discuss the newly proposed 
IVEC metric; (5) discuss the newly proposed IVHE metric; (6) discuss 
additions and revisions to the IVEC and IVHE metrics that are included 
in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft but not the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group 
TP Term Sheet; and (7) discuss metrics specific to double-duct systems.
1. Comments Received on Metrics
    In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, May 2020 ECS RFI, and May 2022 
TP/ECS RFI, DOE received comments regarding a number of test procedure 
topics. In the following subsections, DOE briefly summarizes these 
topics,

[[Page 56405]]

including the corresponding comments received and DOE's responses.
    DOE notes that many of the issues raised by commenters had not yet 
been addressed through an industry consensus test procedure at the time 
the comments were submitted to DOE. Many of these issues were raised 
subsequently during the Working Group, and the newly proposed IVEC and 
IVHE metrics would largely address the major concerns previously 
expressed by commenters.
a. IEER Test Conditions and Weighting Factors
    In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE welcomed comment on any aspect of the 
existing test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs not specifically addressed 
by the RFI, particularly with regard to information that would improve 
the representativeness of the test procedures. 82 FR 34427, 34448. 
(July 25, 2017).
    With respect to the IEER test conditions and weighting factors, the 
CA IOUs suggested raising the highest ambient dry-bulb temperature test 
point used for determining IEER, stating that the 95 [deg]F condition 
specified in the test procedure does not reflect the conditions 
experienced in the western climate and on many rooftops throughout the 
country. (CA IOUs, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 3)
    Additionally, in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE received 
comments and test data from Verified recommending changes to the IEER 
weighting factors and indoor and outdoor air temperature test 
conditions in AHRI 340/360, particularly to account for the use of 
economizers (discussed further in section III.F.1.d) and changes in 
climate due to global climate change. (Verified, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-
0011 at pp. 3-7) DOE also received comments from two individuals 
supporting the statements made by Verified. (Heinemeier, EERE-2019-BT-
STD-0042-0012 at p. 1; Walsh, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0018 at p. 1)
    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE received several 
comments regarding the weighting factors used in the IEER metric, 
specifically relating to the building types considered in the current 
test procedure. ASAP and ACEEE asserted that the current IEER weighting 
factors should be adjusted to account for additional building types 
that were not considered when initially developing IEER. (ASAP and 
ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0011, at p. 2)
    Carrier noted that IEER was developed using three building types 
(specifically, office, retail, and school buildings) and asserted that 
for an updated analysis, the 16 building types currently in ASHRAE 90.1 
should be considered where applicable to ACUACs and ACUHPs. (Carrier, 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at pp. 14-15) Carrier also noted that it 
had developed a model that outputs load profiles for the 16 ASHRAE 90.1 
building types for each of the 19 global climate zones in ASHRAE 169-
2013 and was using its model to evaluate the effects of ventilation, 
ASHRAE 90.1 requirements for economizer free cooling and energy 
recovery, updated heating metrics, different climate zones and building 
load profiles, and updated ESPs. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, 
at pp. 1-6)
    Additionally, Carrier noted that the weighting factors developed 
during the 2005 process to create IEER were based on ton-hours and not 
purely on hours, noting that high-capacity hours have more weight than 
the lower capacity hours in terms of energy use. (Carrier, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0010, at pp. 12-13). Carrier also explained that the 
weighting for the A test condition was based on the 97-percent to 100-
percent capacity range because it would not have been appropriate to 
use a larger bin with the rating condition at the extreme upper limit 
of the bin. Id. Carrier recommended that if DOE were to update the 
cooling metric, DOE should consider the following: (1) oversizing, (2) 
re-evaluating test points and weighting factors if ventilation and 
economizing are included, (3) test uncertainty at very low loads, and 
(4) varying return air temperatures. Id.
    AHRI stated that energy use during cooling varies based on climate 
zone, building type, construction, and use, and that ASHRAE SSPC 90.1 
has developed reference cities for all 19 climate zones and defined 16 
reference buildings that represent 83 percent of the market. (AHRI, 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at p. 5)
    As presented in the September 20-21, 2022, Working Group meetings, 
the Working Group evaluated the weighting factors and test conditions 
specified in conjunction with the newly proposed IVEC metric using the 
models developed by Carrier, which include several ASHRAE 90.1 building 
types and climate zones for which ACUACs and ACUHPs are installed. (See 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0019, pp. 9-22) The weighting factors and their 
development are further discussed in section III.F.4 of this NOPR. DOE 
believes that these provisions address the issues raised by commenters 
as summarized previously in this section, and proposes to adopt in 
appendix A1 the adjusted IVEC weighting factors that are specified in 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft and discussed in section III.F.6.a of this NOPR.
b. Energy Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs
    For ECUACs and WCUACs of all regulated cooling capacities, DOE 
currently prescribes standards in terms of the EER metric for cooling-
mode operation. 10 CFR 431.97(b); see Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.97. This 
differs from ACUACs and ACUHPs with cooling capacities greater than or 
equal to 65,000 Btu/h (excluding double-duct systems), for which DOE 
currently prescribes energy conservation standards in terms of the IEER 
metric for cooling-mode operation and in terms of COP for heating-mode 
operation. 10 CFR 431.97(b); see Table 3 and Table 4 to 10 CFR 431.97. 
Unlike EER, which represents the efficiency of the equipment operating 
only at full load, IEER represents the efficiency of operating at part-
load conditions of 75 percent, 50 percent, and 25 percent of capacity 
in addition to the efficiency at full load. The IEER metric provides a 
more representative measure of energy consumption in actual operation 
of CUACs and CUHPs by weighting the full-load and part-load 
efficiencies with the average amount of time the equipment spends 
operating at each load point. AHRI 340/360-2022 includes both the EER 
and IEER metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs. ASHRAE 90.1-2019 and ASHRAE 
90.1-2022 specify minimum efficiency levels for ECUACs and WCUACs in 
terms of both EER and IEER.
    As discussed in the July 2017 RFI, ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 includes 
a method for testing and calculating IEER for ECUACs and WCUACs. DOE 
requested comment and data on whether the IEER part-load conditions and 
IEER weighting factors are representative of the operation of field-
installed ECUACs and WCUACs, and on the typical cycling losses of 
field-installed ECUACs and WCUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34440 (July 25, 2017).
    On this topic, AHRI, Carrier, and Goodman commented that the 
weighting factors are based on building load profiles and should not 
depend on equipment category. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 
22; Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 8; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0014 at p. 3) ASAP, ASE, et al. encouraged DOE to adopt IEER as 
the efficiency metric for ECUACs and WCUACs, stating that ECUACs and 
WCUACs spend most of their operating

[[Page 56406]]

time in part load, and that using IEER for these equipment types would 
provide consistency in ratings with ACUACs and ACUHPs and better 
represent performance in the field. (ASAP, ASE, et al., EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0009 at pp. 4-5) In contrast, Goodman stated that the WCUAC 
market is so small that there would be no value in changing the 
regulated metric to IEER for such equipment. (Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0014 at p. 3)
    DOE responds to these commenters as follows. In the proposed 
appendix A, for ECUACs and WCUACs, DOE proposes to include both the 
required EER metric and the optional IEER metric, as well as the test 
procedure specified in AHRI 340/360-2022, in the DOE test procedure so 
as to allow for required representations using the EER metric and 
optional representations using the IEER metric. In a final 
determination published in the Federal Register on July 14, 2021, DOE 
discussed the potential for amended energy conservation standards for 
ECUACs and WCUACs denominated in terms of IEER, but the Department 
concluded that such a metric change was not warranted and ultimately 
maintained the current standards denominated in terms of EER. 86 FR 
37001, 37004-37005. As part of this rulemaking, DOE is proposing the 
IEER provisions as an optional test procedure to allow for consistent 
and comparable representations in terms of IEER when testing to 
appendix A, should a manufacturer choose to make such representations.
    As discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt the IVEC metric for ECUACs 
and WCUACs in the proposed appendix A1, as determined in the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft. DOE has tentatively concluded that the inclusion of the 
IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in AHRI 1340-202X Draft represents 
industry consensus that the metric provides a representative measure of 
efficiency for ECUACs and WCUACs. Section III.F.6.d of this NOPR 
includes further discussion of the IVEC metric for ECUACs and WCUACs.
c. Cyclic Degradation Factor for Cooling
    In section 6.2.3.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022, units that are unable to 
reduce their capacity to meet one of the IEER part load rating points 
(i.e., 75 percent, 50 percent, or 25 percent) are tested under steady-
state conditions at the minimum stage of compression that the unit is 
able to achieve. In real-world installations, these same units would 
typically operate under non-steady-state conditions because the 
compressor would cycle to reduce the unit's capacity to meet the 
desired cooling load. AHRI 340/360-2022 require units unable to reduce 
their capacity below one of the part load rating points have the EER 
for that rating point calculated using a cyclic degradation 
coefficient. This degradation coefficient, which is calculated based on 
the load fraction and ranges from 1 to 1.13, is included in the 
denominator of the EER calculation for that rating point and is 
multiplied by the sum of the compressor and condenser fan power in 
order to simulate the efficiency degradation of compressor and 
condenser fan cycling.
    With respect to cyclic degradation, DOE received a comment in 
response to the July 2017 TP RFI from the CA IOUs recommending that DOE 
investigate the cyclic degradation factor in AHRI 340/360-2015 to 
verify that the degradation coefficient will never exceed 1.13. (CA 
IOUs, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 at p. 2)
    DOE also received a comment in response to the May 2020 ECS RFI 
from Verified questioning the validity of the cyclic degradation factor 
in AHRI 340/360-2019, stating that its laboratory tests found that 
relative cycling losses of a 7.5-ton system were more than double the 
losses for a 3-ton system. (Verified, EERE-2019-BT-STD-0042-0011 at p. 
10)
    While the Working Group discussed calculation methods for IVEC 
during the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group meetings, the Working Group 
did not discuss any alternatives to the cyclic degradation approach 
specified in AHRI 340/360-2022. Additionally, the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet includes the cyclic degradation calculation 
method specified in AHRI 340/360-2022 as part of the IVEC metric 
calculation method. At this time, DOE lacks clear and convincing 
evidence to deviate from the cyclic degradation approach in AHRI 340/
360-2022 that is recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet and included in AHRI 1340-202X Draft. Therefore, DOE is not 
proposing to adopt a cyclic degradation approach that differs from the 
approach specified in these documents.
d. Economizing and Ventilation
    In 2015, DOE initiated a rulemaking effort for the ASRAC Commercial 
and Industrial Fans and Blowers Working Group (CIFB Working Group) to 
negotiate the scope, test procedure, and standards for commercial and 
industrial fans and blowers. 80 FR 17359. The CIFB Working Group issued 
a term sheet with recommendations regarding the energy conservation 
standards, test procedures, and efficiency metrics for commercial and 
industrial fans and blowers (CIFB Term Sheet). (See Document No. 179 in 
Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0006.) Recommendation #3 of the CIFB Term 
Sheet identifies a need for DOE's test procedures and related 
efficiency metrics for CUACs and CUHPs to more fully account for the 
energy consumption of fans embedded in regulated commercial air-
conditioning equipment. (Id. at pp. 3-4) In addition, the CIFB Working 
Group recommended that in the next round of test procedure rulemakings, 
DOE should consider revising efficiency metrics that include energy use 
of supply and condenser fans to include the energy consumption during 
all relevant operating modes (e.g., auxiliary heating mode, ventilation 
mode, and part-load operation). (Id.)
    The Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group also 
developed recommendations regarding fan energy use in a term sheet. 
(See Document No. 93 in Docket No. EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007) The 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group recommended that DOE 
initiate a rulemaking with a primary focus of better representing total 
fan energy use in real-world installations, including consideration of 
fan operation for operating modes other than mechanical cooling and 
heating.\19\ (Id. at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ Mechanical cooling and heating refer to a ACUAC and ACUHP 
using the refrigeration cycle to cool and heat the indoor space, and 
does not refer to other forms of unit operation (e.g., economizing, 
ventilation, or supplemental heating).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and data on 
the operation of CUAC and CUHP supply fans when there is no demand for 
heating and cooling, as well as the impact of ancillary functions 
(e.g., primary heating, auxiliary heating, and economizers \20\) on the 
use and operation of the supply fan. 82 FR 34427, 34440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ An economizer is a system that enables an ACUAC or ACUHP to 
supply outdoor air instead of return air from the conditioned space 
in order to reduce or eliminate mechanical cooling operation in mild 
or cold weather conditions. In economizer-only cooling, the indoor 
fan runs to supply outdoor air to meet cooling load, but there is no 
mechanical cooling operation--i.e., compressor(s) and condenser fans 
do not operate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Carrier and AHRI commented 
that fan operation in ventilation hours cannot properly be accounted 
for without including economizer operation in testing. (Carrier, EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 9; AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 23)
    AHRI and Goodman commented that manufacturers and third-party 
laboratories do not currently have test

[[Page 56407]]

facilities that can accommodate testing of ACUACs and ACUHPs with 
economizers operating because such testing requires air to be pulled 
from the outdoor room into the indoor room. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0011 at p. 22; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 3) AHRI 
further stated that because of the lack of test facilities to 
accommodate this type of testing, incorporation of ventilation into an 
efficiency metric is still not practical. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0011 at p. 23)
    In the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE acknowledged a need to further 
investigate the prevalence and operating hours of economizers and 
ventilation. DOE requested comment and data on several issues including 
the number of units installed with economizers per climate zone, the 
operating hours of economizers by climate zone, and the methodology 
used to determine operating hours in each cooling mode, especially 
those that might contribute to the creation of a new metric.
    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, the CA IOUs, NYSERDA, and 
ASAP and ACEEE commented that the current test procedure does not 
account for the fan energy use outside of mechanical cooling and 
heating modes. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 2; ASAP and 
ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0011, at pp. 1-2, NYSERDA, EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0015-0007, at p. 3)
    Specifically, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE consider the 
California 2022 Title 24 codes and standards enhancement effort for 
potential solutions. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 2)
    NYSERDA recommended that DOE consider factoring in fan energy using 
temperature rise provisions, further detailed in comments submitted by 
NYSERDA in response to the commercial warm air furnace test procedure 
NOPR published February 5, 2022 (see 87 FR 10726). (NYSERDA, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0007, at p. 3)
    Regarding the distribution of installed economizers, AHRI stated 
that although many economizers are field-installed, AHRI is considering 
collecting data on factory-installed economizers, particularly by state 
or climate zone. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at p. 5) AHRI did 
not provide any such data in its comment.
    ASAP and ACEEE cited AHRI data indicating that economizers are 
typically installed in CUACs. ASAP and ACEEE noted that ASHRAE 90.1-
2019 requires economizers in all but one climate zone, suggesting the 
importance of incorporating fan energy use during economizer only 
cooling mode. (ASAP and ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0011, at pp. 1-2)
    Lennox commented that its information indicates that the percentage 
of CUACs and CUHPs shipped with factory installed economizers ranges 
from around 30 percent to 80 percent by state, averaging around 55 
percent in the U.S. (Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0009, at p. 5) 
Lennox noted that the total percentage is likely far higher than this 
level when field-installed economizers are taken into account. Id. 
Lennox also stated that its information indicates that a higher 
fraction of equipment in northern climates contain economizers than in 
warmer southern climates. Lennox recommended that DOE review the 
standard and code requirements for where economizers are required in 
order to assess the fraction of products installed with economizers in 
each climate zone. Id.
    Carrier commented that, based on the market distribution data used 
for the ASHRAE 90.1 determination, economizers are required on 
approximately 96 percent of the 16 reference buildings' weighted sales. 
(Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at pp. 9-10)
    Regarding economizer hours and methodology for determination of 
hours in each bin load, AHRI stated that DOE should use the heating and 
cooling load modeling used to develop IEER to understand the heating, 
cooling, and economizing hours for CUACs and CUHPs. (AHRI, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0008, at p. 3)
    Carrier provided data showing the hours CUACs and CUHPs spend in 
economizer only, integrated economizer, and mechanical only cooling 
developed as part of ASHRAE 90.1 economizer studies it has conducted. 
(Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at p. 12) Carrier stated that the 
2005 analysis performed to determine the IEER metric was based on the 
mechanical cooling operation, including hours where integrated 
economizers are used, but that it did not account for the benefits of 
the economizer capacity. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at pp. 
12-13)
    In addition to distribution and operating information, DOE received 
multiple recommendations in response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI 
relating to the inclusion of economizer or ventilation data in a new 
efficiency metric.
    The CA IOUs stated that economizer performance is highly dependent 
on the use of climate-zone appropriate controls, and that economizers 
are often shipped with conservative default control settings 
appropriate for warm and moist areas. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-
0012, at pp. 3-4) The CA IOUs asserted that including economizers in 
the CUAC and CUHP energy efficiency metric would not be beneficial 
because it would preempt climate-zone-dependent economizer requirements 
in building codes. Id. The CA IOUs explained that economizers and their 
installed controls are often sold by third parties, and that original 
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) usually do not determine the method of 
economizer control or quality of construction. Id. The CA IOUs stated 
that DOE may need to determine if independently manufactured 
economizers fall within its statutory authority and if it is feasible 
to regulate them. Id. Furthermore, the CA IOUs asserted that designing 
a test procedure that measures a significant difference between models 
may be challenging unless the test includes operation as an integrated 
economizer, in which case the difference in performance would be driven 
by the unit's capacity control and turndown capability. Id.
    Carrier asserted that the downside of including the ventilation 
cooling hours in a new cooling metric is that it would decrease the 
focus on the mechanical cooling, and that evaluation of mechanical 
cooling performance was the intent of the current IEER metric. 
(Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at pp. 9-10) Carrier requested 
that if the IEER metric and test procedure are modified to include 
ventilation fan power, the benefits of the economizer and also energy 
recovery be included to account for the actual capabilities of such a 
large application base. Id.
    Based on comments received in response to the July 2017 TP RFI and 
the May 2020 ECS RFI, DOE recognized in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI a need 
to further investigate fan operation during ventilation or air 
circulation/filtration and economizing. Specifically, while comments 
received previously had indicated the prevalence of multi-speed fans 
that reduce fan speed in these operating modes, the commenters had not 
indicated how the fan speed in these operating modes typically compares 
to fan speed when operating at the lowest stage of compressor cooling. 
Thus, in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE sought feedback on the supply 
airflow and fan power at the lowest stage of compression for variable 
air volume and staged air volume fans in relation to ventilation, air 
circulation, and

[[Page 56408]]

economizer-only cooling. 87 FR 31743, 31750-31751.
    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, AHRI and Lennox recommended 
that DOE review ASHRAE 62.1 ``Ventilation for Acceptable Indoor Air 
Quality,'' which specifies minimum ventilation rates and other measures 
to achieve proper indoor air quality control in commercial buildings. 
(AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at pp. 4-5; Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0015-0009, at pp. 4-5) AHRI noted that ventilation rates specified 
by ASHRAE 62.1 vary from 18 percent to 60 percent based on building 
type. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at p. 4) AHRI also noted that 
ASHRAE 90.1-2019 provides minimum requirements for the CUACs and CUHPs, 
including the requirement to have two-speed fans. Id. AHRI stated that 
airflow, including during ventilation, will be different for CUACs and 
CUHPs if the product is multi-zone variable air volume (MZVAV), single-
zone variable air volume (SZVAV), or constant volume, and that the 
relationship between fan power, airflow, and code requirements must be 
considered when developing a metric change that incorporates 
ventilation. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at pp. 4-5) AHRI also 
stated that ventilation occurs only during occupied mode. (AHRI, EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at p. 5)
    Lennox stated that CUAC and CUHP systems are generally designed to 
meet minimum ventilation requirements in all operating modes. (Lennox, 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0009, at p. 5) Lennox recommended that for the 
test procedure, the airflow in ventilation-only mode be set at the same 
as the airflow used at the minimum stage of capacity. Id. Lennox stated 
that for economizer-only cooling, the systems are generally designed to 
meet a supply air temperature setpoint, and that the supply airflow 
volume is influenced by outside air temperature and/or the cooling 
demand of the conditioned space to attain this setpoint. Id. Lennox 
stated that the economizer-only supply airflow might not be the same as 
the lowest stage of compression and can be less than the airflow at the 
lowest stage of compression. Id.
    Carrier stated that for ventilation-only operation, the airflow may 
or may not be the same as the minimum stage of capacity, and that the 
airflow depends on the controls and application, as well as the 
required ventilation rate. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at p. 
9) Carrier also stated that fan speeds can be higher during economizer 
cooling operation. Id. Carrier noted that ASHRAE 90.1 requires 
economizers to be capable of 100-percent airflow and that the maximum 
economizer capacity be used before turning on the mechanical cooling of 
the integrated economizer option. Id.
    NEEA noted that CUAC and CUHP standard rating conditions do not 
consider operating modes where ventilation air (either mixed or not 
mixed with return air) is actively heated or cooled. NEEA stated that 
it recognizes that the impact of certain features--including 
economizers and ventilation systems--will vary depending on the amount 
of ventilation air introduced by the CUAC/CUHP. NEEA described, for 
example, that in 30-percent and 100-percent outside air systems, energy 
recovery represents a significant opportunity for energy savings, 
whereas in 0-percent outside systems, enclosure improvements or 
reducing damper leakage may present the greatest opportunity for energy 
savings. NEEA asserted that by only accounting for 0-percent outside 
air cooling and heating modes, the current efficiency metrics give 
misleading signals to manufacturers and consumers about what models 
will decrease energy consumption. NEEA recommended that DOE consider 
how the market categorizes CUAC and CUHP equipment and ensure that DOE 
product definitions align with the market and not just what is simplest 
for regulation. (NEEA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0013 at p. 6)
    During negotiations for the Working Group, the Working Group agreed 
not to include testing with economizers operating due to test burden 
and repeatability concerns. (See EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0048 at pp. 55-
57) However, the Working Group agreed to include operating hours and 
fan energy use associated with economizer operation (reflecting both 
factory-installed and field-installed economizers). (See EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0015-0053 at pp. 9, 32) DOE and other participating stakeholders 
then assessed market data of economizer distribution. Due to the wide 
distribution of economizers identified through this analysis, all 
caucuses agreed to include the economizer benefit and energy use in the 
new integrated cooling metric--IVEC. To ensure representative 
consideration of economizers in the cooling metric, the calculation for 
the IVEC metric incorporates both the cooling benefit and energy use 
associated with the hours of cooling contribution provided in 
integrated economizing and economizer-only cooling modes. The IVEC 
metric also includes the energy use associated with cooling season 
ventilation operation. To determine the breakdown of hours among 
economizer-only cooling, integrated economizer, mechanical cooling-
only, and cooling season ventilation operation for the IVEC metric, the 
Working Group utilized the previously discussed building modeling of 
several ASHRAE 90.1 building types and climate zones in which CUACs and 
CUHPs are installed. DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed 
inclusion of fan energy for economizing and ventilation operating modes 
in the IVEC cooling metric--in conjunction with other proposed test 
condition changes--addresses the concerns previously raised regarding 
fan energy representation in the efficiency metric, and proposes to 
adopt the IVEC metric as specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
e. External Static Pressure Requirements
    In the testing of air conditioners and heat pumps, ESP requirements 
simulate the resistance that the indoor fan must overcome from the air 
distribution system when installed in real-world installations. Both 
AHRI 210/240 (i.e., the 2008, 2017, and 2023 versions) and AHRI 340/360 
(i.e., the 2007, 2015, 2019, and 2022 versions) specify minimum ESPs 
for testing based on the unit's rated capacity. Minimum ESPs are 
specified in Table 7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and range from 0.10-0.20 
inches of water column (in. H2O) for ACUACs and ACUHPs with 
a rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, and range from 0.2-
0.75 in. H2O for all CUACs with cooling capacity greater 
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h. These values align with the ESP 
requirements specified in the current DOE test procedure.
    In 2015, the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group 
recommended that the energy use analysis conducted for the January 2016 
Direct Final Rule should use higher ESPs than those specified in the 
DOE test procedure to help better simulate real-world applications. 81 
FR 2420, 2470 (Jan. 15, 2016). Specifically, the Commercial Package Air 
Conditioners Working Group recommended ESPs of 0.75 and 1.25 in. 
H2O, which corresponded to the ESPs used in modified 
building simulations of the cooling load. Id. The ESP values 
recommended by the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group 
did not vary with capacity. Recommendation #2 of the term sheet 
developed by the Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group 
suggested that DOE should amend the test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs 
to better represent the total fan energy use

[[Page 56409]]

by considering alternative ESPs. (See Document No. 93 in Docket No. 
EERE-2013-BT-STD-0007 at p. 2) Higher ESPs at the same airflow would 
result in higher fan power measured during testing and would, 
therefore, result in fan energy use comprising a larger fraction of 
total energy use measured during the test.
    In the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE sought data and comment on 
representative ESPs in the field of all CUACs and CUHPs. 87 FR 31743, 
31749 (May 25, 2022). NEEA provided a comment, recommending generally 
that DOE establish a more representative ESP value for testing all 
CUACs and CUHPs based on the previous recommendation from the 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group. (NEEA, EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0015-0013 at pp. 7-8) NEEA noted that the ESP levels used by DOE 
for the energy use analysis during the last energy conservation 
standards rulemaking for ACUACs and ACUHPs are two to three times 
higher than the required ESPs in the existing test procedure. Id. NEEA 
stated that these values were more representative of units in the field 
due to the ESP used in this test procedure not including the return 
ductwork pressure loss, which NEEA described as significant because 
many units do not include return fans. Id.
    The CA IOUs supported updates to the CUAC and CUHP test procedure 
to improve the representation of fan energy use, particularly by 
updating the required ESPs in the test procedure. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0012 at p. 2) Specifically regarding ESPs, the CA IOUs 
encouraged DOE to explore California's 2022 Title 24 codes and 
standards-enhancement effort for air distribution enhancements. Id. The 
CA IOUs, as well as NYSERDA and ASAP and ACEE, recommended that DOE 
consider alternative ESP values more representative of units in real-
world installations. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 2; 
ASAP and ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0011, at pp. 1-2; NYSERDA, EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0015-0007, at p. 3)
    AHRI and Lennox stated that CUACs and CUHPs are designed to cover a 
range of ESPs, noting that big box retail stores could have an ESP of 
0.5 in. H2O and that multi-story offices could exceed ESPs 
of 2.0 in. H2O. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008 at pp. 2-
3; Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0009 at p. 2) AHRI noted that the 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group agreed to use 0.75 
and 1.25 in. H2O for the energy conservation standards 
energy use analysis. Id. AHRI stated that its members were unable to 
form a consensus position on the issue of representative ESPs for CUACs 
and CUHPs before the comment period ended; however, AHRI may submit 
supplementary comments to DOE or a working group if one were to be 
formed. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008 at p. 3)
    Lennox stated that while its review of data was ongoing regarding a 
representative ESP recommendation, it found the ESP levels used by the 
Commercial Package Air Conditioners Working Group to be reasonable. 
Lennox recommended that the ESPs used for testing increase according to 
the capacity breaks specified in AHRI 340/360 because ESPs generally 
increase with product capacity. (Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0009 at 
pp. 2-3) Lennox also commented the applied static pressure from ECUACs 
and WCUACs did not vary from similar air source products and 
recommended similar values be used for product performance comparison. 
(Id. at p. 3)
    Carrier stated that it agreed some adjustments to the ESPs might be 
appropriate, but that several things need to be reviewed before the 
ESPs are revised. Carrier also stated that ESPs can vary significantly 
depending on the application. Specifically, Carrier stated that some 
applications can use concentric ductwork, where ESPs are likely higher 
than the current ESPs in AHRI 340/360-2022; and other applications use 
variable air volume (VAV) systems, which have more extensive ductwork 
and added pressure drop from terminals. Carrier stated that for larger 
equipment, the applications are more complex because the equipment is 
larger and ductwork design can vary based on the building design. 
Carrier mentioned a general trend that static pressure and ductwork 
length increase with equipment size, but also mentioned that this 
depends on the building design, configuration, and system type. Carrier 
stated that it is in the process of reviewing job design data and 
applications and will have that data for further discussions once it is 
received. Additionally, Carrier stated that performing an analysis of 
the ASHRAE Standard 90.1 fan power budget addendum BO may also provide 
additional insight to proper static pressure levels. (Carrier, EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0015-0010 at p. 7)
    In the May 2022 RFI, DOE also sought specific data on ESPs for 
ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h, as 
well as feedback on whether a representative ESP value for testing 
would be 0.5 in H2O (as referenced for air-cooled CUACs 
<65,000 Btu/h in AHRI 210/240-2023), the range of 0.10 to 0.20 in 
H2O (from AHRI 340/360-2022), or alternative values. For 
WCUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE's 
preliminary analysis showed that these units may typically be installed 
above dropped ceilings in commercial buildings. For ECUACs with a 
cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h, DOE's preliminary analysis 
shows that these units are primarily marketed for residential 
applications, which suggests that it may be appropriate to align the 
ESP requirements for ECUACs with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 
Btu/ h with those specified for CAC/HPs in 10 CFR part 430, subpart B, 
appendix M1 (appendix M1) (i.e., 0.5 in H2O for conventional 
units). Therefore, DOE considered whether it was appropriate for the 
same ESP requirements to be applied for both ECUACs and WCUACs with a 
cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h. 87 FR 31743, 31750 (May 25, 
2022).
    Carrier stated that the ESPs for ECUACs and WCUACs less than 65,000 
Btu/h in the field would not be much different than the average values 
used for the AHRI 210/240-2023 analysis.\21\ Carrier asserted that ESP 
values in the field might be lower than those ESPs, because some ECUACs 
and WCUACs with a capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h are applied with 
short supply ducts and no return ducts or can also be used with 
concentric ducts. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010 at pp. 7-8) 
Lennox recommended the ESP value of 0.5 in H2O from AHRI 
210/240-2023 be used for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h. (Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0009 at p. 3)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ In its comment, Carrier mentioned the ``AHRI 210/240-2003 
analysis.'' Because there is no 2003 version of AHRI 210/240 and the 
ESP requirements for air-cooled central air conditioners and heat 
pumps with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h were updated in 
AHRI 210/240-2023, DOE interprets the intent of Carrier's comment as 
referring to AHRI 210/240-2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The majority of comments received in response to both the July 2017 
TP RFI and May 2022 TP/ECS RFI indicate that higher ESP requirements 
for testing would be more representative of all CUACs and CUHPs in the 
field. The ESP requirements included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet reflect consensus among Working Group members 
regarding higher ESP requirements for testing. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
specifies provisions for determining the IVEC and IVHE metrics for 
double-duct systems, ECUACs, and WCUACs, including higher ESP 
requirements for testing consistent with

[[Page 56410]]

the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Because the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not include provisions for 
testing ECUACs and WCUACs, the term sheet does not include ESP 
requirements for testing equipment with cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes an ESP requirement of 
0.5 in H2O for testing ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h, which is consistent with the ESP 
requirement specified in AHRI 210/240-2023 for comparable air-cooled 
equipment. DOE has tentatively concluded that the ESP requirements 
specified in AHRI 1340-202X Draft represent industry consensus for 
testing CUACs and CUHPs and provide a more representative measure of 
energy efficiency. Therefore, as discussed in sections III.F.4 and 
III.F.5 of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt the ESP requirements 
specified in AHRI 1340-202X Draft as part of the IVEC and IVHE metrics.
f. Damper Leakage, Energy Recovery Systems, and Crankcase Heaters
    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE received several 
comments recommending that damper leakage, energy recovery systems, and 
crankcase heaters be addressed in the test procedure for ACUACs and 
ACUHPs.
    NEEA recommended that DOE create a test procedure that accounts for 
energy losses and gains from auxiliary components, considers energy 
saved from increased enclosure insulation, and considers variation 
alongside potentially incorporating CSA P.8, Thermal efficiencies of 
industrial and commercial gas-fired packaged furnaces. (NEEA, EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0015-0013, at pp. 2-6) NEEA highlighted the significant 
energy savings potential of heat recovery ventilation (HRV) and energy 
recovery ventilation (ERV) systems. NEEA stated that its research 
indicates such systems can reduce energy use by 24 percent in 
commercial warm air furnaces in Northwest climate zones. Accordingly, 
NEEA recommended that energy recovery be incorporated into the test 
procedure and performance metric for CUACs and CUHPs. Id. With regard 
to insulation, NEEA stated that while building codes such as ASHRAE 
90.1 stipulate maximum damper leakage, the requirements do not apply to 
the resale market, causing a significant number of units available 
today to have significantly higher leakage rates than code 
requirements. Id. NEEA recommended that DOE investigate the savings 
potential of increased insulation and account for its benefit across 
all operating modes in test procedure and efficiency metrics, as non-
conditioning operating periods are not currently accounted for. Id. 
NEEA stated that its research indicates that increased enclosure 
insulation can improve heating season energy savings, and that NEEA 
expects there would be cooling season savings as well that are not 
currently accounted for. Id. NEEA provided examples of subcomponent 
performance characteristics that could be used as part of a whole box 
metric approach, including AHRI 1060 for energy recovery, ANSI/AMCA 
Standard 500-D-18 for damper leakage, and AHRI 1350 for evaluation of 
enclosure insulation material and thickness for casing loss. Id. NEEA 
recommended that DOE consider the approach implemented in CSA P.8 to 
account for different outdoor air configurations, which could be 
emulated to account for different percentages of ventilation air 
without adding additional test burden. Id.
    The CA IOUs expressed concern that energy use of equipment 
components, such as crankcase heaters, is significant and not 
represented in the IEER metric. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, 
at p. 6) The CA IOUs therefore recommended that off-mode and standby 
energy consumption be accounted for when updating the CUAC/HP test 
procedure and metric. Id.
    As discussed, the Working Group assessed the impact of energy from 
additional operating modes, as well as crankcase heaters and controls 
power, and the metrics recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group 
TP Term Sheet include: (1) in the IVEC metric--economizer-only cooling, 
cooling season ventilation mode, crankcase heat operation, and controls 
power in unoccupied no-load cooling season hours; and (2) in the IVHE 
metric--heating season ventilation mode, crankcase heat operation, and 
controls power in unoccupied no-load heating season hours. (See EERE-
2022-BT-STD-0015-0065) Additionally, damper leakage was discussed 
during the Working Group meetings, and the Working Group ultimately 
voted not to address this issue in the IVEC and IVHE metrics. (See 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0055, pp. 7-9) While cabinet insulation and the 
effects of ERVs and HRVs were discussed during the Working Group 
discussions, no proposals were made to include them in the new metrics. 
All members of the Working Group voted to recommend inclusion of the 
IVEC and IVHE metrics in the DOE test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs. 
DOE has tentatively determined that the issues regarding additional 
operating modes raised by commenters are adequately addressed by 
provisions in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, and 
these provisions are also included in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft. 
Further, at this time DOE lacks clear and convincing evidence to 
justify proposing any deviations from the IVEC and IVHE metrics 
specified in AHRI 1340-202X Draft to address damper leakage, cabinet 
insulation, or ERVs and HRVs. Therefore, DOE proposes to adopt the IVEC 
and IVHE metrics specified in AHRI 1340-202X Draft in appendix A1.
g. Controls Verification Procedure
    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE also received several 
comments regarding recommendations for a controls verification 
procedure. The CA IOUs, ASAP and ACEEE, and NEEA suggested that DOE 
consider a controls verification procedure (CVP) in the DOE test 
procedure. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 5; ASAP and 
ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0011, at pp. 2-3; NEEA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0015-0013, at p. 5) Specifically, the CA IOUs recommended that DOE 
consider a CVP similar to the one developed for variable refrigerant 
flow multi-split systems (VRF multi-split systems) to validate that the 
controls used within CUACs and CUHPs with variable speed compressors 
are used effectively. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 5) 
ASAP and ACEEE stated that the CVP should include requirements for 
testing under native controls to better reflect performance of 
equipment in the field. (ASAP and ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0011, at 
pp. 2-3) ASAP and ACEEE stated that this would mirror the CVP included 
in the December 2021 test procedure NOPR for VRF multi-split systems 
(See 86 FR 70644) and the native control requirement in the residential 
cold climate heat pump challenge in the September 2021 specifications. 
Id. NEEA recommended that DOE consider a verification procedure to test 
that economizer controls operate as intended. (NEEA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0015-0013, at p. 5) Due to what NEEA asserted is a significant energy 
savings opportunity of economizer cooling if the controls are verified, 
NEEA recommended that economizers be incorporated into the efficiency 
metric through a calculation-based approach. Id.
    DOE notes that members from NEEA, ASAP, and the CA IOUs were 
involved during the Working Group negotiations

[[Page 56411]]

and provided input on the included test procedure requirements. The 
resulting ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not contain 
any provisions for a CVP and was agreed upon by all members of the 
Working Group. As such, DOE believes that the issues raised by these 
stakeholders are resolved on this matter. Further, commenters did not 
provide sufficient information that would justify or inform development 
of a CVP for CUACs and CUHPs, and at this time, DOE lacks clear and 
convincing evidence to propose any test procedure amendments that 
deviate from the AHRI 1340-202X Draft to address controls verification.
h. Heating Efficiency Metric
    In the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE stated that it was considering 
whether incorporating heating performance at temperatures lower than 47 
[deg]F would improve the representativeness of the DOE test procedure 
for ACUHPs, and how such performance would differ between CUHPs with 
different types of supplementary heat (e.g., electric resistance heat 
and furnaces) and the climate regions in which CUHPs are typically 
installed. As such, in the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, DOE requested comment 
on data relating to CUHP shipments and typical regions they are shipped 
to, distribution of heating types shipped with CUHPs, and the lowest 
outdoor temperatures CUHPs are expected to operate at alongside cut in 
and cut out temperature data. 87 FR 31743, 31750-31753.
    Carrier provided data showing the shipment-weighted market share by 
building type for CUACs and CUHPs; however, Carrier noted that the 
actual shipment data by building type would be best obtained from AHRI 
for the whole U.S. industry. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at 
p. 13)
    In response to the request for comment regarding shipment data of 
CUHPs, Lennox and the CA IOUs commented that the market for CUHPs is 
growing alongside electrification efforts, but still represents a small 
fraction of the overall CUAC and CUHP market. (Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-
STD-0015-0009, at pp. 3-4; CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at pp. 
4-5) Additionally, Lennox stated that the CUHP market is primarily 
concentrated in the south and southwestern regions of the country, with 
the majority located in California and Arizona. Id. Lennox acknowledged 
the importance of CUHP market growth and test procedure improvements 
but recommended that DOE fully evaluate industry capability and 
incremental burden associated with test procedure amendments to prevent 
undue burden. Id.
    NYSERDA noted that in an effort to decarbonize, the Climate Action 
Council of New York set a 2030 goal that heat pumps should provide 
space heating and cooling for 10 percent to 20 percent of commercial 
space statewide, and that heat pumps should become the majority of new 
purchases for space and water heating by the late 2020s. (NYSERDA, 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0007, at pp. 1-2)
    Carrier stated that the commercial heat pump market is generally 
limited to models under 20 tons because the demand for large heat pumps 
in commercial buildings is currently very small. (Carrier, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0010, at p. 8) Carrier noted that commercial load profiles 
are significantly different than residential buildings, that commercial 
buildings have much higher cooling loads than residential buildings, 
and that commercial buildings tend to operate during the day and are 
often unoccupied during the evening when temperatures are lower. Id.
    In response to the request for comment regarding the distribution 
of supplementary heating types shipped with CUHPs, Carrier stated that 
currently, it only provides CUHPs with electric heat as backup, mostly 
because the different load profiles in commercial buildings are more 
cooling intensive. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at p. 8) 
Carrier also stated that with the growing interest in use of heat pumps 
in colder climates, it is evaluating the use of backup gas heat. Id. 
Lennox stated that it does not offer CUHP products with factory-
installed supplementary electric heat and described the difficulty in 
tracking field-installed electric heat accessories. (Lennox, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0009, at p. 4) Lennox noted that dual-fuel CUHP products 
with factory-installed gas furnaces comprise less than 1 percent of the 
CUHP and CUAC markets but could expand as CUHPs are implemented in 
climates with heating capacity requirements exceeding current CUHP 
abilities. Id.
    In response to the request for data on the operating temperatures 
for CUHPs, AHRI stated that the lowest outdoor temperatures at which 
CUHPs typically operate in mechanical heating mode would be between 5 
[deg]F and 15 [deg]F, and that the cut-out temperature is not dependent 
on supplementary heat. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0008, at p. 4) AHRI 
stated that the purpose of supplementary heat is to provide comfort 
conditions to buildings, and that a compressor cut-out temperature is 
required to protect equipment. Id. Carrier stated that currently, its 
CUHPs are rated to operate down to -10 [deg]F with a few limited to -5 
[deg]F and 0 [deg]F, and that at these very low temperatures, auxiliary 
electric heat is required. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at p. 
8) Carrier also stated that currently, there is no set temperature for 
mechanical heating lockout. Id. Lennox stated that industry compressor 
cut-out temperatures range from over 15 [deg]F to -15 [deg]F depending 
on unit design. (Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0009, at p. 4) Lennox 
commented that with electric heating, cut-out temperatures are 
typically set to the lowest available setting, while compressor cut-out 
temperature is normally more flexible and typically set to a higher 
temperature with furnace supplementary heating. Id.
    In addition to the data and information provided regarding specific 
heat pump issues, DOE received recommendations from multiple 
stakeholders regarding potential new heating efficiency metrics. The CA 
IOUs encouraged DOE to adopt an updated heating metric to match the 
expected increase in market share and recommended using a metric that 
is representative of an average use cycle. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0015-0012, at pp. 4-5) Additionally, the CA IOUs expressed support for 
a seasonal heating metric, similar to HSPF2 for consumer heat pumps, 
which could account for performance at different ambient conditions, 
defrost operation, and standby modes. Id. The CA IOUs also noted that 
separate product categories could also be considered, such as for cold-
climate CUHPs. Id.
    NYSERDA stated that a heating efficiency metric could utilize 
heating-specific weighting factors similar to those used in the 
approach for IEER calculations and could take into account heating mode 
tests at all three conditions, alongside proposing two new required 
test conditions. (NYSERDA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0007, at pp. 1-2) 
NYSERDA also recommended the new metric utilize fractional heating bin 
hours for a representative region, and account for the typical load 
profiles for the 16 DOE commercial prototype buildings. Id.
    Lennox asserted that reasonably designed test procedure amendments 
could encourage CUHP product improvements in low temperature 
performance and accelerate market expansion. (Lennox, EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0015-0009, at p. 4)
    Specifically, NYSERDA, the CA IOUs, and ASAP and ACEEE supported an 
update to the CUHP heating metric to

[[Page 56412]]

account for performance under 17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F ambient 
conditions. (NYSERDA, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0007, at pp. 1-2; CA IOUs, 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 4; ASAP and ACEEE, EERE-2022-BT-STD-
0015-0011, at p. 1) All three groups recommended that DOE incorporate a 
test at 5 [deg]F as an optional test condition. Id. The CA IOUs also 
recommended accounting for defrost performance, and that DOE track the 
development of ASHRAE RP-1831 ``Validation of a Test Method for 
Applying a Standardized Frost Load on a Test Evaporator in a Test 
Chamber with an Operating Conditioning System'' to consider whether it 
can help the development of a test procedure that incorporates defrost 
performance. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012, at p. 4)
    Carrier stated that it is not aware of how many test laboratories 
in the United States have the capabilities of testing on ACUHPs at low 
ambient conditions. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010, at p. 9) 
Carrier asserted that if DOE were to require testing at lower ambient 
conditions for ACUHPs, manufacturers and third-party labs may be 
required to invest substantial capital in psychrometric room upgrades. 
Id.
    During the Working Group ASRAC negotiations, extensive discussions 
were held and analyses were conducted on improving the 
representativeness of the heating metric for ACUHPs by creating a 
seasonal metric. As a result of these discussions and analyses, Working 
Group members reached consensus on the IVHE metric to better represent 
ACUHP energy use across a range of operation conditions, and specified 
test conditions and procedures for determining IVHE in the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The tests for determining IVHE 
include required and optional tests at varying load levels (i.e., full-
load, part-load, and for variable-speed equipment, boost compressor 
speed) and outdoor air dry-bulb temperatures (specifically 47 [deg]F, 
17 [deg]F, and 5 [deg]F). The IVHE metric also accounts for defrost 
operation by including a defrost degradation coefficient for low-
temperature operation (less than 40 [deg]F). DOE has tentatively 
determined that the IVHE metric included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft addresses concerns 
raised by commenters, and as discussed further in section III.F.5 of 
this NOPR, DOE is proposing to adopt the IVHE metric as specified in 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft in appendix A1.
2. Test Conditions Used for Current Metrics in Appendix A
    As discussed, DOE proposes to update the current test procedure for 
CUACs and CUHPs (which DOE proposes to specify for ACUACs and ACUHPs, 
ECUACs, and WCUACs in appendix A) to reference the updated industry 
test standard AHRI 340/360-2022 and retain the current metrics for 
CUACs and CUHPs. AHRI 340/360-2022 designates certain test conditions 
for test procedures characterized as ``standard rating tests'' and 
certain other test conditions for test procedures characterized as 
``performance operating tests.'' The ``standard rating tests'' are used 
for determining representations of cooling capacity, heating capacity, 
and cooling and heating efficiencies. The ``performance operating 
tests'' evaluate other operating conditions, such as ``maximum 
operating conditions'' (see section 8 of AHRI 340/360-2022), which DOE 
is not proposing to include in the DOE test procedure. Specifically, 
Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 specifies test conditions for standard 
rating and performance operating tests for CUACs and CUHPs. The 
relevant conditions for EER and IEER cooling tests are those referred 
to as ``standard rating conditions'' in AHRI 340/360-2022. To clarify 
this distinction, DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of 
appendix A that the cooling test conditions used for representations as 
required under the DOE regulations are: (1) for equipment subject to 
standards in terms of EER, the ``Standard Rating Conditions, Cooling'' 
conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022; and (2) for 
equipment subject to standards in terms of IEER, the ``Standard Rating 
Conditions, Cooling'' and ``Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions 
(IEER)'' conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022.
    For heating mode tests of CUHPs, Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 
includes ``Standard Rating Conditions'' for both a ``High Temperature 
Steady-state Test for Heating'' and a ``Low Temperature Steady-state 
Test for Heating'' (conducted at 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F outdoor air 
dry-bulb temperatures, respectively). To clarify which conditions are 
applicable for representations as required under the DOE regulations, 
DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A that the 
heating test conditions used for compliance are the ``Standard Rating 
Conditions (High Temperature Steady-state Heating)'' conditions 
specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022. Further, DOE proposes to 
also include the low-temperature (i.e., 17 [deg]F) heating test 
condition specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 (referred to as 
``Low Temperature Steady-state Heating'') in the proposed test 
procedure and specify in section 3 of appendix A that representations 
of COP at this low-temperature heating condition are optional.
3. Test Conditions Used for New Metrics in Proposed Appendix A1
    As discussed, DOE is proposing to include the new test procedure 
recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and 
included in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft in a new appendix A1. This 
proposal includes adopting the new IVEC and IVHE metrics discussed in 
sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR.
    The AHRI 1340-202X Draft designates certain test conditions for 
test procedures characterized as ``standard rating tests'' and certain 
other test conditions for test procedures characterized as 
``performance operating tests.'' The ``standard rating tests'' are used 
for determining representations of cooling capacity, heating capacity, 
and cooling and heating efficiencies. The ``performance operating 
tests'' evaluate other operating conditions, such as ``maximum 
operating conditions'' (see section 8 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft), which 
DOE is not proposing to include in the DOE test procedure at appendix 
A1. Specifically, Table 7 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft specifies test 
conditions for standard rating and performance operating tests for 
CUACs and CUHPs. The relevant test conditions for IVEC tests, as well 
as EER2 representations, are those referred to as ``standard rating 
conditions'' in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft. To clarify this distinction, 
DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A1 that the 
cooling conditions used for representations as required under the DOE 
regulations are the ``Standard Rating Conditions, Cooling'' and 
``Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IVEC)'' specified in Table 7 of 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft. Additionally, DOE proposes to include provisions 
for optional representations of EER2.
    For heating mode tests of ACUHPs, Table 7 of the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft includes ``Standard Rating Conditions, Heating'' for three 
outdoor temperature conditions at 47 [deg]F, 17 [deg]F, and 5 [deg]F. 
Additionally, the table includes ``Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions 
(IVHE),'' which includes optional part load conditions for rating units 
with the IVHE metric. The required test conditions for IVHE 
representations are the ``Standard Rating Conditions Heating'' at 47 
[deg]F and 17 [deg]F. The optional test conditions for IVHE

[[Page 56413]]

representations are the ``Standard Rating Conditions Heating'' at 5 
[deg]F and ``Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IVHE)''. To clarify 
this, DOE proposes to specify explicitly in section 3 of appendix A1 
that the heating conditions used for representations as required under 
the DOE regulations are the ``Standard Rating Conditions Heating'' at 
47 and 17 [deg]F specified in Table 7 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft. Further, 
DOE proposes to also include the 5 [deg]F heating test condition as 
well as the part load test conditions specified in Table 7 of AHRI 
1340-202X Draft (referred to as ``Standard Rating Conditions Heating (5 
[deg]F ambient)'' and ``Standard Rating Part-Load Conditions (IVHE)'' 
respectively) in the proposed test procedure and specify in section 3 
of appendix A1 that testing to the low-temperature heating conditions 
and the part load conditions are optional for representations of IVHE. 
Additionally, DOE proposes to include provisions for optional 
representations of COP247, COP217, and 
COP25 at the 47, 17, and 5 [deg]F heating test conditions 
previously discussed.
4. IVEC
    The following section provides a summary of the development and 
final recommendations regarding the IVEC cooling metric proposals in 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and DOE's corresponding 
proposals for inclusion in the appendix A1 test procedure.
    As discussed, for the newly proposed cooling metric, the Working 
Group determined to modify the climate zones and building types 
accounted for in the test procedure compared to those included in the 
current DOE test procedure. To do so, the Working Group utilized hour-
based weighting factors. To develop these weighting factors, members of 
the Working Group used building modeling developed by Carrier that was 
based on 10 ASHRAE 90.1 building prototypes across all U.S. climate 
zones. (See EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0019) This resulted in hour-based 
weighting factors, which are provided in Recommendation #2 of the ACUAC 
and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet.
    The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group concluded that including 
economizer-only cooling and cooling season ventilation operating modes 
in a seasonal cooling metric would improve the representativeness for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs. Appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet provides the recommended calculation method for the IVEC 
method and includes sections specifying the methods for including 
ventilation and economizer-only cooling operation in the calculation of 
IVEC.
    As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this NOPR, the Working Group 
also considered ESP requirements for the newly proposed IVEC and IVHE 
metrics. Stakeholders indicated the need for higher ESP requirements to 
improve representativeness of field performance. Additionally, 
stakeholders discussed the importance of maintaining uniformity in 
testing of units at higher ESP conditions. (See EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-
0062 at p. 11) The ESP requirements agreed to by the Working Group are 
provided in Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet and include the following:
    1. Higher ESP requirements for testing: As discussed previously, 
the minimum ESP conditions recommended by the Working Group are 
provided in Table III.1.

 Table III.1--Minimum ESP Requirements for IVEC and IVHE Recommended by
                    the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                ESP (in
                   Rated cooling capacity                        H2O)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65 and <135 kBtu/h........................................        0.75
>=135 and <240 kBtu/h.......................................         1.0
>=240 and <280 kBtu/h.......................................         1.0
>=280 and <760 kBtu/h.......................................         1.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Economizer pressure drop: ASHRAE 90.1-2022 requires the use of 
economizers for comfort cooling applications for almost all U.S. 
climate zones. The analysis conducted by Carrier in support of the 
Working Group indicates that over 96 percent of buildings require the 
use of economizers. Economizers installed in CUACs and CUHPs add 
internal static pressure that the indoor fan has to overcome, even when 
the economizer dampers are closed. The current DOE test procedure does 
not require the installation of an economizer on a tested unit, and DOE 
is aware that manufacturers generally do not test CUACs and CUHPs with 
economizers installed. The ESP requirements specified by the current 
DOE test procedure are the same regardless of whether a unit is tested 
with or without an economizer. As such, testing a unit without an 
economizer does not reflect the total static pressure that would be 
experienced in the field for installations that require the use of an 
economizer. In order to better represent the fan power of ACUACs and 
ACUHPs that are typically installed with economizers, the Working Group 
recommended that for all units tested without an economizer installed, 
0.10 in. H2O shall be added to the full load ESP values 
specified in Table III.1.
    3. Return and supply static split requirements: Test procedures for 
CUACs and CUHPs include ESP requirements that reflect the total ESP 
applied within the return and supply ductwork of the test setup. The 
current Federal test procedure does not specify requirements for how 
ESP is distributed during testing (i.e., the relative contribution from 
return ductwork versus supply ductwork). Given the recommendation to 
increase the required ESP levels for testing (as discussed in section 
III.F.1.e of this document), the Working Group concluded that the 
higher ESP conditions could cause variability in test results if the 
distribution of ESP between return ductwork and supply ductwork were 
not specified in the revised test procedure. To ensure repeatable and 
reproducible testing conditions for CUAC and CUHP units, the Working 
Group recommended specifying that ESP requirements be split with 25 
percent applied in the return ductwork and the remaining 75 percent 
applied in the supply ductwork. The Working Group further recommended 
that the fraction of ESP applied in the return ductwork shall have a -
5/+0 percent tolerance (i.e., the return static must be within 20 to 25 
percent of the total ESP) for the full-load cooling test. In a case 
where there is no additional restriction on the return duct and more 
than 25 percent of the ESP is already applied in the return ductwork 
without a restriction, then greater than 25 percent ESP in the return 
ductwork would be allowed. Once set for the full-load cooling test, 
these restriction settings shall remain unchanged for the other cooling 
and heating tests conducted.
    To incorporate the various changes involved in testing requirements 
and weighting factors already discussed, the Working Group created the 
IVEC metric provided in Recommendation #1 with further specifications 
in appendix B of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. The 
IVEC metric is essentially a summation formula analogous to the 
seasonal energy efficiency ratio 2 (SEER2) metric designated for 
residential central air conditioner (CAC) equipment. (See appendix M1 
to subpart B of part 430 ``Uniform Test Method for Measuring the Energy 
Consumption of Central Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps'') Specifically, 
the IVEC metric is calculated by dividing the total annual

[[Page 56414]]

cooling capacity by the total annual energy use. Key aspects 
encompassed in the proposed IVEC metric include the following:
    1. Accounting for energy consumed in different modes: The IVEC 
metric includes energy use during mechanical cooling, integrated 
mechanical and economizer cooling, economizer-only cooling, cooling 
season ventilation, unoccupied no-load hours, and heating season 
operation of crankcase heat (for CUACs only). Appendix B of the ACUAC 
and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies instructions for 
determining energy consumption during each mode.
    2. Testing parameters: The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet further specifies instructions in appendix B for the mechanical 
cooling tests at each target mechanical load. These methodologies and 
tolerances mirror those specified in AHRI 340/360-2022, including a 3-
percent tolerance on the target mechanical load for part-load tests, 
and in cases when the target mechanical load cannot be met within 
tolerance, instructions for using interpolation and cyclic degradation 
to determine the performance at the target test point.
    3. Target load percentages: Recommendation #4 of the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes target conditions for 
testing, including load percentages for testing units at part-load 
conditions. For each bin, the specified target load percent (% Loadi) 
reflects the average load as a percentage of the full-load capacity for 
that bin met by using all modes of cooling, and is used for determining 
total annual cooling provided in the numerator of the IVEC equation. 
The target mechanical load percent (% Loadi, mech) is the average load 
for each bin met only through mechanical cooling (i.e., mechanical-only 
cooling and the mechanical portion of integrated mechanical and 
economizer cooling) and is the target load fraction used for the part-
load cooling test for each bin.
    As mentioned, the IVEC metric includes the annual operation of 
crankcase heaters for CUACs and CUHPs. Appendix B of the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet further specifies the accounting of 
crankcase heater energy consumption in each operating mode. 
Recommendation #2 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet 
specifies hour-based weighting factors to account for crankcase heat 
operation in unoccupied no-load cooling season hours for CUACs and 
CUHPs as well as heating season hours for CUACs. Appendix B of the 
ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet also specifies that for 
part-load cooling tests, crankcase heat is accounted for in power 
measurements of higher stage compressors that are staged off during 
testing, while crankcase heat operation of lower-stage compressors when 
cycled off as well as crankcase heat operation in other operating modes 
is calculated using the certified crankcase heater power.
    The IVEC metric also accounts for a 15-percent oversizing factor. 
Accordingly, the target load percentages specified in Recommendation #4 
include this 15 percent oversizing factor. Additionally, the A test 
condition is excluded from the IVEC calculation; however, the A test is 
still a required test point for determining full load capacity.
    IVEC includes outdoor and return air dry-bulb and wet-bulb test 
temperatures that differ from those used in the current test procedure 
for determining IEER, as shown in Table III.2.

                                  Table III.2--IEER and IVEC Test Temperatures
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              IEER test conditions                  IVEC test conditions
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Return air                            Return air
             Test point                Outdoor air dry    temperature (dry   Outdoor air dry    temperature (dry
                                       bulb temperature    bulb/wet bulb)    bulb temperature    bulb/wet bulb)
                                           ([deg]F)           ([deg]F)           ([deg]F)           ([deg]F)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................                 95              80/67                 95              80/67
B...................................               81.5              80/67                 85              77/64
C...................................                 68              80/67                 75              77/64
D...................................                 65              80/67                 65              77/64
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The IVEC metric also limits the minimum airflow that can be used 
for testing. This minimum airflow limit calculation method is based on 
the average ventilation rate determined in building modeling performed 
to develop IVEC and is a function of the full-load cooling capacity. 
Unlike AHRI 340/360-2022 (see section 6.1.3.4.5), the provisions for 
determining IVEC do not specify separate test provisions for setting 
airflow during part-load tests of MZVAV units. Rather, the part-load 
airflow used for testing all CUACs and CUHPs would be based on the 
certified part-load cooling airflow.
    Based on the discussions in the Working Group, DOE understands that 
the changes recommended for the IVEC metric are intended to result in 
an efficiency metric that is more representative of CUAC and CUHP 
operation. Therefore, DOE tentatively agrees with the approach 
recommended by the Working Group and is proposing to adopt the IVEC 
metric in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
(including the provisions discussed in section III.F.6 of this NOPR 
that were not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet).
5. IVHE
    The following section provides a summary of the development and 
final recommendations regarding the IVHE heating metric specified in 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet.
    The IVHE metric specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet differs from the COP heating efficiency metric specified in 
the current DOE test procedure through the inclusion of heating season 
operating modes not currently accounted for, a combined seasonal 
performance metric rather than individual ratings at specific 
temperature conditions, and additional optional test conditions. In 
alignment with the development of the IVEC metric described in section 
III.F.4 of this NOPR, the Working Group determined to utilize hour-
based weighting factors to account for heating loads across more 
building types and climate zones than are included in the current DOE 
test procedure. The building heating load lines and hours developed for 
the IVHE metric rely on a similar ASHRAE 90.1 building and climate zone 
analysis as the one conducted for the IVEC metric development. 
Additionally, in developing the heating load line that the hour-based 
weighting factors rely on,

[[Page 56415]]

the Working Group utilized the previously discussed 15-percent 
oversizing factor and assumed a heat to cool ratio of 1 as outlined in 
Recommendation #8 (i.e., assumed the peak building cooling load equals 
the peak building heating load).
    The heating rating requirements recommended in the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet include several distinct provisions 
regarding testing requirements from the existing DOE test procedure. In 
the current DOE test procedure, CUHPs are required to be tested only at 
a 47 [deg]F full-load condition to generate a COP rating. 
Recommendation #9 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, 
however, introduces several provisions with significant differences 
from the existing DOE test procedure. First, the recommendation 
includes required testing at 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F full load 
conditions, aligning with those previously specified in AHRI 340/360-
2022. Additionally, the recommendation introduces optional part load 
test conditions at both 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F temperature conditions 
as well as test conditions for optional testing at a 5 [deg]F full load 
condition. Finally, the recommendation includes test requirements for 
optional boost tests at the 17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F test conditions for 
variable speed units. Additionally, the IVHE metric incorporates two 
operating modes previously excluded from the DOE test procedure: 
heating season ventilation mode and supplemental electric resistance 
heat operation. Lastly, the IVHE test conditions rely on the same ESP 
requirements per capacity bin as those specified for IVEC, as detailed 
in Recommendation #12. The airflow provisions pertaining to IVEC 
mentioned in section III.F.4 of this NOPR (i.e., a limit on minimum 
airflow used for testing and no separate test provisions for MZVAV 
units) apply to the test provisions for the IVHE metric as well.
    The results from optional and required testing as well as the newly 
included operating modes are included in the calculation of the IVHE 
metric utilizing the weighting factors outlined in Recommendation #8 
and calculation methods from appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet. The calculation methods for IVHE that implement 
these changes are further detailed in the paragraphs that follow.
    The IVHE metric includes contributions from both mechanical and 
resistance heating to meet building heating load. Similar to the IVEC 
calculation approach, the IVHE metric is calculated by dividing the 
total annual building heating load by the total annual energy use.
    Recommendations #8, #9 and #10, as well as appendices B and C of 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, provide the 
calculation methods for the IVHE metric. The proposed hour-based 
weighting factors and bin temperatures for IVHE are included in 
Recommendation #8 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, 
which specifies 10 distinct load-based bins alongside weighting factors 
for heating season ventilation and operation of crankcase heat in 
unoccupied no-load heating season hours. The calculation methods 
outlined for the IVHE metric in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet are specified as the following:
    1. Building load calculation: Recommendation #8 includes the 
calculation method for the building load in each load bin based on the 
measured full-load cooling capacity.
    2. Interpolation between temperatures: Appendix C of the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies interpolation instructions 
for the various test temperatures specified in Recommendation #8. 
Interpolation instructions are specified for bins with temperatures 
between 17 [deg]F and 47 [deg]F. Appendix C also includes the following 
instructions for bins with temperatures less than 17 [deg]F: (1) 
interpolation instructions to be used if the optional 5 [deg]F test is 
conducted, and (2) extrapolation instructions utilizing the 47 [deg]F 
and 17 [deg]F test data to be used if the 5 [deg]F test is not 
conducted.
    3. Determination of heating stage, auxiliary heat, and cyclic 
degradation: For load bins in which the calculated building load 
exceeds the highest-stage mechanical heating capacity determined for 
the bin temperature, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP 
Term Sheet includes calculation methods for determining the power 
required by auxiliary resistance heat and is included in the overall 
IVHE calculation. For load bins in which the calculated building load 
is lower than the lowest-stage mechanical heating capacity determined 
for the bin temperature, appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet includes calculation methodology for calculating 
power and incorporating cyclic degradation with a cyclic degradation 
factor of 0.25. This cyclic degradation methodology is consistent with 
the methodology specified in appendix M1 to subpart B of 10 CFR part 
430 for residential central heat pumps. For load bins in which the 
calculated building load is in between the lowest-stage and highest-
stage mechanical heating capacities determined for the bin temperature, 
appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes 
calculations for determining power based on interpolation between 
performance of mechanical heating stages.
    4. Defrost degradation: The capacity calculations for all load bins 
with temperatures less than 40 [deg]F include a defrost degradation 
coefficient, with calculations specified in appendix C of the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet.
    5. Cut-out factor: Recommendation #10 of the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies that manufacturers will certify 
cut-in and cut-out temperatures, or the lack thereof, to DOE to ensure 
resistance-only operation is included at temperatures below which 
mechanical heating would not operate. This restriction is implemented 
in calculations through a cut-out factor included in appendix C. DOE is 
not proposing to amend the certification or reporting requirements for 
ACUHPs in this NOPR to require reporting cut-in and cut-out 
temperatures. Instead, DOE may consider proposals to amend the 
certification and reporting requirements for this equipment under a 
separate rulemaking regarding appliance and equipment certification.
    6. Crankcase heater power contribution: In alignment with the 
inclusion of crankcase heater power contribution in IVEC, appendix C of 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies a method for 
incorporating crankcase heat power for all heating season operating 
modes for ACUHPs. Specifically, for part-load heating tests, crankcase 
heat is accounted for in power measurements of higher stage compressors 
that are staged off during testing, while crankcase heat operation of 
lower-stage compressors when cycled off as well as crankcase heat 
operation in other operating modes is calculated using the certified 
crankcase heater power.
    Based on participation in the Working Group, DOE understands that 
the changes recommended for the IVHE metric are intended to result in 
an efficiency metric that is more representative of CUHP operation. As 
discussed, DOE tentatively agrees with the approach recommended by the 
Working Group and is proposing to adopt the IVHE metric in appendix A1, 
as specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft (including the provisions 
discussed in section III.F.6 of this NOPR

[[Page 56416]]

that were not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet).
a. IVHE for Colder Climates
    While stakeholder comments received (as discussed in section 
III.F.1.h) indicate that the majority of current CUHP shipments are 
concentrated in the south and southwestern regions of the country, it 
is likely that in the future manufacturers will develop CUHPs that are 
designed for operation in colder climates, and correspondingly that the 
market for CUHPs in colder climates is expected to grow. Because the 
IVHE metric is based on the US national average climate across all US 
climate zones, the lowest bin temperature for calculating IVHE is 15.9 
[deg]F, and a small fraction of heating hours are at colder 
temperatures (i.e., 19 percent of heating hours are in a load bin with 
a temperature colder than 32 [deg]F, and less than 1 percent of heating 
hours are in a load bin with a temperature colder than 17 [deg]F).
    As a result, the AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes provisions, 
including weighting factors and temperature bins, for calculating a 
colder climate-specific IVHE metric, designated as IVHEC, 
which are distinct from the provisions used for IVHE. Specifically, 
IVHEC was developed using the same building heating analysis 
that was used to develop IVHE (as discussed in section III.F.5 of this 
NOPR), but the IVHEC weighting factors and load bins were 
developed using the results for climates zones 5 and above (i.e., 
climate zone 5 as well as all climate zones colder than climate zone 
5), weighted by the share of the US population in each of those climate 
zones. The use of only climate zones 5 and colder for IVHEC 
results in the following, compared to IVHE: lower outdoor dry-bulb 
temperature for each load bin, more heating season hours in all load 
bins, and a higher heating season building load. Specifically, for 
IVHEC, 56 percent of heating hours are in a load bin with a 
temperature colder than 32 [deg]F, and 12 percent of heating hours are 
in a load bin with a temperature colder than 17 [deg]F. Further, 
because the defrost degradation coefficients specified in appendix C of 
the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet depend on the outdoor 
temperature for each load bin (and IVHEC has colder bin 
temperatures than IVHE), the AHRI 1340-202X Draft also specifies 
separate defrost degradation coefficients for calculating 
IVHEC. The temperatures and hours for each load bin for 
calculating IVHE and IVHEC can be found in section 6.3.2 of 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
    Given the potential for the development of CUHPs designed for 
operation in colder climates and the expected increased number of 
shipments of CUHPs into colder climates, DOE recognizes the utility in 
having CUHP ratings for a separate IVHE metric that is specific to 
colder climates. Correspondingly, DOE has tentatively concluded that 
the IVHEC metric as specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft is 
more representative of field conditions for CUHPs installed in colder 
US climates. Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt provisions for 
determining the IVHEC metric in appendix A1 via reference to 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, and to allow for optional representations of 
IVHEC for CUHPs. Specifically, DOE is proposing that IVHE 
would be the regulated metric when testing to appendix A1; therefore, 
should DOE adopt amended standards for CUHPs in terms of IVEC and IVHE, 
all CUHPs would be required to certify compliance with IVHE standards, 
and additional representations of IVHEC would be optional.
6. Additions and Revisions to the IVEC and IVHE Metrics Not Included in 
the Term Sheet
    AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes several provisions regarding the new 
IVEC and IVHE metrics that are not included in the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE notes that the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet includes provisions to allow changes to the 
proposals in the term sheet if mistakes in the original recommendations 
are identified through further analysis or discussion between 
stakeholders. (See EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0065, Recommendations #2, #8, 
#11) Further, the AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes a number of additional 
test provisions that DOE has tentatively concluded are consistent with 
the intent of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, but 
provide additional guidance for determining IVEC and IVHE. As 
discussed, DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 1340-202X Draft for 
determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1, including these additional 
provisions not specified in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet. The following sections discuss these provisions in further 
detail.
a. Cooling Weighting Factors Adjustment
    Subsequent to the development of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group 
TP Term Sheet, additional analysis of the building models used to 
develop the weighting factors for the IVEC metric indicated that the 
proposed weighting hours included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group 
TP Term Sheet are incorrect. Specifically, the weighting hour factors 
in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet over-represent 
mechanical-only cooling hours and underrepresent economizer-only and 
integrated-economizer hours for all IVEC load bins. DOE presented 
corrected weighting factors during the ACUAC and ACUHP standards 
negotiations and no concerns were raised. (See EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-
0078 at p. 8) These corrected IVEC weighting factors are included in 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft. DOE is proposing to adopt AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
for determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1, including these updated 
IVEC weighting factors.
b. ESP Testing Target Calculation
    Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet includes an equation for determining adjusted ESP for cooling or 
heating tests that use an airflow that differs from the full-load 
cooling airflow. However, the equation specified in Recommendation #12 
is missing a term for the full-load ESP. This equation is corrected in 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft. DOE is proposing to adopt these provisions of 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE in appendix A1, 
including this corrected equation for determining adjusted ESP.
c. Test Instructions for Splitting ESP Between Return and Supply 
Ductwork
    As discussed previously, Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies that ESP shall be split between 
return and supply ducts during testing, such that 25 percent of the ESP 
is applied in the return ductwork. However, the ACUAC and ACUHP Working 
Group TP Term Sheet does not contain explicit test setup instructions 
specifying how to achieve the split in ESP between return and supply 
ductwork. Section E11 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes more 
detailed instructions regarding the duct and pressure measurement 
setup, the measurement and adjustment of the return static pressure, 
and the restriction devices that can be used in the return ductwork to 
achieve the required split of between 20 and 25 percent of the total 
ESP applied to the return ductwork. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft also 
includes test instructions for cases in which the ESP split is not 
achieved in the first test as well as any exceptions to the specified 
tolerance requirement. DOE has tentatively

[[Page 56417]]

concluded that these additional instructions will provide a more 
consistent measurement of ESP and are aligned with the intent of 
Recommendation #12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. 
Therefore, DOE is proposing to adopt these provisions of the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft for determining IVEC and IVHE.
d. Default Fan Power and Maximum Pressure Drop for Coil-Only Systems
    DOE's current test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs references ANSI/
AHRI 340/360-2007, and section 6.1 of that test standard specifies 
default fan power and corresponding capacity adjustment for ACUACs, 
ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs with a coil-only configuration (i.e., 
without an integral indoor fan). Specifically, ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 
requires that an indoor fan power of 365 Watts (W) per 1,000 standard 
cubic feet per minute (scfm) be added to power input for coil-only 
units and that the corresponding heat addition (i.e., 1,250 Btu/h per 
1,000 scfm) be subtracted from measured cooling capacity (and added to 
measured heating capacity), regardless of capacity of the unit under 
test and regardless of full or part-load test conditions. In the July 
2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on the prevalence of ACUACs, ACUHPs, 
ECUACs, and WCUACs that are sold in coil-only configurations and 
requested data on the typical efficiency or typical power use and 
airflow of fans used with coil-only ACUACs, ACUHPs, WCUACs, and ECUACs 
in field installations. 82 FR 34427, 34440 (July 25, 2017).
    In response, Lennox and AHRI stated that the market for coil-only 
ACUACs and ACUHPs is very small and that less than 1 percent of the 
approximately 9,000 models listed in the AHRI directory are coil-only 
models. In addition, Lennox and AHRI stated their expectation that the 
coil-only configuration will become even less common or disappear from 
the market by 2023 when new energy conservation standards become 
effective. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 3; AHRI, EERE-2017-
BT-TP-0018-0011 at pp. 23-24) Lennox recommended maintaining the 
current default fan power because the market for these configurations 
is very small and stated that the effect of any change in default fan 
power associated with the difference in typical energy use would be de 
minimis. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 3)
    Section 6.1.1.6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 has the same requirement as 
ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 regarding default fan power and capacity 
adjustment of coil-only systems. Additionally, both section 6.1.3.2(d) 
of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and section 6.1.3.3.4 of AHRI 340/360-2022 
specify that for coil-only systems, the pressure drop across the indoor 
assembly shall not exceed 0.30 in H2O for the full-load 
cooling test. If the measured pressure drop exceeds that value, then 
the industry test standards specify that the indoor airflow rate be 
reduced such that the measured pressure drop does not exceed the 
specified maximum pressure drop.
    The AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes different requirements for 
testing coil-only units as compared to ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and AHRI 
340/360-2022. First, section 5.17.4 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
includes a higher maximum pressure drop across the indoor assembly of 
1.0 in H2O when testing coil-only units, as compared to the 
maximum pressure drop of 0.3 in H2O specified in ANSI/AHRI 
340/360-2007 and AHRI 340/360-2022. Second, section 6.2.4.2 of the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft includes higher default fan power values than specified 
in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and AHRI 340/360-2022; these values were 
updated to reflect the higher ESP requirements used for IVEC and IVHE. 
Because the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and AHRI 1340-
202X Draft specify ESP requirements that vary by capacity bin, section 
6.2.4.2 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft specifies different default fan 
power adders and capacity adjustments for each capacity bin, developed 
based on fan power needed to overcome the ESP requirement for each bin.
    Lastly, while ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and AHRI 340/360-2022 specify 
a single default fan power adder (and corresponding capacity 
adjustment) to be used for all tests, the AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes 
separate default fan power adders and capacity adjustments for full-
load tests and part-load tests (i.e., tests conducted at an airflow 
lower than the full-load cooling airflow) to reflect that fan power 
does not decrease linearly with airflow (i.e., reducing airflow in 
part-load operation would reduce fan power in field operation by more 
than would be calculated using a single power adder that is normalized 
by airflow). These part-load fan power adders and capacity adjustments 
were developed assuming a part-load airflow that is 67 percent of the 
full-load airflow. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft does not specify what 
values to use if the part-load airflow is higher than 67 percent of the 
full-load airflow. In a test procedure final rule for CAC/HPs published 
October 25, 2022, DOE adopted a part-load fan power adder and capacity 
adjustment for coil-only systems based on 75 percent of the full-load 
airflow, and specified that linear interpolation be used to determine 
the default fan power coefficient between the part-load and full-load 
default fan power coefficients when the specified part-load airflow is 
between 75 and 100 percent of the full-load airflow. 87 FR 64550, 
64558. DOE has tentatively concluded that similar linear interpolation 
provisions would be appropriate for coil-only CUACs and CUHPs in the 
case where the airflow specified by a manufacturer for a test is 
between 67 and 100 percent of the full-load airflow. Therefore, DOE is 
proposing to include similar provisions in appendix A1 that specify how 
to calculate the default fan power coefficient and capacity adjustment 
in such cases.
    Consistent with the basis of part-load values in the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft on 67 percent of full-load cooling airflow, DOE is also proposing 
to clarify that for tests in which the manufacturer-specified airflow 
is less than the full-load cooling airflow, the target airflow for the 
test must be the higher of: (1) the manufacturer-specified airflow for 
the test; or (2) 67 percent of the airflow measured for the full-load 
cooling test.
    DOE tentatively concludes the changes to the coil-only test 
procedure in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft represent industry consensus on 
the most appropriate and representative way to test and determine IVEC 
and IVHE of coil-only systems. Additionally, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that provisions to address manufacturer-specified airflows 
between 67 and 100 percent of full-load cooling airflow (via 
interpolation between the specified full-load and part-load fan power 
adders and capacity adjustments) would provide a representative means 
to develop ratings for coil-only CUACs and CUHPs, consistent with the 
CAC/HP test procedure at appendix M1. Lastly, these do not conflict 
with any recommendations in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet. DOE has tentatively concluded that these provisions provide a 
representative method to test coil-only units that better aligns with 
the test requirements for CUACs and CUHPs with integral fans specified 
in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet and the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft. Therefore, DOE is proposing to reference the provisions for 
testing coil-only units specified in sections 5.17.4 and 6.2.4.2 of the 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft with additional instruction to use linear 
interpolation for determining the fan power adder and capacity

[[Page 56418]]

adjustment for instances when manufacturers specify an airflow between 
67 and 100 percent of full-load cooling airflow, and clarifying that 
airflow for coil-only systems must not be lower than 67 percent of 
full-load cooling airflow.
e. Component Power Measurement
    Section E10 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes additional instruction 
regarding how the total unit, indoor fan, controls, compressor, 
condenser section, and crankcase heat power should be measured and 
accounted for during a test. This includes details that were not 
included in the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet, as well as 
updates to address issues such as unique model designs and power meter 
precision that were identified after the term sheet was completed. For 
example, although the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet 
specified that controls power be determined by subtracting all other 
power measurements from the total unit power, sections E10.1 and E10.2 
of AHRI 1340-202X Draft require that controls power be measured. This 
is because controls power is a much smaller value than power consumed 
by other components of a CUAC or CUHP and thus is more accurately 
determined by measuring directly with a power meter of sufficient 
precision. Section E10.2 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft also allows for 
determination of compressor and condenser section power by measurement 
together or by subtraction from total power (i.e., separate power 
measurement of power consumed by the compressor and condenser section 
is not required). These provisions address cases in which unique wiring 
of certain models may make separate measurement of compressor and 
condenser section power very difficult or impossible, in addition to 
cases in which the laboratory does not have enough power meters to 
measure all components separately. Section E10.3 also provides an 
equation for calculating default value(s) for crankcase heater power to 
address the case in which a manufacturer does not specify crankcase 
heater wattage.\22\ DOE has tentatively concluded that these provisions 
will provide more repeatable and representative test results and is 
proposing to adopt them through reference to section E10 of the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ As discussed, Recommendation # 13 of the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet requires that manufacturers certify 
crankcase heater wattage for each heater. DOE is not proposing 
amendments to certification requirements in this rulemaking, and 
will instead address certification requirements in a separate 
rulemaking for certification, compliance, and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

f. IVHE Equations
    Section 6.3 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes the following 
changes regarding the heating metric equations that differ from the 
provisions in appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet.
    1. Removal of the cut-out factor from certain equations: As 
discussed in section III.F.5 of this NOPR, appendix C of the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet includes a cut-out factor in IVHE 
calculations to reflect the dependence of unit performance on whether 
compressors are cut-out at a given bin temperature. However, the cut-
out factor was inadvertently included in certain equations in appendix 
C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet where it should 
not apply (i.e., equations to determine unit performance that should 
not be impacted by the fraction of time in which compressors are cut 
out). Therefore, in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, the cut-out factor was 
removed from those equations where it was incorrectly applied in the 
ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE notes that these 
changes would only affect IVHE calculation for models with a cut-out or 
cut-in temperature higher than the temperature of the lowest load bin.
    2. Accounting for auxiliary heat when compressors are cut out: When 
compressors are cut-out, auxiliary heat would operate to meet the 
building load. This auxiliary heat operation is addressed in section b 
of appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet (i.e., 
when building load exceeds the highest stage unit heating capacity at a 
given bin temperature), but was inadvertently excluded in sections c 
and d of appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet 
(i.e., when building load is between capacities of a unit tested with 
multiple heating stages, or when building load is less than the 
capacity for the lowest tested compressor stage). Therefore, the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft includes corrections in these cases so that auxiliary 
heat demand is applied to meet building load in all cases in which 
compressors are cut out.
    3. Fan power applied in auxiliary heat-only mode: In appendix C of 
the Term Sheet, the equations do not subtract the heat gain in the 
indoor airstream from the indoor fan (i.e., ``fan heat'') from the 
auxiliary heat demand. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft addresses this issue by 
subtracting fan heat from auxiliary heat demand. Additionally, sections 
c and d of appendix C of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet assume that the fan would be either cycling between airflows when 
cycling between stages of compression or operating at the lowest 
measured indoor airflow for any cooling or heating test when cycling on 
and off at the lowest stage of compression; however, the indoor fan 
would likely be operating at the airflow corresponding to the full-load 
heating test when operating in auxiliary heat mode. The AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft addresses this by applying fan power from the full-load heating 
test for auxiliary heat-only mode. However, DOE notes that because both 
fan heat and auxiliary heat apply heat to the indoor airstream with the 
same efficiency (i.e., COP of 1), the airflow assumed for auxiliary 
heat-only mode does not impact results, as the fan heat resulting from 
an increase in fan power reduces the auxiliary heat needed to meet the 
building load by the same amount, resulting in no net change to 
calculated IVHE.
    4. Interpolation for variable-speed compressor systems: When 
building load is between capacities of a unit tested with multiple 
heating stages, section c of appendix C of the term sheet includes a 
separate method for interpolating between stages for variable-speed 
compressor systems (i.e., a method that interpolates capacity divided 
by power) from the method for all other units (i.e., a method that 
linearly interpolates power). As part of development of the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft, it was determined that there were insufficient data to 
support a separate interpolation method for variable-speed compressor 
systems, and therefore the AHRI 1340-202X Draft applies the same linear 
interpolation method based on power for all units.
    5. Compressor operating levels for heating tests: Recommendation #9 
of the Term Sheet includes details on the required and optional tests 
based on configuration of the system (i.e., single-stage, two or more 
stages, and variable-capacity). Required tests include a test at 
``high'' operating level at 17 and 47 [deg] F; optional tests include 
tests at low and intermediate operating levels at 17 and 47 [deg] F as 
well as high and ``boost'' operating levels at 5 [deg] F. For variable-
capacity systems, the Term Sheet specifies that the high speed and low 
speed at each temperature should be the normal maximum and minimum for 
each ambient temperature. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes additional 
explanation of which compressor speeds correspond to the low, medium,

[[Page 56419]]

high, and boost designations at each test temperature.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that these updated IVHE equations as 
described in the preceding paragraphs would provide for a more accurate 
calculation of IVHE. Further, Recommendation #9 of the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet states that the equations in appendix C of 
the term sheet are subject to quality control checking (``QC'') for 
errors with the intent remaining the same as voted on. DOE has 
tentatively concluded that the discussed deviations in the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft hold the same intent of the recommendations set forth in the 
ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Therefore, DOE is 
proposing to adopt the provisions of AHRI 1340-202X Draft for 
determining IVHE in appendix A1, including the updated equations 
discussed in this section.
    DOE notes that appendix C of the Term Sheet includes a provision 
that ``additional provisions, still TBD would apply for variable-speed 
compressors for which pairs of full-speed or minimum-speed tests are 
not run at the same speed.'' The AHRI 1340-202X Draft does not include 
any provisions allowing for determination of capacity for a bin by 
interpolating between tests conducted at different compressor operating 
levels. DOE has tentatively concluded that this approach is appropriate 
and that calculating IVHE with results from multiple tests at each 
compressor operating level will provide representative ratings for 
manufacturers that choose to include performance at operating levels 
beyond the required high operating level tests at 47 and 17 [deg]F in 
their representations of IVHE. Therefore, DOE is not proposing to 
deviate from the approach in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
g. Non-Standard Low-Static Indoor Fan Motors
    As discussed in section III.F.4, DOE is proposing to include higher 
ESPs recommended by the Working Group and included in the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft in the Federal test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. However, 
individual models of CUACs and CUHPs with indoor fan motors intended 
for installation in applications with a low ESP may not be able to 
operate at the proposed full-load ESP requirements at the full-load 
indoor rated airflow. To address this situation, section 3.25 of AHRI 
1340-202X Draft defines ``non-standard low-static indoor fan motors'' 
as motors which cannot maintain ESP as high as specified in the test 
procedure when operating at the full-load rated indoor airflow and that 
are distributed in commerce as part of an individual model within the 
same basic model that is distributed in commerce with a different motor 
specified for testing that can maintain the required ESP. Section 
5.19.3.3 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes test provisions for CUACs and 
CUHPs with non-standard low-static indoor fan motors that cannot reach 
the ESP within tolerance during testing, which require using the 
maximum available fan speed that does not overload the motor or motor 
drive, adjusting the airflow-measuring apparatus to maintain airflow 
within tolerance, and operating with an ESP as close as possible to the 
minimum ESP requirements for testing. This approach is consistent with 
the industry test standard referenced by the DOE test procedure for DX-
DOASes (AHRI 920-2020).
    As discussed in section III.I.3.b, DOE is proposing to clarify that 
representations for a CUAC or CUHP basic model must be based on the 
least efficient individual model(s) distributed in commerce within the 
basic model (with the exception specified in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) 
for certain individual models with the components listed in Table 6 to 
10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)). DOE has tentatively concluded that the 
combination of (1) the provisions in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft for 
testing models with ``non-standard low-static indoor fan motors'' with 
(2) the requirement that basic models be rated based on the least 
efficient individual model (with certain exceptions, as discussed) 
provides an appropriate approach for handling CUAC and CUHP models with 
these motors--if an individual model with a non-standard low-static 
indoor fan motor is tested, the test would be conducted at an indoor 
airflow representative for that model. But because testing at the rated 
airflow for such an individual model would result in testing at an ESP 
lower than the requirement and thus a lower indoor fan power, the 
representations for that basic model would be required to be based on 
an individual model with an indoor fan motor that can achieve the ESP 
requirements at the rated airflow. Consistent with the proposed 
adoption of the AHRI 340/360-202X Draft in appendix A1, DOE is not 
proposing any deviations from the provisions for testing models with 
non-standard low-static indoor fan motors.
7. Efficiency Metrics for ECUACs and WCUACs
    The current DOE test procedure for WCUACs and ECUACs is specified 
at 10 CFR 431.96 and includes the EER metric. The ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet does not include provisions for ECUACs and 
WCUACs. However, AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes provisions for 
determining the new IVEC and optional EER2 metric for ECUACs and 
WCUACs. The AHRI 1340-202X Draft provisions for determining IVEC and 
EER2 for ECUACs and WCUACs are largely the same as the provisions for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs; however, there are several provisions unique to 
ECUACs and WCUACs--specifically regarding (1) ESP requirements and (2) 
test temperatures.
    As discussed, the IVEC and EER2 metrics include higher ESP 
requirements than the current DOE test procedures and AHRI 340/360-
2022. For ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal 
to 65,000 Btu/h, the AHRI 1340-202X Draft specifies the same ESP 
requirements for determining IVEC and EER2 for ECUACs and WCUACs as for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs (shown in Table III.1 in section III.F.4 of this 
NOPR). As discussed in section III.F.1.e of this NOPR, the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft also includes an ESP requirement of 0.5 in H2O 
for testing ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 
Btu/h, which is consistent with the ESP requirement specified in AHRI 
210/240-2023 for comparable air-cooled equipment (i.e., air-cooled, 
three-phase CUACs and CUHPs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/
h.
    ECUACs and WCUACs use different types of test temperatures than 
ACUACs and ACUHPs, and AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes test temperature 
requirements for full-load and part-load test points for determining 
IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs. Table III.3 and Table III.4 show the test 
temperatures included in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft for determining IVEC 
for ECUACs and WCUACs.

[[Page 56420]]



                                                     Table III.3--IVEC Test Temperatures for ECUACs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             AHRI 340/360-2022 IEER test temperatures       AHRI 1340-202X draft IVEC test temperatures
                                                         -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                       Test point                           Outdoor air     Outdoor air                     Outdoor air     Outdoor air
                                                             dry-bulb        wet-bulb      Make-up water     dry-bulb        wet-bulb      Make-up water
                                                             ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)        ([deg]F)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A.......................................................              95              75              85              95              75              85
B.......................................................            81.5            66.2              77              85              65              77
C.......................................................              68            57.5              77              75              57              77
D.......................................................              65            52.8              77              65              52              77
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                 Table III.4--IVEC Test Temperatures for WCUACs
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           AHRI 340/360-2022 IEER test         AHRI 1340-202X draft IVEC test
                                                  temperatures                          temperatures
             Test point              ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        Entering water     Leaving water      Entering water     Leaving water
                                           ([deg]F)          ([deg]F) *          ([deg]F)          ([deg]F) *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A...................................                 85                 95                 85                 95
B...................................               73.5  .................                 72  .................
C...................................                 62  .................                 62  .................
D...................................                 55  .................                 55  .................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft include a leaving water temperature condition only for the A
  test. Testing with the specified entering and leaving water temperature test determines the water flow rate
  used for the A test. For part-load tests, AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft specify that the part-
  load water flow rate be set per the manufacturer's installation instructions; and for any full-load tests
  conducted at B, C, or D rating points (i.e., for interpolation to reach the target percent load), that the
  water flow rate used match the flow rate measured for the A test. Therefore, a leaving water temperature is
  not specified for the B, C, and D tests.

    DOE understands that the provisions for determining IVEC and EER2 
for ECUACs and WCUACs included in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft (including 
higher ESP requirements and revised test temperature requirements) 
reflect industry consensus that the IVEC metric (and optional EER2 
metric) provide a more representative measure of energy efficiency for 
ECUACs and WCUACs. Therefore, DOE tentatively concludes that the IVEC 
metric specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft (including ESP 
requirements and test temperatures) is more representative than the EER 
metric specified in the current DOE test procedure. Accordingly, DOE is 
proposing to adopt the IVEC metric (as well as the optional EER2 
metric) specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft into appendix A1 of the 
Federal test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs. At this time, DOE does 
not have sufficient evidence to propose alternate test conditions, but 
requests comment on whether alternate test conditions are appropriate 
for determining IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs.
    As mentioned previously, the current energy conservation standards 
of ECUACs and WCUACs are in terms of EER. Were DOE to adopt the 
appendix A1 test procedure for determining IVEC for ECUACs and WCUACs 
as proposed, testing to the IVEC metric would not be required until DOE 
adopts energy conservation standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of 
that metric. As discussed, DOE is also proposing to update the current 
test procedure for all CUACs and CUHPs, including ECUACs and WCUACs, in 
appendix A to reference AHRI 340/360-2022, maintaining the current EER 
metric until DOE adopts energy conservation standards for ECUACs and 
WCUACs in terms of the proposed IVEC metric.
    Issue 3: DOE requests comment in its proposal to adopt the IVEC 
metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft, including the test temperature requirements.
a. Heat Rejection Components for WCUACs
    WCUACs are typically installed in the field with separate heat 
rejection components \23\ that reject heat from the water loop to 
outdoor ambient air, but these separate heat rejection components are 
not accounted for in the testing of WCUACs under the current DOE test 
procedure. These heat rejection components typically consist of a 
circulating water pump (or pumps) and a cooling tower. To account for 
the power that would be consumed by these components in field 
installations, section 6.1.1.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 specifies that 
WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h shall add 10.0 W 
to the total power of the unit for every 1,000 Btu/h of cooling 
capacity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Separate heat rejection components (e.g., a cooling tower 
or circulating water pump) are not used with ACUACs or ECUACs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The industry test procedure for dedicated outdoor air systems 
(DOASes)--AHRI 920-2020, ``2020 Standard for Performance Rating of 
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air System Units''--includes a 
different method to account for the additional power consumption of 
water pumps, with a pump power adder referred to as the ``water pump 
effect'' being added to the calculated total unit power. Specifically, 
section 6.1.6 of AHRI 920-2020 specifies that the water pump effect is 
calculated with an equation dependent on the water flow rate and liquid 
pressure drop across the heat exchanger, including a term that assumes 
a liquid ESP of 20 ft of water column. In the May 2022 RFI, DOE 
requested comment on the representativeness of the AHRI 920-2020 
approach to account for power consumption of external heat rejection 
components as compared to the approach in AHRI 340/360-2022. 87 FR 
31743, 31752 (May 25, 2022).
    On this topic, AHRI stated that its members are still evaluating 
the applicability of the AHRI 920 approach but have some concerns 
regarding the applicability to air-cooled equipment. (AHRI, EERE-2022-
BT-STD-0015-0008 at p. 6) DOE notes that the provisions discussed in 
this section pertain only to WCUACs and not to air-cooled equipment.

[[Page 56421]]

    The CA IOUs recommended DOE adopt the approach used in AHRI 920-
2020 for adding power due to water pumps. The CA IOUs concurred with 
DOE that WCUAC and ECUAC equipment are niche products with a small 
market, and contended that a simple power adder or alignment with AHRI 
920-2020 would be a good solution. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012 
at p. 7)
    Carrier commented that neither the AHRI 340/360-2022 nor the AHRI 
920-2020 approach is appropriate, because both methods rely on fixed 
constants that may not give an accurate representation of each system 
in the field and ignore any opportunities for improvements and 
optimization of the building design. However, Carrier did not suggest 
an alternative method to accounting for the power consumption of water 
pumps or a cooling tower. Additionally, Carrier stated that both AHRI 
920 and AHRI 340/360 ignore the impact of fouling,\24\ and recommended 
fouling be considered for water-cooled and evaporatively-cooled 
equipment. (Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010 at pp. 15-16)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ ``Fouling'' refers to the formation of unwanted material 
deposits on heat transfer surfaces.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 6.2.4.3 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes similar 
provisions for accounting for the power of heat rejection components 
for WCUACs to those in AHRI 340/360-2022. However, unlike AHRI 340/360-
2022, the heat rejection component power addition is not limited to 
units with cooling capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h in the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft, and instead applies to WCUACs of all cooling capacities.
    In response to comments from stakeholders, DOE does not have any 
data to indicate that the approaches to account for the power required 
by heat rejection components in AHRI 340/360-2022, AHRI 920-2020, or 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft are inaccurate. Despite expressing concerns 
regarding the representativeness of the methods in AHRI 340/360-2022 
and AHRI 920-2020, Carrier did not suggest any alternative test method. 
While the CA IOUs expressed a preference for use of the method in AHRI 
920, DOE has tentatively concluded that the latest approach presented 
in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft is representative of industry consensus to 
account for the power of heat rejection components in WCUACs, such as 
circulating water pumps and cooling towers. Therefore, consistent with 
the proposed adoption of the AHRI 340/360-202X Draft in appendix A1, 
DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions for accounting 
for the power of heat rejection components for WCUACs specified in 
section 6.2.4.3 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
    As previously indicated, water-cooled air conditioners and heat 
pumps rely on pumps to circulate the water that transfers heat to or 
from refrigerant in the water-to-refrigerant coil. Most water-cooled 
units rely on external circulating water pumps; however, some water-
cooled units in other equipment categories (e.g., water-source heat 
pumps and DOASes) have integral pumps included within the unit that 
serve this function. For such units with integral pumps, test 
provisions are warranted to specify how to test with the integral pump 
(e.g., provisions specifying the liquid ESP at which to operate the 
integral pump). AHRI 340/360-2022 does not contain provisions specific 
to testing WCUACs with integral pumps. In contrast, DOE recently 
adopted provisions requiring that water-source DOASes with integral 
pumps be tested with a target external head pressure of 20 ft of water 
column (consistent with AHRI 920-2020). 87 FR 45164, 45181 (July 27, 
2022). DOE requested comment on the prevalence of WCUACs with integral 
pumps in the May 2022 RFI, as it was not aware of any WCUACs on the 
market with integral pumps. DOE also sought comment on what liquid ESP 
would be representative for testing, if WCUACs with integral pumps do 
exist on the market. 87 FR 31743, 31752 (May 25, 2022).
    AHRI and Carrier stated that they are not aware of any WCUACs on 
the market that contain integral pumps. (AHRI, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-
0008 at p. 6; Carrier, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010 at p. 16) Carrier 
noted that typically, WCUACs are installed in buildings with multiple 
units and then connected to a central cooling tower system; Carrier 
asserted that it would not make sense to put pumps in each of the units 
because multiple units use a common cooling tower system. (Carrier, 
EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0010 at p. 16)
    Based on commenter responses indicating a lack of WCUACs on the 
market with integral pumps and lack of provisions addressing WCUACs 
with integral pumps in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, 
DOE is not proposing to include test provisions for WCUACs with 
integral pumps.
8. Efficiency Metrics for Double-Duct Systems
    As discussed in section III.B.3 of this NOPR, double-duct systems 
are equipment classes of ACUACs and ACUHPs, either single package or 
split, designed for indoor installation in constrained spaces, such 
that outdoor air must be ducted to and from the outdoor coil. DOE is 
proposing revisions to the definition for double-duct systems that 
align with the updated definition in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft.
    Pursuant to the current DOE test procedure (which references ANSI/
AHRI 340/360-2007), double-duct systems are tested and rated under the 
same test conditions at zero outdoor air ESP as conventional ACUACs and 
ACUHPs (i.e., that are not double-duct systems). AHRI 340/360-2022 
added a test method in appendix I that specifies an outdoor air ESP 
requirement of 0.50 in. H2O for double-duct systems. When 
testing with 0.50 in. H2O outdoor air ESP, ratings are 
designated with the subscript ``DD'' (e.g., EERDD, 
COPDD, and IEERDD) to distinguish them from the 
ratings determined by testing at zero outdoor air ESP.
    The ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet does not include 
provisions for double-duct systems. However, the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
includes provisions for determining the new IVEC and IVHE metrics for 
double-duct systems. Specifically, similar to appendix I of AHRI 340/
360-2022, the AHRI 1340-202X Draft applies a 0.50 in. H2O 
outdoor air ESP requirement for determining IVEC and IVHE for double-
duct systems. Other than this outdoor air ESP requirement, the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft specifies no differences in determining IVEC and IVHE 
for double-duct systems as compared to conventional ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    Because double-duct systems are installed indoors with ducting of 
outdoor air to and from the outdoor coil, DOE has tentatively concluded 
that testing at a non-zero outdoor air ESP (as specified in AHRI 1340-
202X Draft) would be more representative of field applications than 
testing at zero outdoor air ESP (as specified in the current Federal 
test procedure). Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that the IVEC 
and IVHE metrics specified in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft are more 
representative than the EER, IEER, and COP metrics specified in the 
current DOE test procedure, for the reasons discussed throughout this 
NOPR (e.g., sections III.F.4 and III.F.5 of this NOPR) for ACUACs and 
ACUHPs more generally. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that the 
application of the IVEC and IVHE metrics in the AHRI 1340-202X Draft to 
double-duct systems reflect industry consensus that these metrics 
provide a more representative

[[Page 56422]]

measure of energy efficiency for double-duct systems.
    Therefore, DOE proposes to include provisions in appendix A1 for 
determining IVEC and IVHE for double-duct systems. Although DOE is 
proposing generally to incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360-2022 in 
appendix A, DOE has tentatively determined not to reference in appendix 
A the modified testing requirements for double-duct systems specified 
in appendix I of AHRI 340/360-2022 because the modified ESP 
requirements would alter the measured efficiency of double-duct 
systems. Instead, DOE proposes to maintain the current metrics for 
double-duct systems in appendix A. As proposed, an outdoor air ESP 
requirement of 0.50 in. H2O for double-duct systems would 
only apply when determining the new IVEC and IVHE metrics per appendix 
A1.
    As mentioned previously, the current energy conservation standards 
for double-duct systems are in terms of EER and COP. Were DOE to adopt 
the test procedures for IVEC and IVHE for double-duct systems as 
proposed, testing to those metrics would not be required until DOE 
adopts energy conservation standards for double-duct systems in terms 
of those metrics.
    Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the IVEC and 
IVHE metrics for double-duct systems in appendix A1 as specified in the 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft.

G. Test Method Changes in AHRI Standard 340/360

    In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested and received comments on a 
number of topics related to the current DOE test procedure for CUACs 
and CUHPs, and the most up-to-date version of AHRI 340/360 that was 
available at the time (i.e., AHRI 340/360-2015). 82 FR 34427, 34439-
34445 (July 25, 2017). With the publication of AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
the development of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, many of these topics have 
been addressed in the updated and draft versions of the standard. DOE 
is not proposing any deviations from AHRI 340/360-2022 for appendix A. 
As discussed later in this document, DOE has tentatively determined, 
based upon clear and convincing evidence, that the updated industry 
test procedures in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, as 
proposed to be adopted by DOE in appendix A and appendix A1, would more 
fully comply with the EPCA requirements for the test procedures to be 
reasonably designed to produce test results that reflect the energy 
efficiency or energy use of CUACs and CUHPs during a representative 
average use cycle (as determined by the Secretary), and not be unduly 
burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(2)) In the following 
sections, DOE summarizes the comments received in response to the July 
2017 TP RFI, and discusses changes in the industry test standard update 
that are related to comments received, as well as other changes to the 
industry test standard AHRI 340/360 that are relevant to DOE's test 
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs.
1. Vertical Separation of Indoor and Outdoor Units
    In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE noted that ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 does 
not limit the vertical separation of indoor and outdoor units when 
testing split systems. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017). In contrast, 
section 6.1.3.5 of AHRI 340/360-2015 (the relevant revision of that 
industry test standard at the time of the July 2017 RFI) specifies that 
the maximum allowable vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor 
units be no more than 10 feet, presumably because separation greater 
than 10 feet can adversely affect measured performance. If test 
facilities use indoor and outdoor environmental chambers that are 
stacked vertically, the limitation on vertical separation may make it 
impractical or impossible to test split systems. As part of the July 
2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a maximum of 10 feet of 
vertical separation of indoor and outdoor units would limit the ability 
of existing facilities to test split-system CUACs and CUHPs and 
requested comment on the impact that vertical separation of split 
systems has on efficiency and capacity. Id.
    On this topic, AHRI commented that if the vertical separation is 
too high, there will be a large negative impact on capacity and 
efficiency, and that if separation approaches 15 feet, intermediate 
traps may be needed. AHRI also commented that this requirement does not 
limit the ability of laboratories to test units. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0011 at p. 26) Similarly, Lennox commented that greater 
separation would negatively impact results, and that they were also not 
aware of any test laboratories that had difficulty with this 
requirement. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 5) Carrier stated 
that vertical separation can impact performance but that the 10-foot 
maximum separation should not be an issue as long as the length of the 
interconnecting line in the outdoor section does not exceed 5 feet. 
(Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 13) Goodman stated that a 
maximum of 10 feet of vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor 
units is appropriate. Goodman also stated that the 10-feet maximum 
allowable vertical separation ensures minimal impact of suction line 
losses and oil return problems, and that greater vertical separation 
will adversely impact cooling capacity and efficiency. (Goodman, EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 5) DOE received no other comments on this 
issue.
    AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft do not include any 
specifications regarding the maximum allowable vertical separation of 
the indoor and outdoor units. DOE understands that the approach 
provided in both AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
represents industry consensus regarding setup for testing of CUACs and 
CUHPs, and surmises that the commenters' original positions on this 
provision changed during the course of developing the industry 
consensus standard. Consistent with the proposed adoption of AHRI 340/
360-2022 (in appendix A) and AHRI 1340-202X Draft (in appendix A1), DOE 
is not proposing specifications regarding the maximum allowable 
vertical separation of the indoor and outdoor units.
2. Measurement of Air Conditions
    In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on condenser inlet 
air size and uniformity using the criteria in appendix C of AHRI 340/
360-2015. DOE also requested comment on whether the requirements of 
appendix C are sufficient to ensure reproducibility of results and/or 
any test data that demonstrate sufficient reproducibility. 82 FR 34427, 
34442 (July 25, 2017).
    Regarding this matter, AHRI and Lennox stated that alterations to 
the laboratory have been required to ensure the air in the room is 
uniform. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 25; Lennox, EERE-2017-
BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 5) Lennox stated that these alterations typically 
include adjustment to conditioning equipment supply ducts, air mixers 
within the test room, and temporary partitions to prevent air 
stratification surrounding the unit under test. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0008 at p. 5) Carrier commented that the current method is 
well-proven and used on rooftop units and chillers. However, Carrier 
stated that airflow stratification is an area of concern; it requires 
not just measurement, but also good test facilities that provide 
uniform airflow. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 12) In 
response to DOE asking specifically about ECUACs, AHRI commented that 
the air sampling tree

[[Page 56423]]

requirements in appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2015 are feasible for all 
ECUACs, and that adding more wet-bulb measurements than what is 
currently in appendix C would not benefit test reproducibility. (AHRI, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 25)
    Appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft contains a 
number of changes, including certain changes related to temperature 
uniformity, as well as provisions regarding air condition measurement 
for indoor air and outdoor outlet air. These changes would improve test 
representativeness and repeatability. DOE understands that the approach 
provided in appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft represents industry consensus regarding the most appropriate 
method of measuring air conditions. Consistent with the proposed 
adoption of AHRI 340/360-2022 (in appendix A) and AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
(in appendix A1), DOE is not proposing any deviations from the 
provisions in appendix C of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
regarding measuring air conditions.
3. Refrigerant Charging Instructions
    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether 
it would be appropriate to adopt an approach regarding refrigerant 
charging requirements for ACUACs and ACUHPs that is similar or 
identical to the approach used in the DOE test procedure for central 
air conditioners and heat pumps (CACs and HPs). DOE also sought data to 
determine how sensitive the performance of ACUACs, ECUACs, and WCUACs 
is relative to changes in the various charge indicators used for 
different charging methods, specifically the method based on sub-
cooling. 82 FR 34427, 34441 (July 25, 2017).
    On this topic, AHRI and Lennox commented that charging instructions 
should first be determined from the supplemental PDF test instructions 
that are certified to DOE. If instructions are not found there, AHRI 
and Lennox stated that charging should be conducted in accordance with 
the manufacturer installation instructions provided with the unit. 
(AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 24; Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0008 at p. 4) Lennox further stated that if neither the certified 
supplemental test instructions (STI) nor the installation instructions 
shipped with the unit provide charging information, then a 
predetermined method to set the refrigerant charge should be employed, 
consistent with the approach for CACs. Lennox also commented that 
charging methods should consider a consistent setup method in the test 
laboratories to account for charge adjustments for pressure transducers 
and any loss of charge in the application of transducers, and that 
charge verification is required when visible damage on the equipment is 
spotted, even if damage is minor. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at 
p. 4) Trane encouraged DOE to require the certification of detailed 
manufacturer instructions for setting up CUACs for unique test standard 
conditions, including the method that the manufacturer uses to vary 
refrigerant charge and the refrigerant charging instructions that are 
unique to that unit design. (Trane, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0012 at p. 2)
    Carrier commented that DOE currently requires charging instructions 
to be included in the certified supplemental test instructions for 
CUACs. Further, Carrier stated that if the manufacturer's charging 
instructions for a CUAC unit provide a specified range for superheat, 
sub-cooling, or refrigerant pressure, then DOE's test procedure should 
specify to use the average of the range to determine the refrigerant 
charge, consistent with AHRI 340/360-2015. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0006 at p. 11) Goodman stated that while CUACs are sensitive to 
changes in charge, regardless of the charging method, manufacturers 
typically provide a range of target values for charging to allow for 
typical accuracy of pressure and temperature measurement equipment used 
in the field. Goodman further commented that it can provide a specific 
charging point in the supplemental testing instructions certified to 
DOE, but that adding specific charge points to certified instructions 
would be an added burden. (Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 4)
    Section 5.8 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.12 of the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft include a comprehensive set of provisions regarding 
refrigerant charging for CUACs and CUHPs that is generally consistent 
with the approach for CACs/HPs. Specifically, they require that units 
be charged at conditions specified by the manufacturer in accordance 
with the manufacturer's installation instructions. If no manufacturer-
specified charging conditions are provided, the test standards specify 
charging at the standard rating conditions (as defined in Table 6 of 
AHRI 340/360-2022 and Table 7 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft). These 
provisions also provide additional charging instructions to be used if 
the manufacturer does not provide instructions or if the provided 
instructions are unclear or incomplete (e.g., specifying default 
charging targets to use if none are provided by the manufacturer; 
specifying an instruction priority to be used in the event of 
conflicting information between multiple manufacturer-provided charging 
instructions).
    DOE is proposing to adopt the charging instructions in AHRI 340/
360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, which are consistent with the 
charging conditions DOE has established for CACs/HPs. Additionally, 
given the inclusion of these provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 
1340-202X Draft, DOE understands that the approach provided in section 
5.8 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.12 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
represents industry consensus regarding the most appropriate and 
representative approach for refrigerant charging when testing CUACs and 
CUHPs.
4. Primary and Secondary Methods for Capacity Measurements
    DOE's current test procedure references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 which 
includes requirements on how to perform the primary and secondary 
methods of capacity measurement, and further specifies which secondary 
method can be used when testing certain equipment classes. ASHRAE 37-
2009 lists applicable test methods in Table 1 of that industry 
standard, but the table does not indicate that the outdoor air enthalpy 
method is applicable for any configuration of evaporatively-cooled 
equipment. Therefore, the secondary method for ECUACs is limited to use 
of the refrigerant enthalpy method or compressor calibration method for 
split systems and only the compressor calibration method for single-
package equipment. As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment 
and test data on whether there is difficulty in achieving a match 
between primary and secondary capacity measurements when testing ECUACs 
with rated capacities less than 135,000 Btu/h and whether the 
difficulty level is higher, lower, or the same when testing the unit at 
full-load conditions as compared to part-load conditions. 82 FR 34427, 
34444 (July 25, 2017). DOE also requested comment on whether there 
would be a benefit in allowing the outdoor air enthalpy method as a 
secondary method of capacity measurement for ECUACs or whether there 
are other alternative approaches that could be considered for 
mitigating the potential test burden. Id.
    In response to the July 2017 RFI, AHRI commented that it does not 
have

[[Page 56424]]

data on whether there is difficulty with matching primary and secondary 
capacity measurements for ECUACs. AHRI added that it appreciates DOE's 
investigation of less burdensome secondary capacity measurements, but 
that its members are following ASHRAE 37 and, therefore, have not used 
the outdoor enthalpy method for ECUACs. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0011 at pp. 28-29)
    Appendix E of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
include requirements related to the method of testing CUACs and CUHPs. 
These appendices include requirements for measuring capacity with the 
primary method (i.e., the indoor air enthalpy method) and with a 
secondary method (e.g., outdoor air enthalpy method, compressor 
calibration method, refrigerant enthalpy method). More specifically, 
AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft reference the primary 
and secondary methods for capacity measurements listed in ANSI/ASHRAE 
37-2009 and specify that testing shall comply with all of the 
requirements in ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009.
    Additionally, section E6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft specify secondary capacity measurement for all capacities of 
CUACs and CUHPs, including equipment with cooling capacity greater than 
or equal to 135,000 Btu/h. Correspondingly, section E6.2 of AHRI 340/
360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft allow use of the cooling 
condensate method (detailed in section E6.6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft) as an acceptable secondary capacity 
measurement for (1) ECUACs with cooling capacity greater than or equal 
to 135,000 Btu/h and (2) single package ACUACs and ACUHPs with outdoor 
airflow rates above 9,000 scfm.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ This provision of section E6.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft regarding the cooling condensate method only 
applies to units that do not reject condensate to the condenser 
coil. Section E6.2.1.1 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft specify that no secondary measurements are required for 
cooling or heating tests for equipment that reject condensate in the 
following groups: single package ACUACs with outdoor airflow rates 
above 9,000 scfm and (2) single package ECUACs with cooling capacity 
greater than or equal to 135,000 Btu/h.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has tentatively concluded that requiring secondary capacity 
measurement for CUACs and CUHPs with cooling capacity greater than or 
equal to 135,000 Btu/h would provide more repeatable test results by 
ensuring that there is confirmation of accurate capacity measurements 
for testing all units, without adding substantive burden to testing. 
Further, DOE understands that many test laboratories are limited in 
their ability to measure outdoor airflow rates greater than 9,000 scfm 
(and thus limited in their ability to conduct the outdoor air enthalpy 
method for units with such outdoor airflow rates; \26\) therefore, DOE 
has tentatively concluded that use of the cooling condensate method for 
single package CUACs with outdoor airflow rates above 9,000 scfm would 
allow for sufficient confirmation of capacity measurement without 
making the test procedure unduly burdensome.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ DOE understands the most commonly used secondary capacity 
measurement method for single package ACUACs to be the outdoor air 
enthalpy method. Measurement of outdoor airflow is required for 
conducting the outdoor air enthalpy method; therefore, the outdoor 
air enthalpy method cannot be conducted if the outdoor airflow 
cannot be measured.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE understands that the approach provided in appendix E of AHRI 
340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft regarding primary and 
secondary methods of capacity measurement represents industry consensus 
regarding the most appropriate method for testing CUACs and CUHPs. 
Absent any data indicating that an alternative secondary method would 
reduce test burden while still providing representative and repeatable 
test results, DOE is proposing to adopt the provisions in appendix E of 
AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft regarding primary and 
secondary methods of capacity measurement.
5. Atmospheric Pressure
a. Adjustment for Different Atmospheric Pressure Conditions
    The current DOE test procedures for CUACs and CUHPs do not include 
an adjustment for different atmospheric pressure conditions. Appendix D 
of AHRI 340/360-2015 includes an adjustment for indoor fan power and 
corresponding fan heat to address potential differences in measured 
results conducted at different atmospheric pressure conditions.
    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested test data validating 
the supply fan power correction used in AHRI 340/360-2015. 82 FR 34427, 
34442 (July 25, 2017). DOE also sought test data showing the impact 
that variations in atmospheric pressure have on the performance (i.e., 
capacity and component power use) of ACUACs and ACUHPs. Id.
    AHRI stated that it was planning to remove the atmospheric pressure 
corrections from AHRI Standard 340/360 until further industry research 
was completed. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 25) Carrier also 
stated that AHRI was planning on removing the atmospheric pressure 
correction and supported keeping a lower limit of 13.7 psia for the 
barometric pressure, because a lower value can result in degradation of 
performance. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 12) Lennox 
commented that the adjustment method presented in AHRI 340/360-2015 is 
theoretically sound but recognized the need for additional research to 
verify the impacts of testing due to the nature of uncertainty and test 
repeatability of calorimeter room testing. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0008 at p. 4)
    Since publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, the atmospheric pressure 
correction has been removed from the industry test procedure and is not 
included AHRI 340/360-2022 or the AHRI 1340-202X Draft. DOE is not 
proposing any deviations from the provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 or 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft regarding an atmospheric pressure correction.
b. Minimum Atmospheric Pressure
    Section 6.1.3.2 of AHRI 340/360-2015 specifies a minimum 
atmospheric pressure of 13.7 psia for testing equipment to address the 
potential impact of atmospheric pressure on the airflow rate and power 
of the outdoor fan(s). This differs from the current DOE test procedure 
in which there is no minimum atmospheric pressure requirement.
    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether 
the minimum atmospheric pressure of 13.7 psia specified in section 
6.1.3.2 of AHRI 340/360-2015 would prevent any existing laboratories 
from testing equipment, and what burden, if any, would be imposed by 
such a requirement. 82 FR 34427, 34442.
    AHRI commented it intends to keep the lower limit of 13.7 psia in 
AHRI Standard 340/360, and that the lower limit represents 
approximately 1900 ft above sea level, and that all known third party 
testing laboratories meet this requirement. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0011 at p. 25) Lennox and Carrier recommended that DOE adopt the 
lower limit of 13.7 psia. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 4; 
Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 12)
    Section 6.1.3.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section E2 of the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft include the 13.7 psia minimum atmospheric pressure 
requirement. DOE is not proposing any deviations from the minimum 
atmospheric pressure provisions specified in section 6.1.3.2 of

[[Page 56425]]

AHRI 340/360-2022 and section E2 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
c. Atmospheric Pressure Measurement
    The accuracy of atmospheric pressure measurements required by 
section 5.2.2 of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 (which is referenced in AHRI 340/
360-2015) is 2.5 percent. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, 
DOE estimated that under certain circumstances, atmospheric pressure 
measurements at the extremes of this ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 tolerance can 
result in variation in capacity measurement of 1 to 2 percent. 82 FR 
34427, 34443 (July 25, 2017). In the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested 
comment on the typical accuracy of the atmospheric pressure sensors 
used by existing test laboratories. Id.
    In response, AHRI commented that the third-party laboratory used by 
AHRI for certification testing uses sensors with accuracy better than 
0.15 psia.\27\ (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 27) 
Carrier commented that the brand of pressure sensors that are currently 
used have an accuracy of 0.001 inches of mercury (in. 
Hg).\28\ (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \27\ At standard atmospheric pressure (14.696 psia), an accuracy 
of 0.15 psia is equivalent to an accuracy of 1.0 percent.
    \28\ At standard atmospheric pressure (29.92 in. Hg), an 
accuracy of 0.001 in. Hg is equivalent to an accuracy of 
0.003 percent.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Section 5.12.1 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.16.2 of the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft specify a minimum accuracy of atmospheric pressure 
measurement of 0.50 percent, which is less stringent than 
the accuracy suggested by Carrier but more stringent than the accuracy 
suggested by AHRI. Because the committees to develop these standards 
include manufacturers and third-party test laboratory representatives, 
DOE has tentatively determined that this accuracy specification 
appropriately represents the capability of atmospheric pressure 
measuring instruments and DOE is not proposing any deviations from the 
minimum accuracy specified in section 5.12.1 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
section 5.16.2 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
6. Condenser Head Pressure Controls
    Condenser head pressure controls regulate the flow of refrigerant 
through the condenser and/or adjust operation of condenser fans to 
prevent condenser pressures from dropping too low during low-ambient 
operation. When employed, these controls ensure that the refrigerant 
pressure is high enough to maintain adequate flow through refrigerant 
expansion devices such as thermostatic expansion valves. The use of 
condenser head pressure controls influences a unit's performance when 
operating in the field.
    Section F7.1 of AHRI 340/360-2015 includes a time average test 
procedure to be used in case head pressure controls cause cycling of 
the condenser fans and unsteady operation of the unit under test. 
Specifically, the provisions require two one-hour tests be run: one at 
the upper bound of the tolerance on outdoor ambient temperature, and 
one at the lower bound. The test results for both one-hour tests are 
averaged to determine the capacity and efficiency for the rating point 
that is used in the IEER calculation. This issue was reviewed by DOE in 
the context of ACUACs in the December 2015 CUAC TP final rule. In that 
final rule, DOE clarified that head pressure controls must be active 
during the test, but DOE did not adopt the time-averaged head pressure 
control test specified in AHRI 340/360-2015, indicating that AHRI 340/
360-2015 was a draft document at the time and that DOE would reconsider 
adoption of the provisions for testing units with head pressure control 
in a future rulemaking. 80 FR 79655, 79660 (Dec. 23, 2015).
    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested information and data 
regarding testing of CUACs and CUHPs with head pressure controls that 
would require the special test provisions described in section F7.1 of 
AHRI 340/360-2015, including: (1) whether such units can be tested in 
compliance with the relaxed stability requirements of these test 
provisions; (2) whether the test results accurately represent field 
use; and (3) whether the test burden associated with these tests is 
appropriate. 82 FR 34427, 34441 (July 25, 2017).
    AHRI, Lennox, and Carrier stated that the time-average test method 
outlined in appendix F of AHRI 340/360-2015 is appropriate and that no 
problems have been encountered thus far. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0011 at p. 24; Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 3; Carrier, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 11) AHRI also commented that the burden 
of the time average test method is appropriate. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0011 at p. 24)
    Section E7.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft also 
specify provisions for a time average test procedure, consistent with 
AHRI 340/360-2015. Further, sections E7.3 and E7.4 of AHRI 340/360-2022 
and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft provide additional direction for achieving 
stability to be used if the tolerances for the head pressure control 
time average test cannot be met. In light of the head pressure control 
provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft, DOE 
understands that the approach provided in sections E7.2, E7.3, and E7.4 
of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft represent industry 
consensus regarding the most appropriate and representative approach 
for testing CUACs and CUHPs with head pressure controls. DOE has 
tentatively determined the approach in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft appropriately represents the impact of head pressure 
controls and DOE is not proposing any deviations from the head pressure 
control provisions specified in these industry test standards.
7. Length of Refrigerant Line Exposed to Outdoor Conditions
    ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007, AHRI 340/360-2015, and AHRI 210/240-2008 
require at least 25 feet of interconnecting refrigerant line when 
testing split systems. ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 and AHRI 340/360-2015 
require at least 5 feet of the interconnecting refrigerant line to be 
exposed to outdoor test chamber conditions, whereas AHRI 210/240-2008 
requires at least 10 feet to be exposed to outdoor test chamber 
conditions. As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment and 
data regarding the typical length of refrigerant line that is exposed 
to outdoor conditions on split-system ACUAC, ECUAC, or WCUAC 
installations and whether this length varies depending on the capacity 
of the unit. 82 FR 34427, 34443 (July 25, 2017). DOE also requested 
comment and data on any measurements or calculations that have been 
made of the losses associated with refrigerant lines exposed to outdoor 
conditions. Id. DOE also estimated an upper bound of the capacity loss 
to be approximately 1 percent of the capacity of the unit per 10 feet 
of refrigerant line exposed to outdoor conditions and approximately 0.5 
percent for 5 feet and requested comment on this estimate. Id.
    AHRI commented that the length of refrigerant line that is exposed 
is entirely dependent on the building in which the unit is being 
installed, and that AHRI chose 25 feet as a standard value to ensure 
consistent testing. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 27) Lennox 
stated that DOE's calculation of capacity losses from refrigerant lines 
exposed to outdoor conditions is probably too high and that losses can 
be minimized with insulation. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-

[[Page 56426]]

TP-0018-0008 at p. 6) Carrier acknowledged the difference in exposure 
to outdoor conditions across test standards and initially suggested to 
change the requirement for commercial equipment (e.g., equipment with a 
rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h) from 5 
feet to 10 feet. Carrier requested more time to determine the length 
typically exposed to outdoor conditions in actual installations. 
Carrier also stated that DOE's loss estimate is probably reasonable, 
but that they need more time to develop a more accurate estimate. 
(Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 15)
    Since publication of the July 2017 TP RFI, the industry 
specification has been changed in AHRI 340/360. Section 5.7 of AHRI 
340/360-2022 and section 5.11 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft require that 
at least 10 feet of interconnected tubing be exposed to outdoor 
conditions. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the 
provisions regarding length of refrigerant line exposed to outdoor 
conditions in section 5.7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.11 of the 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft in appendix A and appendix A1, respectively.
8. Indoor Airflow Condition Tolerance
    DOE's current test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs with a rated 
cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h specifies in 
section (6)(i) of appendix A that the indoor airflow for the full-load 
cooling test must be within 3 percent of the rated airflow. 
DOE adopted a 3 percent tolerance on indoor airflow for testing ACUACs 
and ACUHPs to limit variation in EER and cooling capacity, based on 
test data and feedback provided by industry commenters. 80 FR 79655, 
79659-79660 (Dec. 23, 2015). As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE 
requested comment and data showing whether variations in indoor airflow 
impact the measured efficiency or capacity of ECUACs and WCUACs more or 
less than ACUACs and ACUHPs and whether the 3 percent 
tolerance is appropriate for ECUACs and WCUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34442 
(July 25, 2017).
    In commenting on this issue, AHRI stated that the indoor airflow 
rate should not be influenced by the condenser heat rejection medium 
(i.e., air-cooled, water-cooled, or evaporatively-cooled) and that the 
 3 percent tolerance should be appropriate for testing 
ECUACs and WCUACs. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 26) 
Similarly, Goodman stated that ACUACs and WCUACs include similar indoor 
fans, and therefore, the test procedure provisions for setting indoor 
airflow for WCUACs should match the existing provisions for ACUACs. 
(Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 5)
    Section 6.1.3.5.2.1 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.19.13.1 of 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft specify that the indoor airflow for the full-load 
cooling test must be within  3 percent of the rated airflow 
for all CUACs and CUHPs. Accordingly, DOE is proposing to adopt a 3-
percent tolerance for ECUACs and WCUACs consistent with the requirement 
for ACUACs and ACUHPs, through adoption of AHRI 340/360-2022 into 
appendix A and AHRI 1340-202X Draft into appendix A1.
9. ECUACs and WCUACs With Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
    As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether 
there are differences between ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities 
less than 65,000 Btu/h and those with cooling capacities greater than 
or equal to 65,000 Btu/h that justify the incorporation by reference of 
different industry test standards for the different cooling capacity 
ranges. DOE also asked whether there are differences in field 
installations and field use of this equipment and the extent to which 
these differences impact performance. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 
2017).
    In response, DOE received comments from Carrier and AHRI that 
supported testing of ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less 
than 65,000 Btu/h according to AHRI Standard 340/360 and stated that 
this equipment is not considered residential and is not subject to the 
residential efficiency metric, seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER). 
(Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at pp. 15-16; AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0011 at p. 28) Carrier added that field installations are 
similar for these types of equipment regardless of capacity. (Carrier, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 16)
    As previously discussed, the current industry standard referenced 
in DOE's test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities 
less than 65,000 Btu/h is ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008. However, AHRI 
published an updated version of AHRI 210/240 (i.e., AHRI 210/240-2023), 
in which ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 
Btu/h were removed from the scope of AHRI 210/240-2023. Instead, ECUACs 
and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h were included 
in the scope of AHRI 340/360-2022. Furthermore, DOE did not identify 
any substantive differences between AHRI 210/240-2017 and AHRI 340/360-
2022 with respect to the test procedure for ECUACs and WCUACs with 
cooling capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h. Therefore, based on its 
review, DOE has tentatively determined that the test procedure in AHRI 
340/360-2022 for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacities less than 
65,000 Btu/h is comparable to the current Federal test procedure for 
such equipment (which references ANSI/AHRI 210/240-2008). In January 
2023, ASHRAE published ASHRAE Standard 90.1-2022, which included 
updates to the test procedure references for ECUACs and WCUACs with 
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h to reference AHRI 210/240-2023. 
However, as discussed earlier in this paragraph, ECUACs and WCUACs with 
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h are outside of the scope of AHRI 210/
240-2023 and are instead included in AHRI 340/360-2022. Given these 
changes to the relevant industry test standards, DOE believes that such 
reference was an oversight. Therefore, in appendix A DOE is proposing 
to reference AHRI 340/360-2022 for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling 
capacities less than 65,000 Btu/h. DOE has tentatively concluded that 
this proposal would not require retesting solely as a result of DOE's 
adoption of this proposed amendment to the test procedure, if made 
final.
    As discussed in section III.F.6.d of this NOPR, DOE is proposing to 
reference the AHRI 1340-202X Draft in appendix A1 for measuring IVEC 
for ECUACs and WCUACs with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h. 
Measuring IVEC pursuant to appendix A1 would not be required until such 
time as compliance is required with any amended energy conservation 
standards for ECUACs and WCUACs in terms of IVEC.
10. Additional Test Method Topics for ECUACs
a. Outdoor Air Entering Wet-Bulb Temperature
    In the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on why the full-load 
outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature test condition for the 100-
percent capacity test point used to calculate IEER was changed from 
75.0 [deg]F in ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 (the industry standard referenced 
in the current DOE test procedure) to 74.5 [deg]F in AHRI 340/360-2015, 
which differs from the outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature test 
condition (75.0 [deg]F) for the standard rating conditions. DOE 
requested comment on whether the outdoor air entering wet-bulb 
temperature should be 75.0 [deg]F for both the standard rating 
conditions and the 100-percent capacity

[[Page 56427]]

test point used to calculate IEER. DOE also requested comment on 
whether the outdoor air entering dry-bulb temperatures for air-cooled 
units in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2015 apply to evaporatively-cooled 
units. 82 FR 34427, 34442 (July 25, 2017).
    AHRI, Carrier, and Lennox all commented that the different rating 
conditions reflect an error in AHRI 340/360-2015 which will be 
corrected, and that the requirement should be 75.0 [deg]F for both 
purposes. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 26; Carrier, EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 13; Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 
5) Additionally, AHRI stated that outdoor air entering dry-bulb 
temperature is not a significant factor for ECUAC performance because 
heat transfer is driven by the outdoor air entering wet-bulb 
temperature. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 26) AHRI stated 
that it plans to add outdoor air entering dry-bulb temperature 
requirements for evaporatively-cooled units in an addendum to AHRI 340/
360-2015, without specifying whether these new dry-bulb temperature 
requirements would be the same as the dry-bulb temperatures currently 
specified for air-cooled units. (Id.)
    Since publication of the July 2017 RFI, this identified error has 
been corrected in AHRI 340/360-2022. The outdoor air entering wet-bulb 
temperature for the 100-percent capacity test point used to calculate 
IEER in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360-2022 is now set at 75.0 [deg]F, which 
aligns with the outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature requirement 
for the standard rating conditions. DOE is proposing to adopt the test 
conditions in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360-2022 in appendix A. The proposal 
would maintain the full-load outdoor air entering wet-bulb temperature 
test condition for the 100-percent capacity test point at 75.0 [deg]F 
as required under the current DOE test procedure, which is consistent 
with the condition specified in AHRI 340/360-2022.
b. Make-Up Water Temperature
    In the July 2017 RFI, DOE noted that neither ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 
nor AHRI 340/360-2015 provide any specifications on the make-up water 
temperature for full-load or part-load tests for ECUACs. 82 FR 34427, 
34444 (July 25, 2017). Therefore, DOE requested comment and data 
regarding the impact that the make-up water temperature has on the 
performance of ECUACs. Id. AHRI responded that the heat rejection 
caused by differences in the condenser make-up water temperature is 
insignificant in comparison to the heat rejected from the unit, and 
that, therefore, the impact on unit performance is negligible. (AHRI, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 28)
    Both AHRI 340/360-2019 and AHRI 340/360-2022 specify make-up water 
temperatures of 85 [deg]F for the full-load cooling test, but the 
standards differ in the make-up water temperatures specified for part-
load cooling tests. Specifically, Table 8 of AHRI 340/360-2019 
specifies make-up water temperatures of 81.5 [deg]F, 68 [deg]F, and 65 
[deg]F for the 75-percent, 50-percent, and 25-percent part-load cooling 
tests, respectively. In contrast, Table 9 of AHRI 340/360-2022 
specifies a make-up water temperature of 77 [deg]F for all part-load 
cooling tests, which aligns with the make-up water temperature 
specified in AHRI 210/240-2017 for ECUACs with cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h.
    DOE does not have data or information to indicate that the make-up 
water temperature specifications in AHRI 340/360-2022 are 
inappropriate. DOE understands that the make-up water temperatures 
specified in Table 9 of AHRI 340/360-2022 represent the prevailing 
industry consensus regarding the most appropriate method for testing 
ECUACs of all cooling capacities. Therefore, DOE has tentatively 
concluded that, consistent with comments from AHRI, the difference 
between part-load make-up water temperature conditions specified in 
AHRI 340/360-2019 and AHRI 340/360-2022 would have a negligible effect 
on the measured IEER for ECUACs. Additionally, DOE does not specify 
standards for ECUACs in terms of IEER, so the part-load make-up water 
temperature does not affect the efficiency (i.e., EER) certified to 
DOE. For these reasons, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the 
provisions regarding make-up water temperature in Table 9 of AHRI 340/
360-2022 for adoption in appendix A.
c. Piping Evaporator Condensate to Condenser Sump
    As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on whether 
ECUACs that allow piping of evaporator condensate to the condenser sump 
(a variation not addressed in either the DOE or industry test 
procedures) present any complications (e.g., maintaining proper slope 
in the piping from the evaporator to the outdoor unit and test 
repeatability issues) when testing in a laboratory. DOE also requested 
comment and data indicating what kind of impact piping the evaporator 
condensate to the condenser sump has on the efficiency and/or capacity 
of ECUACs. 82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017).
    In response, AHRI indicated that reusing the evaporator condensate 
would have a negligible impact on performance. AHRI also stated it was 
extremely important to follow the manufacturer's supplemental PDF 
instructions when setting up a unit for test to avoid complications. 
(AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 29)
    Section E8.3 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
specify that if such a feature is an option for an ECUAC unit and the 
manufacturer's installation instructions do not require the unit to be 
set up with this option, then the unit should be tested without it.
    In light of the provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft, DOE surmises that the provisions regarding testing with 
such a feature represent the prevailing industry consensus regarding 
the most appropriate and representative approach for testing ECUACs. 
Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that this provision would 
improve the repeatability of the test procedure by ensuring that any 
given ECUAC model is tested consistently with regards to this feature. 
Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions 
regarding testing with this feature in section E8.3 of AHRI 340/360-
2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
d. Purge Water Settings
    Some ECUACs require, as indicated in product literature, that the 
sump water be continuously or periodically purged to reduce mineral and 
scale build-up on the condenser heat exchanger. If an ECUAC either 
continuously or periodically purges during the test, the purge rate may 
affect measured test results. DOE's current test procedure for ECUACs 
does not address purge water settings.
    As part of the July 2017 RFI, DOE requested comment on how the 
purge water rate should be set for laboratory testing if the 
manufacturer's instructions do not contain information on this topic. 
82 FR 34427, 34444 (July 25, 2017). AHRI responded that the length of a 
typical laboratory test is not long enough for there to be significant 
scale or fouling build-up; therefore, purge should not be necessary. 
(AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 29)
    Section E8.4 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
specify that purge water settings shall be set per the manufacturer's 
installation instructions, and also detail what purge rate to use in 
the case that the

[[Page 56428]]

manufacturer's instructions do not provide sufficient guidance.
    In light of the provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft, DOE understands that the purge water provisions in section 
E8.4 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft represent the 
prevailing industry consensus regarding the most appropriate and 
representative approach for testing these ECUACs. Further, DOE has 
tentatively concluded that this provision would improve the 
repeatability of the test procedure by ensuring ECUACs are tested 
consistently with regards to purge water settings, particularly when 
the manufacturer's instructions do not provide sufficient guidance. 
Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations from the provisions in 
section E8.4 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
regarding purge water settings.
e. Condenser Spray Pumps
    As discussed in the July 2017 RFI, the rate that water is sprayed 
on the condenser coil may have an impact on the performance of an 
ECUAC. 82 FR 34427, 34445 (July 25, 2017). For units with sumps, this 
rate may be affected by the pump set-up, and, for units without sumps, 
the incoming water pressure may have an impact. DOE noted that neither 
DOE's current test procedures nor the industry test standards for 
ECUACs address these potential variations. Id. As part of the July 2017 
RFI, DOE requested comment on whether the pump flow can be adjusted on 
any ECUACs on the market that have circulation pumps. DOE also 
requested comment on whether ECUACs without a sump exist and, if so, 
whether there are requirements on the incoming water pressure to ensure 
proper operation of the spray nozzles. DOE also requested comment and 
data regarding the sensitivity of performance test results to these 
adjustments. Id.
    In response, AHRI indicated that it was not aware of any ECUACs 
with adjustable circulator pumps, but that if there are such units, 
they should be tested in accordance with the manufacturer's certified 
supplemental test instructions. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 
30)
    Subsequent to the July 2017 RFI, AHRI made relevant updates to AHRI 
340/360. Section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section XX of the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft both generally state that units shall be installed per 
the manufacturer's installation instructions, which would include 
condenser spray pump settings in the manufacturer's supplemental test 
instructions. In the case of conflicting information, section 5.2 of 
AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft specify 
that priority shall be given to installation instructions on the unit's 
label over installation instructions shipped with the unit. DOE 
believes that using manufacturer instructions provides a repeatable 
test set-up that is representative of the installation and operation of 
equipment in the field. Therefore, DOE is not proposing any deviations 
from the provisions in section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.4 
of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft regarding installation of units per the 
manufacturer's installation instructions.
f. Additional Steps To Verify Proper Operation
    As discussed in the July 2017 RFI, some ECUACs may use spray 
nozzles with very small diameter openings that may become easily 
clogged, thereby reducing the effectiveness of the heat exchanger. DOE 
requested comment on whether there are any additional steps that should 
be taken to verify proper operation of ECUACs during testing, such as 
ensuring nozzles are not blocked. 82 FR 34427, 34445 (July 25, 2017). 
AHRI responded that additional steps, if any, should be outlined in the 
manufacturer's supplemental test instructions. (AHRI, EERE-2017-BT-TP-
0018-0011 at p. 30)
    Section 5.2 of AHRI 340/360-2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft both generally state that units shall be installed per the 
manufacturer's installation instructions, which would include 
additional steps to verify proper spray nozzle operation in the 
manufacturer's supplemental test instructions. Therefore, DOE is not 
proposing any deviations from the provisions in section 5.2 of AHRI 
340/360-2022 and section 5.4 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft regarding 
installation of units per the manufacturer's installation instructions.

H. General Comments Received in Response to the July 2017 TP RFI

    In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE received several general 
comments not specific to any one equipment category or test procedure 
provision. This section discusses those general comments received.
    NCI recommended that DOE follow the development of ASHRAE 221P, 
``Test Method to Measure and Score the Operating Performance of an 
Installed Constant Volume Unitary HVAC System,'' and consider where it 
may be appropriately applied within EPCA test procedures. (NCI, EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0018-0004 at pp. 1-2) NCI stated that it has collected data 
indicating that typical split systems and packaged units serving 
residential and small commercial buildings typically deliver 50 percent 
to 60 percent of the rated capacity to the occupied zone, thereby 
making laboratory tests unrepresentative of field performance. Id.
    As noted in section I.A, EPCA prescribes that if an industry 
testing procedure or rating procedure developed or recognized by 
industry (as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1) is amended, DOE must 
update 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)(A) and (B)) DOE notes that ASHRAE Standard 90.1 does 
not reference ANSI/ASHRAE Standard 221-2020, ``Test Method to Field-
Measure and Score the Cooling and Heating Performance of an Installed 
Unitary HVAC System'' \29\ (ASHRAE 221-2020) as the applicable test 
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs. NCI also did not provide data on field 
performance or any correlations between field performance and 
laboratory test performance for CUACs and CUHPs for DOE to consider. 
Furthermore, ASHRAE 221-2020 does not provide a method to determine the 
efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. As discussed, DOE is proposing to 
incorporate by reference AHRI 340/360-2022, the most recently published 
version of the industry test procedure recognized by ASHRAE Standard 
90.1 for CUACs and CUHPs, consistent with EPCA requirements. 
Additionally, DOE is proposing to incorporate the testing requirements 
and efficiency metric calculation method outlined in the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet in appendix A1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ Found online at webstore.ansi.org/Standards/ASHRAE/ANSIASHRAEStandard2212020.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The CA IOUs commented that while the July 2017 TP RFI expressed 
interest in reducing burden to manufacturers, DOE already took steps to 
reduce this burden by allowing alternative energy efficiency or energy 
use determination methods (AEDMs). (CA IOUs, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0007 
at pp. 1-2) The CA IOUs stated that there are no further opportunities 
to streamline test procedures to limit testing burden. Id. 
Additionally, the CA IOUs stressed the importance of accurate 
efficiency ratings for its incentive programs and for

[[Page 56429]]

customer knowledge, referencing the statutory provision that test 
procedures must produce results that are representative of the 
product's energy efficiency. Id.
    Lennox stated that it generally supports DOE's proposal to meet the 
statutory requirements for designing test procedures that measure 
energy efficiency during an average use cycle, but requested that DOE 
also consider overall impacts to consumers and manufacturers. (Lennox, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at pp. 1-2) Lennox stated that in commercial 
applications, predicting actual energy use from a single metric is 
difficult and that a metric better serves as a point of comparison 
rather than a measure of energy use. Id. Lennox suggested that DOE 
strike a balance between evaluating equipment in a meaningful way 
without introducing unwarranted regulatory burden from overly complex 
test procedures or calculations that provide little value to consumers. 
Id.
    In response to the CA IOUs and Lennox, DOE notes that its approach 
to test procedures is dictated by the requirements of EPCA. As 
discussed, EPCA prescribes that the test procedures for commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment must be those generally 
accepted industry testing procedures or rating procedures developed or 
recognized by industry as referenced in ASHRAE Standard 90.1. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A)) If such an industry test procedure is amended, 
DOE must update 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 the 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) and (C)) In establishing or amending 
its test procedures, DOE must develop test procedures that are 
reasonably designed to produce test results reflecting energy 
efficiency, energy use, and estimated operating costs of a type of 
industrial equipment during a representative average use cycle and that 
are not unduly burdensome to conduct. (42 U.S.C 6314(a)(2)) DOE's 
considerations of these requirements in relation to individual test 
method issues are discussed within the relevant sections of this NOPR.
    ASAP, ASE, et al. stated that there are a number of ambiguities in 
industry test procedures and that DOE should address these ambiguities 
in order to provide a level playing field for manufacturers and to 
ensure that any verification or enforcement testing is consistent with 
manufacturers' own testing. (ASAP, ASE, et al., EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-
0009 at p. 2)
    DOE notes that ASAP, ASE, et al. did not identify any specific test 
provisions that were the cause of their concern. In the context of the 
test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs, DOE has evaluated the industry test 
standard in the context of the statutory criteria regarding 
representativeness of the measured energy efficiency and test burden. 
To the extent that existing provisions in the relevant industry test 
procedure may benefit from further detail, such provisions are 
discussed in the following sections of this document.

I. Configuration of Unit Under Test

1. Summary
    CUACs and CUHPs are sold with a wide variety of components, 
including many that can optionally be installed on or within the unit 
both in the factory and in the field. The following sections address 
the required configuration of units under test. In all cases, these 
components are distributed in commerce with the CUAC and CUHP but can 
be packaged or shipped in different ways from the point of manufacture 
for ease of transportation. Each optional component may or may not 
affect a model's measured efficiency when tested to the DOE test 
procedure proposed in this NOPR. For certain components not directly 
addressed in the DOE test procedure, this NOPR proposes more specific 
instructions on how each component should be handled for the purposes 
of making representations in 10 CFR part 429. Specifically, these 
proposed instructions would provide manufacturers with clarity on how 
components should be treated and how to group individual models with 
and without optional components for the purposes of representations to 
reduce burden. DOE is proposing these provisions in 10 CFR part 429 to 
allow for testing of certain individual models that can be used as a 
proxy to represent the performance of equipment with multiple 
combinations of components.
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to handle CUAC and CUHP components 
in two distinct ways to help manufacturers better understand their 
options for developing representations for their differing product 
offerings. First, DOE proposes that the treatment of certain components 
be specified by the test procedure, such that their impact on measured 
efficiency is limited. For example, a fresh air damper must be set in 
the closed position and sealed during testing, resulting in a measured 
efficiency that would be similar or identical to the measured 
efficiency for a unit without a fresh air damper. Second, DOE is 
proposing provisions expressly allowing certain models to be grouped 
together for the purposes of making representations and allowing the 
performance of a model without certain optional components to be used 
as a proxy for models with any combinations of the specified 
components, even if such components would impact the measured 
efficiency of a model. A steam/hydronic coil is an example of such a 
component. The efficiency representation for a model with a steam/
hydronic coil is based on the measured performance of the CUAC and CUHP 
as tested without the component installed because the steam/hydronic 
coil is not easily removed from the CUAC and CUHP for testing.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ Note that in certain cases, as explained further in section 
III.I.3.b of this document, the representation may have to be based 
on an individual model with a steam/hydronic coil.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Background
    In 2013, ASRAC formed the Commercial HVAC Working Group to engage 
in a negotiated rulemaking effort regarding the certification of 
certain commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning 
equipment, including CUACs and CUHPs. (See 78 FR 15653 (March 12, 
2013)) This Commercial HVAC Working Group submitted a term sheet 
(Commercial HVAC Term Sheet) providing the Commercial HVAC Working 
Group's recommendations. (See EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052) \31\ 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 DOE 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 DOE testing. These features were listed under the heading

[[Page 56430]]

``Equipment Features Subject to Enforcement Policy.'' (Id. at pp. 9-15)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ 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 DOE 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 that optional feature. 
(Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy 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. That is, 
each basic model includes a model either without the optional 
feature(s) listed in the policy or that is eligible for testing with 
the feature(s). Id. The features in the Commercial HVAC Enforcement 
Policy for CUACs and CUHPs (Id. at pp. 1-3 and 5-6) align with the 
Commercial HVAC Term Sheet's list designated ``Equipment Features 
Subject to Enforcement Policy.'' (EERE-2013-BT-NOC-0023-0052, pp. 9-15)
    By way of comparison, AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
include appendix D, ``Unit Configuration for Standard Efficiency 
Determination--Normative.'' Section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360-
2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes a list of features that are 
optional for testing, and it 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 
D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
     For each optional feature, section D3 to appendix D of 
AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft includes explicit 
instructions on how to conduct testing for equipment with the optional 
feature present.
    The optional features provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 
1340-202X Draft are generally consistent with DOE's Commercial HVAC 
Enforcement Policy, but the optional features in section D3 to appendix 
D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft do not entirely align 
with the list of features included for CUACs and CUHPs in the 
Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy.
    DOE notes that the list of features and provisions in section D3 to 
appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft conflate 
components that can be addressed by testing provisions with components 
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. Therefore, DOE has tentatively determined 
that provisions more explicit than those included in section D3 of 
appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft are warranted 
to clarify treatment of models that include more than one optional 
component.
    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 D of AHRI 340/360-2022 or AHRI 1340-202X Draft and instead is 
proposing related provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 
CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1.
3. Proposed Approach for Exclusion of Certain Components
    DOE's proposals for addressing treatment of certain components are 
discussed in the following sub-sections. Were DOE to adopt the 
provisions in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart F, appendices A and A1 as proposed, DOE would rescind the 
Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy to the extent it is applicable to 
CUACs and CUHPs.
    Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on its proposals regarding specific 
components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart F, appendices A and A1.
a. Components Addressed Through Test Provisions of 10 CFR Part 431, 
Subpart F, Appendices A and A1
    In 10 CFR part 431, subpart F, appendices A and A1, DOE proposes 
test provisions for specific components, including all of the 
components listed in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft, for which there is a test procedure action that 
limits the impacts on measured efficiency (i.e., test procedure 
provisions specific to the component that are not addressed by general 
provisions in AHRI 340/360-2022 or AHRI 1340-202X Draft that negate the 
component's impact on performance). These provisions would specify how 
to test a unit with such a component (e.g., for a unit with hail 
guards, remove hail guards for testing). These proposed test provisions 
are consistent with the provision in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 
340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft 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). Specifically, DOE is proposing to require in 
appendices A and A1 that steps be taken during unit set-up and testing 
to limit the impacts on the measurement of these components:

 Air Economizers
 Barometric Relief Dampers
 Desiccant Dehumidification Components
 Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air
 Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers
 Fresh Air Dampers
 Hail Guards
 High-Effectiveness Indoor Air Filtration
 Power Correction Capacitors
 Process Heat Recovery/Reclaim Coils/Thermal Storage
 Refrigerant Reheat Coils
 Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils
 UV Lights
 Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems (VERS)

    The components are listed and described in Table 1 in section 4 of 
the amendments proposed for appendix A, and Table 1 in section 4 of the 
amendments proposed for appendix A1. Test provisions for the components 
are provided in the tables.
b. Components Addressed Through Representation Provisions of 10 CFR 
429.43
    Consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial 
HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions that explicitly 
allow representations for individual models with certain components to 
be based on testing for individual models without those components. DOE 
is proposing a table (Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43) at 10 CFR 
429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) listing the components for which these provisions 
would apply. DOE is proposing the following components be listed in 
Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43:


[[Page 56431]]


 Air Economizers
 Desiccant Dehumidification Components
 Evaporative Pre-cooling of Air-cooled Condenser Intake Air
 Fire/Smoke/Isolation Dampers
 Indirect/Direct Evaporative Cooling of Ventilation Air
 Non-Standard Ducted Condenser Fans
 Non-Standard Indoor Fan Motors
 Powered Exhaust/Powered Return Air Fans
 Process Heat Recovery/Reclaim Coils/Thermal Storage
 Refrigerant Reheat Coils
 Sound Traps/Sound Attenuators
 Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils
 Ventilation Energy Recovery Systems (VERS)

    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to specify that the basic model 
representation must be based on the least efficient individual model 
that comprises a basic model, and clarifying how this long-standing 
basic model provision interacts with the proposed component treatment 
in 10 CFR 429.43. DOE believes that regulated entities may benefit from 
clarity in the regulatory text as to how the least efficient individual 
model within a basic model provision works in concert with the 
component treatment for CUACs and CUHPs. The amendments in this NOPR 
explicitly state that excluding the specified components from 
consideration in determining basic model efficiency in certain 
scenarios is an exception to basing representations on the least-
efficient individual model within a basic model. In other words, the 
components listed in 10 CFR 429.43 are not being considered as part of 
the representation under DOE's regulatory framework if certain 
conditions are met as discussed in the following paragraphs, and, thus, 
their impact on efficiency is not reflected in the representation. In 
this case, the basic model's representation is generally determined by 
applying the testing and sampling provisions to the least efficient 
individual model in the basic model that does not have a component 
listed in 10 CFR 429.43.
    DOE is proposing clarifying instructions for instances when 
individual models within a basic model may have more than one of the 
specified components and there may be no individual model without any 
of the specified components. DOE is proposing the concept of an 
``otherwise comparable model group'' (OCMG). An OCMG is a group of 
individual models within the basic model that do not differ in 
components that affect energy consumption as measured according to the 
applicable test procedure other than the specific components listed in 
Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 but may include individual models with any 
combination of such specified components. Therefore, a basic model can 
be composed of multiple OCMGs, each representing a unique combination 
of components that affect energy consumption as measured according to 
the applicable test procedure, other than the specified excluded 
components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43. For example, a 
manufacturer might include two tiers of control systems within the same 
basic model, in which one of the control systems has sophisticated 
diagnostics capabilities that require a more powerful control board 
with a higher wattage input. CUAC and CUHP individual models with the 
``standard'' control system would be part of OCMG A, while individual 
models with the ``premium'' control system would be part of a different 
OCMG B, because the control system is not one of the specified exempt 
components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43. However, both OCMGs may 
include different combinations of specified exempt components. Also, 
both OCMGs may include any combination of characteristics that do not 
affect the efficiency measurement, such as paint color.
    An OCMG identifies which individual models are to be used to 
determine a represented value. Specifically, when identifying the 
individual model within an OCMG for the purpose of determining a 
representation for the basic model, only the individual model(s) with 
the least number (which could be zero) of the specific components 
listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 is considered. This clarifies which 
individual models are exempted from consideration for determination of 
represented values in the case of an OCMG with multiple specified 
components and no individual models with zero specific components 
listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 (i.e., models with a number of 
specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 greater than the 
least number in the OCMG are exempted). In the case that the OCMG 
includes an individual model with no specific components listed in 
Table 1 to 10 CFR 429.43, then all individual models in the OCMG with 
specified components would be exempted from consideration. The least 
efficient individual model across the OCMGs within a basic model would 
be used to determine the representation of the basic model. In the case 
where there are multiple individual models within a single OCMG with 
the same non-zero least number of specified components, the least 
efficient of these would be considered.
    DOE relies on the term ``comparable'' as opposed to ``identical'' 
to indicate that, for the purpose of representations, the components 
that impact energy consumption as measured by the applicable test 
procedure are the relevant components to consider. In other words, 
differences that do not impact energy consumption, such as unit color 
and presence of utility outlets, would not warrant separate OCMGs.
    The use of the OCMG concept results in the represented values of 
performance that are representative of the individual model(s) with the 
lowest efficiency found within the basic model, excluding certain 
individual models with the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 
CFR 429.43. Specifically with regard to basic models of CUACs and CUHPs 
distributed in commerce with multiple different heating capacities of 
furnaces, the individual model with the lowest efficiency found within 
the basic model (with the aforementioned exception) would likely 
include the furnace with the highest offered heating capacity. 
Additionally, selection of the individual model with the lowest 
efficiency within the basic model would be required to consider all 
options for factory-installed components and manufacturer-supplied 
field-installed components (e.g., electric resistance supplementary 
heat), excluding the specific components listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 
429.43. If manufacturers were to want to represent more efficient 
models within the same group, they would be able to establish those 
units as new basic models and test and report the results accordingly. 
Further, the approach, as proposed, is structured to more explicitly 
address individual models with more than one of the specific components 
listed in Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43, as well as instances in which there 
is no comparable model without any of the specified components. DOE 
developed a document of examples to illustrate the approach proposed in 
this NOPR for determining represented values for CUACs and CUHPs with 
specific components, and in particular the OCMG concept (see EERE-2023-
BT-TP-0014).
    DOE's proposed provisions in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) include each 
of the components specified in section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/
360-2022 for which the test provisions for a unit with these components 
may result in differences in ratings compared to

[[Page 56432]]

testing a unit without these components. Non-standard indoor fan motors 
and coated coils are discussed in the following sub-sections.
(1) High-Static Non-Standard Indoor Fan Motors
    The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy includes high-static indoor 
blowers or oversized motors as an optional feature for CUACs and CUHPs, 
among other equipment. The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy states 
that when selecting a unit of a basic model for DOE[hyphen]initiated 
testing, if the basic model includes a variety of high-static indoor 
blowers or oversized motor options,\32\ DOE will test a unit that has a 
standard indoor fan assembly (as described in the STI that is part of 
the manufacturer's certification, including information about the 
standard motor and associated drive that was used in determining the 
certified rating). This policy only applies where: (a) the manufacturer 
distributes in commerce a model within the basic model with the 
standard indoor fan assembly (i.e., standard motor and drive), and (b) 
all models in the basic model have a motor with the same or better 
relative efficiency performance as the standard motor included in the 
test unit, as described in a separate guidance document discussed 
subsequently. If the manufacturer does not offer models with the 
standard motor identified in the STI or offers models with high-static 
motors that do not comply with the comparable efficiency guidance, DOE 
will test any indoor fan assembly offered for sale by the manufacturer.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ The Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy defines ``high 
static indoors blower or oversized motor'' as an indoor fan 
assembly, including a motor, that drives the fan and can deliver 
higher external static pressure than the standard indoor fan 
assembly sold with the equipment. (See www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2019/04/f62/Enforcement_Policy-Commercial_HVAC.pdf at p.6)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE subsequently issued a draft guidance document (Draft Commercial 
HVAC Guidance Document) on June 29, 2015 to request comment on a method 
for comparing the efficiencies of a standard motor and a high-static 
indoor blower/oversized motor.\33\ As presented in the Draft Commercial 
HVAC Guidance Document, the relative efficiency of an indoor fan motor 
would be determined by comparing the percent losses of the standard 
indoor fan motor to the percent losses of the non-standard (oversized) 
indoor fan motor. The percent losses would be determined by comparing 
each motor's wattage losses to the wattage losses of a corresponding 
reference motor. Additionally, the draft method contains a table that 
includes a number of situations with different combinations of 
characteristics of the standard motor and oversized motor (e.g., 
whether each motor is subject to Federal standards for motors; whether 
each motor can be tested to the Federal test procedure for motors; 
whether each motor horsepower is less than 1 and specifies for each 
combination whether the non-standard fan enforcement policy would apply 
(i.e., whether DOE would not test a model with an oversized motor, as 
long as the relative efficiency of the oversized motor is at least as 
good as performance of the standard motor)). DOE has not issued a final 
guidance document and is instead addressing the issue for CUACs and 
CUHPs in this test procedure rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \33\ Available at www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/pdfs/draft-commercial-hvac-motor-faq-2015-06-29.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The current Federal test procedure does not address this issue. 
Section D4.1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft provide an approach for including an individual model with a non-
standard indoor fan motor as part of the same basic model as an 
individual model with a standard indoor fan motor. Under the approach 
in section D4.1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft, the non-standard indoor fan motor efficiency must exceed the 
minimum value calculated using equation D1 in appendix D of AHRI 340/
360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft. This minimum non-standard motor 
efficiency calculation is dependent on the efficiency of the standard 
fan motor and the reference efficiencies (determined per Table D1 of 
appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft) of the 
standard and non-standard fan motors.
    Section D4.2 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft contain a method for how to compare performance for integrated 
fans and motors (IFMs). Because the fan motor in an IFM is not 
separately rated from the fan, this method compares the performance of 
the entire fan-motor assemblies for the standard and non-standard IFMs, 
rather than just the fan motors. This approach enables comparing 
relative performance of standard and non-standard IFMs, for which motor 
efficiencies could otherwise not be compared using the method specified 
in section D4.1 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 or AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft. Specifically, this method determines the ratio of the input 
power of the non-standard IFM to the input power of the standard IFM at 
the same duty point as defined in section D4.2 of appendix D of AHRI 
340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft (i.e., operating at the maximum 
ESP for the standard IFM at the rated airflow). If the input power 
ratio does not exceed the maximum ratio specified in Table D3 of 
appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft, the 
individual model with the non-standard IFM may be included within the 
same basic model as the individual model with the standard IFM. Section 
D4.2 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft allow 
these calculations to be conducted using either test data or simulated 
performance data.
    The approaches in section D4 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft for high-static non-standard indoor fan motors and 
non-standard indoor IFMs generally align with the approaches of the 
Commercial HVAC Term Sheet, the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy, and 
the Draft Commercial HVAC Guidance Document, while providing greater 
detail and accommodating a wider range of fan motor options. For the 
reasons presented in the preceding paragraphs, DOE proposes to adopt in 
Table 6 to 10 CFR 429.43 the provisions for comparing performance of 
standard and high-static non-standard indoor fan motors/IFMs in section 
D4 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft \34\ for 
the determination of the represented efficiency value for CUACs and 
CUHPs at 10 CFR 429.43(a)(3). Were DOE to adopt the provisions of 
section D4 of appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-202X Draft 
as proposed, the Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy and draft guidance 
document, to the extent applicable to indoor fan motors for CUACs and 
CUHPs, would no longer apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Per DOE's existing certification regulations, if a 
manufacturer were to use the proposed approach to certify a basic 
model, the manufacturer would be required to maintain documentation 
of how the relative efficiencies of the standard and non-standard 
fan motors or the input powers of the standard and non-standard IFMs 
were determined, as well as the supporting calculations. See 10 CFR 
429.71.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

(2) Coated Coils
    DOE is proposing to exclude coated coils from the specific 
components list specified in 10 CFR 429.43 because DOE has tentatively 
concluded that the presence of coated coils does not result in a 
significant impact to performance of CUACs and CUHPs, and, therefore, 
models with coated coils should be rated based on performance of models 
with coated coils present (rather than

[[Page 56433]]

based on performance of an individual model within an OCMG without 
coated coils).
c. Enforcement Provisions of 10 CFR 429.134
    Consistent with the Commercial HVAC Term Sheet and the Commercial 
HVAC Enforcement Policy, DOE is proposing provisions in 10 CFR 
429.134(g)(2) regarding how DOE would assess compliance for basic 
models of CUACs and CUHPs that include individual models distributed in 
commerce if DOE cannot obtain for testing individual models without 
certain components consistent with the model that served as the basis 
of representation. Specifically, DOE proposes that if a basic model 
includes individual models with components listed at Table 6 to 10 CFR 
429.43 and DOE is not able to obtain an individual model with the least 
number of those components within an OCMG (as defined in 10 CFR 
429.43(a)(3)(v)(A)(1) and discussed in section III.I.3.b of this NOPR), 
DOE may test any individual model within the OCMG.
d. Testing Specially Built Units That Are Not Distributed in Commerce
    Unlike section D3 to appendix D of AHRI 340/360-2022 and AHRI 1340-
202X Draft, DOE's Commercial HVAC Enforcement Policy does not allow a 
manufacturer to test a model that is specially built for testing 
without a feature if models without that feature are not actually 
distributed in commerce. Because testing such specially built models 
would not provide ratings representative of equipment distributed in 
commerce, DOE has tentatively concluded that this approach is not 
appropriate. Therefore, consistent with the Commercial HVAC Enforcement 
Policy, DOE is not proposing to allow testing of specially built units 
in its representation and enforcement provisions.

J. Represented Values

    In the following sections, DOE discusses requirements regarding 
represented values. To the extent DOE is proposing changes to the 
requirements specified in 10 CFR 429 regarding representations of CUACs 
and CUHPs, such amendments to 10 CFR part 429, if made final, would be 
required starting 360 days after publication in the Federal Register of 
the test procedure final rule. Prior to 360 days after publication in 
the Federal Register of the test procedure final rule, the current 
requirements would apply.
1. Cooling Capacity
    For CUACs and CUHPs, cooling capacity determines equipment class, 
which in turn determines the applicable energy conservation standard. 
10 CFR 431.97. Cooling capacity also dictates the minimum ESP test 
condition applicable under Table 7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 (i.e., larger 
capacity units are required to be tested at higher ESPs), which in turn 
affects the performance of the unit. Cooling capacity is a required 
represented value for all CUACs and CUHPs, but the requirements 
currently specified in 10 CFR 429.43(a)(1)(iv) regarding how the 
represented value of cooling capacity is determined only apply to 
ACUACs and ACUHPs.
    DOE proposes to the make certain modifications to these provisions 
and expand the applicability of these provisions as amended to all of 
the CUACs and CUHPs that are the subject of this NOPR. DOE proposes 
that the represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 and 
100 percent of the mean of the total cooling capacities measured for 
the units in the sample. DOE also proposes to require for units where 
the represented value is determined through an AEDM that the 
represented value of cooling capacity must be between 95 and 100 
percent of the total cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM. 
Additionally, DOE proposes to remove the existing requirement in 10 CFR 
429.43(a)(1)(iv) that the represented value of cooling capacity 
correspond to the nearest appropriate Btu/h multiple according to Table 
4 of ANSI/AHRI 340/360-2007 in order to allow manufacturers flexibility 
in certifying a rated value that provides a representation of cooling 
capacity that may be more meaningful for commercial consumers.
    DOE currently outlines product-specific enforcement provisions at 
10 CFR 429.134(g) for ACUACs and ACUHPs, specifically that the mean of 
cooling capacity measurements will be used to determine the applicable 
standards (which depend on cooling capacity) for purposes of 
compliance. First, DOE proposes to expand the scope of this requirement 
to include ECUACs and WCUACs. Second, DOE proposes for all CUACs and 
CUHPs that are the subject of this NOPR that if the mean of the cooling 
capacity measurements exceeds by more than 5 percent the cooling 
capacity certified by the manufacturer, the mean of the measurement(s) 
will be used to select the applicable minimum ESP test condition from 
Table 7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 in appendix A or from Table 5 of the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft in appendix A1.
    These proposals would ensure the rated capacity is representative 
of the unit's performance, that the unit is being tested to the 
appropriate ESP, and that the unit is being evaluated against the 
appropriate standard. The proposals would allow manufacturers to 
conservatively rate capacity if the manufacturer deemed such 
conservative rating necessary to ensure that equipment is capable of 
performing at the cooling capacity for which it is represented to 
consumers. This flexibility was requested by manufacturers of CUACs and 
CUHPs as summarized in a test procedure final rule published on 
December 23, 2015. 80 FR 79655, 79662-79663. In addition to the 
flexibility these proposals would provide to manufacturers, DOE has 
also tentatively determined that they would ensure enforcement testing 
is based on representative cooling capacities.
    Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to 
represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity.
    In response to the May 2022 TP/ECS RFI, the CA IOUs expressed 
concern that manufacturers are marketing equipment using the ``nominal 
capacity'' while rating it to a potentially substantially different 
``rated capacity'' for compliance with DOE energy conservation 
standards. (CA IOUs, EERE-2022-BT-STD-0015-0012 at p. 5) The CA IOUs 
included an example of a 40-ton CUAC with a nominal capacity of 40 tons 
and 480,000 Btu/h, but was only rated at 35.4 tons and 425,000 Btu/h. 
Id. The CA IOUs recommended that DOE address this potential issue, and 
suggested that DOE should require nominal and rated capacity to align 
within a certain percentage. Id. The CA IOUs included an example of 
AHRI Standard 1230-2014, an older edition of the VRF test procedure 
which had a requirement that the nominal capacity not be greater than 
105 percent of the rated capacity. Id.
    DOE surmises that there is benefit in allowing manufacturers to 
group capacities nominally, such that some rounding of capacity values 
may be involved. DOE has not found sufficient evidence that any 
differences between nominal and rated capacity are problematic for 
consumers of this equipment, and notes that product literature provides 
specific ratings for each unit and is publicly accessible. 
Additionally, DOE notes that the CA IOUs were involved in the Working 
Group meetings, and that no mention of the issue between nominal and 
rated capacity was included in the ACUAC

[[Page 56434]]

and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. DOE does not have sufficient 
evidence to warrant any changes regarding this issue; therefore, DOE is 
not proposing any provisions regarding nominal capacity of CUACs and 
CUHPs.
2. Single-Zone Variable-Air-Volume and Multi-Zone Variable-Air-Volume
    AHRI 340/360-2015 added definitions and test provisions for SZVAV 
and MZVAV equipment. Specifically, AHRI 340/360-2015 (and the 
subsequent editions of AHRI 340/360) defines MZVAV units as those 
designed to vary the indoor air volume and refrigeration capacity/
staging at a controlled discharge air temperature and static pressure 
as a means of providing space temperature control to independent 
multiple spaces with independent thermostats. AHRI 340/360-2015 (and 
the subsequent editions of AHRI 340/360) defines SZVAV units as those 
with a control system designed to vary the indoor air volume and 
refrigeration capacity/staging as a means to provide zone control to a 
single or common zones. The SZVAV definition further provides that the 
capacity, as well as the supply air shall be controlled either through 
modulation, discrete steps or combinations of modulation and step 
control based on the defined control logic.
    As part of the July 2017 TP RFI, DOE requested comment on whether a 
CUAC model that could operate as both a SZVAV unit and a MZVAV unit 
should be tested both ways, representing two separate basic models. If 
tested as one basic model, DOE requested information regarding how to 
determine which of the two test methods would apply. DOE also requested 
comment on whether status as a proportionally controlled unit would be 
the appropriate indication of whether a CUAC can be used as a MZVAV 
unit, or whether some other characteristics regarding variable capacity 
control would have to be satisfied. 82 FR 34427, 34443.
    Carrier, Goodman, and Lennox indicated that SZVAV and MZVAV models 
should be certified as different basic models. (Carrier, EERE-2017-BT-
TP-0018-0006 at p. 14; Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 5; 
Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 5) Lennox also stated that it 
has different model numbers for the two product types characterizing 
SZVAV and MZVAV models. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 5) 
Carrier stated that typically a MZVAV model has fully variable speed 
fans and more stages of capacity than a SZVAV model. (Carrier, EERE-
2017-BT-TP-0018-0006 at p. 14) Goodman commented that SZVAV and MZVAV 
models are capable of having different ratings based on control 
strategy. (Goodman, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0014 at p. 5) Lennox also 
stated that SZVAV and MZVAV models have different control algorithms 
and performance ratings. (Lennox, EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 5) 
AHRI stated that while some models are built to be specifically SZVAV 
or MZVAV units, other models can operate as both. AHRI further 
commented that if a unit can operate as both, it is possible for the 
IEER to be slightly different in each configuration. AHRI also stated 
that it is important to follow the STI when performing the test. (AHRI, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0011 at p. 27)
    AHRI 340/360-2022 includes definitions for SZVAV and MZVAV that 
align with AHRI 340/360-2015, and includes revised provisions for 
setting airflow for SZVAV and MZVAV equipment. However, Recommendation 
#12 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet specifies that 
for determining the IVEC and IVHE metrics there would be no separate 
test provisions for MZVAV units. Consistent with the ACUAC and ACUHP 
Working Group TP Term Sheet, AHRI 1340-202X Draft does not specify 
separate test provisions for testing MZVAV units--instead the 
provisions for setting airflow apply for all units, including those 
classified as MZVAV units in AHRI 340/360-2015 and AHRI 340/360-2022.
    As discussed, DOE is proposing to incorporate by reference AHRI 
340/360-2022 for determining the current metrics for CUACs and CUHPs in 
appendix A, and to adopt the AHRI 1340-202X Draft for determining IVEC 
and IVHE in appendix A1. DOE has tentatively concluded that the 
proposed test procedure in appendix A (referencing AHRI 340/360-2022) 
is sufficient for determining ratings for SZVAV and MZVAV equipment, 
and because provisions for MZVAV equipment are not included in the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft, DOE has tentatively determined that additional 
provisions for determining represented values for SZVAV and MZVAV 
equipment are not warranted for appendix A1.
3. Confidence Limit
    In response to the July 2017 TP RFI, Lennox recommended that DOE 
harmonize the certification criteria in 10 CFR 429.43 applicable to 
commercial heating, ventilating, and air conditioning (HVAC) equipment, 
with that for central air conditioners, a consumer product, in 10 CFR 
429.16. In particular, Lennox stated that commercial equipment 
currently has a more stringent confidence limit of 95 percent (as 
compared to 90 percent for residential CACs) and stated that current 
testing technology does not support this level of precision. (Lennox, 
EERE-2017-BT-TP-0018-0008 at p. 6)
    Other manufacturers did not raise concerns regarding the confidence 
limit required for sampling commercial package air conditioners and 
heat pumps (including CUACs and CUHPs). DOE also notes that Lennox did 
not provide any data to support its view regarding the alleged 
variability of units in production and testing to support a difference 
confidence limit. Absent such data, DOE is unable to determine whether 
the more stringent confidence level for commercial heating, 
ventilating, and air conditioning equipment presents an actual problem. 
Consequently, DOE is not proposing a change to its confidence level at 
this time.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ DOE notes that it has previously requested data regarding 
the variability of units in production and testing to enable DOE to 
review and make any necessary adjustments to the specified 
confidence levels. 80 FR 79655, 79659. DOE did not receive any 
relevant data in response to that request.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. AEDM Tolerance for IVEC and IVHE
    As discussed previously, DOE's existing testing regulations allow 
the use of an AEDM, in lieu of testing, to simulate the efficiency of 
CUACs and CUHPs. 10 CFR 429.43(a). For models certified with an AEDM, 
results from DOE verification tests are subject to certain tolerances 
when compared to certified ratings. In Table 2 to paragraph 
(c)(5)(vi)(B) at 10 CFR 429.70, DOE is proposing to specify a tolerance 
of 10 percent for CUAC and CUHP verification tests for IVEC and IVHE. 
This is identical to the current tolerance specified for IEER (for 
ACUACs and ACUHPs) and for integrated metrics for other categories of 
commercial air conditioners and heat pumps (e.g., integrated seasonal 
coefficient of performance 2 and integrated seasonal moisture removal 
efficiency 2 for DX-DOASes). DOE is also proposing to specify a 
tolerance of 5 percent for CUAC and CUHP verification testing for the 
optional EER2 and COP2 metrics. This is identical to the current 
tolerances specified for EER and COP for CUACs and CUHPs.
5. Minimum Part-Load Airflow
    As previously discussed in sections III.F.1.d, III.F.4, and 
III.F.5, the IVEC and IVHE metrics account for energy consumed 
(specifically that of the indoor fan) in mechanical cooling and heating 
as well as modes other than mechanical cooling and heating (e.g.,

[[Page 56435]]

economizer-only cooling, cooling season ventilation, heating season 
ventilation). IVEC and IVHE do not include separate tests or airflow 
rates for ventilation hours or economizer-only cooling (only applicable 
to IVEC). For example, for the economizer-only cooling hours in the D 
bin, the indoor fan power measured when operating at the lowest 
manufacturer-specified part-load airflow for a given load bin is 
applied for economizer-only cooling hours in that bin. Section 6.2.7 of 
the AHRI 1340-202X Draft requires that the lowest indoor fan power 
measured for all cooling or heating tests is applied for cooling-season 
ventilation hours in IVEC and heating-season ventilation hours in IVHE. 
Therefore, considering mechanical cooling and heating as well as other 
operating modes (economizer-only cooling, ventilation), the indoor fan 
power measured at the lowest manufacturer-specified part-load cooling 
and heating airflow rates represents a significant fraction of the 
power included in the IVEC and IVHE metrics (i.e., indoor fan power 
measured at these airflow rates is weighted by a significant number of 
hours), and differences in the lowest manufacturer-specified part-load 
airflow can significantly impact IVEC and IVHE ratings.
    Based on examination of publicly-available product literature, DOE 
understands that many basic models of a CUAC or CUHP have controls that 
allow for modulation of the minimum airflow used across a wide range of 
airflow turndown. DOE's research suggests that many models are 
distributed in commerce with an ``as-shipped'' minimum airflow and/or a 
default minimum airflow setting recommended in manufacturer 
installation instructions. However, in many cases DOE observed that the 
unit controls allow the installer to change this minimum airflow 
setting during installation to reflect any constraints specific to a 
particular installation. DOE understands that such constraints may 
include the duct distribution system, the thermostat the CUAC or CUHP 
is paired with, and the minimum ventilation rate for the conditioned 
space served by the CUAC or CUHP. To ensure that IVEC and IVHE ratings 
reflect indoor fan power that is generally representative of airflow 
rates that would be used in the field for a given basic model, DOE 
considered two options for requirements related to minimum part-load 
airflow used for representations of IVEC and IVHE:
    1. Representations of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as 
applicable) must be based on setting the lowest stage of airflow to the 
highest part-load airflow allowable by the basic model's system 
controls. For example, if fan control settings for a basic model allow 
its lowest stage of airflow to range from 40 to 60 percent, the basic 
model would need to be represented based on the lowest stage of airflow 
set to 60 percent of the full-load airflow.
    2. Representations of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as 
applicable) must be determined using minimum part-load airflow that is 
no lower than the highest of the following: (1) the minimum part-load 
airflow obtained using the as-shipped system control settings; (2) the 
minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system control 
settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions (as 
applicable); and (3) the minimum airflow rate specified in Section 
5.18.2 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
    DOE has tentatively concluded that option 1, which requires 
representations based on the highest minimum part-load airflow 
allowable by system controls, may result in unrepresentatively high 
airflow rates in cases in which a basic model allows configuration of 
minimum airflow to a very high percentage to accommodate a small 
fraction of installations in which minimum part-load airflow must be 
high (e.g., in applications with very high minimum ventilation rates). 
In this NOPR, DOE is proposing option 2 as the default settings or as-
shipped settings would provide IVEC and IVHE ratings representative of 
how the basic model is most typically installed in field applications. 
However, DOE welcomes comment on the approach laid out in option 1 or 
other alternative approaches not listed here.
    As discussed, DOE is not proposing amendments to certification 
requirements for CUACs and CUHPs in this rulemaking, but DOE may 
consider such amendments in a separate rulemaking for certification, 
compliance, and enforcement. As part of that rulemaking, DOE may 
consider certification requirements pertaining to this minimum airflow 
issue, such as requiring certification of the range of minimum part-
load airflow allowed by system controls for each basic model.
    Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that a 
basic model's representation(s) of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as 
applicable) must be determined using a minimum part-load airflow that 
is no lower than the highest of the following: (1) the minimum part-
load airflow obtained using the as-shipped system control settings; (2) 
the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system control 
settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions (as 
applicable); and (3) the minimum airflow rate specified in section 
5.18.2 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft. DOE also seeks feedback on the 
alternate option listed or any alternate options not listed that would 
ensure representations of IVEC and IVHE are based on minimum part-load 
airflow that is representative of field installations.

K. Enforcement Procedure for Verifying Cut-In and Cut-Out Temperatures

    Recommendation #10 of the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet states that DOE will adopt product-specific enforcement 
provisions for ACUHPs that include a method to verify certified cut-out 
and cut-in temperatures based on the test method outlined in the 
Residential Cold-Climate Heat Pump Technology Challenge (``CCHP 
Challenge'').\36\ Therefore, in this NOPR, DOE proposes to adopt a 
method for verifying certified cut-out and cut-in temperatures at 10 
CFR 429.134(g) consistent with Recommendation #10 of the ACUAC and 
ACUHP Working Group TP Term Sheet. Specifically, consistent with the 
CCHP Challenge method and the ACUAC and ACUHP Working Group TP Term 
Sheet, the proposed method involves gradually ramping down outdoor air 
temperature until the unit cuts out and gradually ramping back up 
outdoor air temperature until the cuts back on, with the temperature 
ramp-up and ramp-down conducted at 1.0 [deg]F every 5 minutes. DOE will 
address certification requirements for CUACs and CUHPs, including the 
potential requirement for certification of cut-out and cut-in 
temperatures, in a separate rulemaking for certification, compliance, 
and enforcement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \36\ See www.energy.gov/sites/default/files/2021-10/bto-cchp-tech-challenge-spec-102521.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

L. Proposed Organization of the Regulatory Text for CUACs and CUHPs

    In addition to the substantive changes discussed previously in this 
document, DOE proposes to make organizational changes to Table 1 to 10 
CFR 431.96(b) and Tables 1 through 6 to 10 CFR 431.97. These proposed 
changes are not substantive and are intended to reflect terminology 
changes proposed in this document and to improve the overall 
readability of the tables. Specifically, in Table 1 to 10 CFR 431.96 
(regarding test procedures for commercial air conditioners and heat 
pumps), DOE proposes to revise terminology to reflect the proposed 
definition for commercial unitary air conditioners with a rated

[[Page 56436]]

cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (CUACs) and 
commercial unitary heat pumps with a rated cooling capacity greater 
than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h (CUHPs), discussed further in section 
III.B.1 of this NOPR. Tables 1 through 6 to 10 CFR 431.97 currently 
specify cooling and heating standards for CUACs, CUHPs and water-source 
heat pumps (WSHPs). DOE proposes to revise terminology to reflect the 
proposed definition for CUACs and CUHPs, remove outdated standards no 
longer in effect, combine cooling and heating standards into the same 
tables, and create separate tables for standards for ACUACs and ACUHPs 
(in Table 1), WCUACs (in Table 2), ECUACs (in Table 3), double-duct 
systems (in Table 4), and WSHPs (in Table 5). In the proposed 
regulatory text, Tables 1 and 2 to 10 CFR 431.97 would specify cooling 
and heating standards, respectively, for ACUACs and ACUHPs with cooling 
capacity greater than 65,000 Btu/h (other than double-duct systems), 
ECUACs, and WCUACs; Tables 3 and 4 to 10 CFR 431.97 would specify 
cooling and heating standards, respectively, for WSHPs; and Tables 5 
and 6 to 10 CFR 431.97 would specify cooling and heating standards, 
respectively, for double-duct systems.

M. Compliance Date

    EPCA prescribes that, if DOE amends a test procedure, all 
representations of energy efficiency and energy use, including those 
made on marketing materials and product labels, must be made in 
accordance with that amended test procedure, beginning 360 days after 
publication of such a test procedure final rule in the Federal 
Register. (42 U.S.C. 6314(d)(1)) To the extent the modified test 
procedure proposed in this document is required only for the evaluation 
and issuance of updated efficiency standards, use of the modified test 
procedure, if finalized, would not be required until the compliance 
date of updated energy conversation standards. 10 CFR part 430, subpart 
C, appendix A, section 8(e); 10 CFR 431.4.

N. Test Procedure Costs and Impact

    EPCA requires that the test procedures for commercial package air 
conditioning and heating equipment, which includes CUACs and CUHPs, 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))
    As discussed, DOE is proposing to revise the existing test 
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (consolidating for ACUACs and ACUHPs, 
ECUACs, and WCUACs) at appendix A and to adopt an amended test 
procedure at appendix A1. These proposals are discussed in the 
following sub-sections. DOE also proposes to amend its representation 
and enforcement provisions for CUACs and CUHPs.
1. Appendix A
    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to amend the existing Federal test 
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (including double-duct systems), which is 
currently located at appendix A for ACUACs and ACUHPs and 10 CFR 431.96 
for ECUACs and WCUACs. Specifically, DOE proposes to consolidate the 
test procedures for ACUACs and ACUHPs, ECUACs, and WCUACs at appendix A 
and to update the test procedure to incorporate by reference an updated 
version of the applicable industry test method, AHRI 340/360-2022. The 
proposed revisions to appendix A would retain the current efficiency 
metrics--EER, IEER, and COP. The proposed testing requirements in 
appendix A are generally consistent with those in AHRI 340/360-2022, 
which in turn references ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009.
    DOE has tentatively determined that the proposed amendments to 
appendix A would improve the representativeness, accuracy, and 
reproducibility of the test results and would not be unduly burdensome 
for manufacturers to conduct or result in increased testing cost as 
compared to the current test procedure. The proposed revisions to the 
test procedure in appendix A for measuring EER, IEER, and COP per AHRI 
340/360-2022 would not increase third-party laboratory testing costs 
per unit relative to the current DOE test procedure. DOE estimates the 
current costs of physical testing to the current required metrics to be 
$10,500 for ACUACs, $12,000 for ACUHPs, $6,800 for double-duct air 
conditioners, $8,500 for double-duct heat pumps, and $6,800 for ECUACs 
and WCUACs. Further, DOE has tentatively concluded that the proposed 
revisions to the test procedure in appendix A would not change 
efficiency ratings for CUACs and CUHPs, and therefore would not require 
retesting solely as a result of DOE's adoption of this proposed 
amendment to the DOE test procedure, if made final.\37\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \37\ Manufacturers are not required to perform laboratory 
testing on all basic models. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, CUAC 
and CUHP 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 to reduce the burden and cost 
associated with testing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Appendix A1
    DOE is proposing to amend the existing test procedure for CUACs and 
CUHPs (including double-duct equipment) by adopting a new appendix A1 
that utilizes the most recent draft version of the applicable industry 
consensus test procedure, AHRI 1340-202X Draft, including the IVEC and 
IVHE energy efficiency metrics. To the extent that AHRI 1340 is 
finalized consistent with the draft standard, DOE intends to 
incorporate the industry test standard by reference. If there are 
substantive changes between the draft and published versions of AHRI 
1340, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft or 
provide additional opportunity for comment.
    Should DOE adopt standards in a future energy conservation 
standards rulemaking in terms of the new metrics, the proposed test 
procedure in appendix A1 (which DOE proposes to be substantively the 
same as AHRI 1340-202X Draft) would be required. DOE has tentatively 
determined that these proposed amendments would be representative of an 
average use cycle and would not be unduly burdensome for manufacturers 
to conduct. The proposed test procedure in appendix A1 would lead to an 
increase in test cost from the current Federal test procedure, as 
discussed in the following paragraphs. The following paragraphs include 
estimates for increases in cost of testing at a third-party laboratory.
    The change in ESP requirements discussed in section III.F.4 that 
apply to measuring the IVEC and IVHE metrics would require additional 
test setup that DOE expects would increase test costs. DOE has 
tentatively concluded that metal ductwork would need to be fabricated 
for testing to withstand the higher ESP requirements (as compared to 
foamboard ductwork typically used for testing to the current test 
procedure). DOE estimates a test cost increase ranging from $500 to 
$1500 per unit, depending on the unit size/cooling capacity, associated 
with this transition

[[Page 56437]]

to metal ductwork. To meet the return/supply duct ESP requirement, DOE 
estimates an increase of $200 per unit for the time required to apply 
return duct restrictions. In combination, DOE estimates a total test 
cost increase of between $700 and $1700 per unit to meet the proposed 
ESP requirements.
    For determining IVEC, DOE has tentatively concluded that there 
would not be an increase in testing cost as compared to measuring IEER 
per the current Federal test procedure, beyond the costs associated 
with the proposed ESP requirements discussed previously.
    For determining IVHE, there are two required heating tests and 
several additional optional heating tests. The required heating tests 
are full-load tests at 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F. The full-load test at 
47 [deg]F is already required for the current Federal test procedure 
for determining COP. The full-load test at 17 [deg]F which is currently 
required for the AHRI certification program. Because most CUHP 
manufacturers are AHRI members and participate in the AHRI 
certification program, DOE expects that that the required heating tests 
for IVHE would not increase test cost as compared to testing that is 
typically already conducted, beyond the costs associated with the 
proposed ESP requirements discussed previously.
    Optional heating tests for CUHPs would increase the cost of heating 
testing if conducted. The optional tests for IVHE are outlined in 
section III.F.5 of this NOPR, which include: (1) an additional full-
load test at 5 [deg]F; (2) part-load tests at 17 [deg]F and 47 [deg]F 
(including up to 2 part-load tests at each temperature); and (3) for 
variable-speed units, boost tests at 17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F. DOE 
estimates that each optional test conducted would increase the cost of 
heating testing by $2,000 to $4,000 depending on the test condition.
    For ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems, the current Federal 
test procedure requires testing to EER for cooling tests--testing to 
IEER is not currently required for ECUACs, WCUACs, or double-duct 
systems. Because measuring EER requires only a single test, DOE expects 
that measuring IVEC for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems would 
increase the cost of cooling testing. Specifically, DOE estimates the 
cost of additional cooling tests to be $3,700 per unit. Further, the 
previously discussed costs associated with the proposed indoor air ESP 
requirements ($700 to $1,700 depending on unit size) would also apply 
to ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems. In addition, for double-
duct systems DOE expects that testing to appendix A1 would require an 
additional $2000 per unit for setup to meet the proposed non-zero 
outdoor air ESP requirement. Otherwise, DOE expects similar test burden 
for determining IVHE for double-duct systems as for determining IVHE 
for conventional ACUHPs as discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
    Table III.6 shows DOE's estimates for testing to the current 
Federal test procedure and the proposed test procedure in appendix A1.

   Table III.5--Test Cost Estimates for the Proposed Test Procedure in
                               Appendix A1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Test cost for
                                  Test cost for        proposed test
        Equipment type           current federal        procedure in
                                  test procedure        appendix A1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACUACs........................            $10,500  $11,200-$12,200.
ACUHPs........................             12,000  $12,700-$13,700 (plus
                                                    $2,000-$4,000 per
                                                    optional heating
                                                    test).
Double-duct air conditioners..              6,800  $13,200-$14,200.
Double-duct heat pumps........              8,300  $14,700-$15,700 (plus
                                                    $2,000-$4,000 per
                                                    optional heating
                                                    test).
ECUACs and WCUACs.............              6,800  $11,200-$12,200.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    DOE has tentatively concluded that that the potential adoption of 
standards denominated in terms of IVEC and IVHE (and corresponding 
requirement to use the proposed test procedure in appendix A1) would 
alter the measured energy efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs. Consequently, 
manufacturers would not be able to rely on data generated under the 
current test procedure and would therefore be required to re-rate CUAC 
and CUHP models. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, CUAC and CUHP 
manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs to rate models, which 
significantly reduces costs to industry. DOE estimates the cost to 
develop and validate an AEDM for determining IVEC (and IVHE as 
applicable) for CUACs and CUHPs (including double-duct systems) to be 
$19,000 per AEDM. Once the AEDM is developed, DOE estimates that it 
would take 1 hour of an engineer's time (calculated based upon an 
engineering technician wage of $41 per hour) to determine efficiency 
for each basic model using the AEDM.
    Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its tentative understanding of the 
impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, particularly 
regarding DOE's initial estimates of the cost impacts associated with 
the proposed appendix A1.

IV. Procedural Issues and Regulatory Review

A. Review Under Executive Orders 12866, 13563 and 14094

    Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' 
58 FR 51735 (Oct. 4, 1993), as supplemented and reaffirmed by E.O. 
13563, ``Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review,'' 76 FR 3821 (Jan. 
21, 2011) and amended by E.O. 14094, ``Modernizing Regulatory Review,'' 
88 FR 21879 (April 11, 2023), requires agencies, to the extent 
permitted by law, to (1) propose or adopt a regulation only upon a 
reasoned determination that its benefits justify its costs (recognizing 
that some benefits and costs are difficult to quantify); (2) tailor 
regulations to impose the least burden on society, consistent with 
obtaining regulatory objectives, taking into account, among other 
things, and to the extent practicable, the costs of cumulative 
regulations; (3) select, in choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, those approaches that maximize net benefits (including 
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity); (4) to the extent 
feasible, specify performance objectives, rather than specifying the 
behavior or manner of compliance that regulated entities must adopt; 
and (5) identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including providing economic incentives to encourage the 
desired behavior, such as user fees or marketable permits, or providing 
information upon which choices can be made by the public. DOE 
emphasizes as well that E.O. 13563 requires agencies to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible. In its guidance, the 
Office of

[[Page 56438]]

Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) in the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) has emphasized that such techniques may include 
identifying changing future compliance costs that might result from 
technological innovation or anticipated behavioral changes. For the 
reasons stated in the preamble, this proposed regulatory action is 
consistent with these principles.
    Section 6(a) of E.O. 12866 also requires agencies to submit 
``significant regulatory actions'' to OIRA for review. OIRA has 
determined that this proposed regulatory action does not constitute a 
``significant regulatory action'' under section 3(f) of E.O. 12866. 
Accordingly, this action was not submitted to OIRA for review under 
E.O. 12866.

B. Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) requires 
preparation of an initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA) for 
any rule that by law must be proposed for public comment, unless the 
agency certifies that the rule, if promulgated, will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
As required by Executive Order 13272, ``Proper Consideration of Small 
Entities in Agency Rulemaking,'' 67 FR 53461 (August 16, 2002), DOE 
published procedures and policies on February 19, 2003, to ensure that 
the potential impacts of its rules on small entities are properly 
considered during the DOE rulemaking process. 68 FR 7990. DOE has made 
its procedures and policies available on the Office of the General 
Counsel's website: www.energy.gov/gc/office-general-counsel. DOE 
reviewed this proposed rule under the provisions of the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act and the procedures and policies published on February 
19, 2003.
    The following sections detail DOE's IRFA for this test procedure 
proposed rulemaking.
1. Description of Reasons Why Action Is Being Considered
    DOE is proposing to amend the existing DOE test procedures for air-
cooled unitary air conditioners (ACUACs) and air-cooled unitary heat 
pumps (ACUHPs) with cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 
Btu/h, as well as evaporatively-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners (ECUACs) and water-cooled commercial package air 
conditioners (WCUACs) of all capacities (referred to collectively as 
CUACs and CUHPs) to reflect updates to the relevant industry test 
standard. DOE is proposing amendments to the test procedures for CUACs 
and CUHPs to satisfy its statutory requirements under EPCA to remain 
consistent with updates to the applicable industry test procedure and 
to re-evaluate its test procedures at least once every 7 years. (42 
U.S.C. 6314(a)(4)(A) and (B); 42 U.S.C. 6314(a)(1)(A))
2. Objectives of, and Legal Basis for, Rule
    EPCA, as amended, requires that the test procedures for commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment, which includes CUACs 
and CUHPs, 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))
    EPCA also requires that, at least once every seven years, DOE 
evaluate test procedures for each type of covered equipment, including 
CUACs and CUHPs, 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))
    DOE is publishing this NOPR proposing amendments to the test 
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs in satisfaction of the aforementioned 
obligations under EPCA.
3. Description and Estimated Number of Small Entities Regulated
    For manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs, the Small Business 
Administration (SBA) has set a size threshold, which defines those 
entities classified as ``small businesses'' for the purposes of the 
statute. DOE used the SBA's small business size standards to determine 
whether any small entities would be subject to the requirements of the 
rule. See 13 CFR part 121. The equipment covered by this rule is 
classified under North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) 
code 333415,\38\ ``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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ The size standards are listed by NAICS code and industry 
description and are available at: www.sba.gov/document/support--table-size-standards (Last accessed Apr. 4, 2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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. DOE utilized DOE's Compliance 
Certification Database (CCD) \39\ and manufacturer websites to identify 
potential small businesses that manufacture CUACs and CUHPs covered by 
this rulemaking. DOE identified 18 companies that are original 
equipment manufacturers (OEMs) of CUACs and CUHPs covered by this 
rulemaking. Next, DOE screened out companies that do not meet the 
definition of a ``small business'' or are foreign-owned and operated. 
Ultimately, DOE identified three small, domestic OEMs for 
consideration. All three companies are AHRI members. DOE used 
subscription-based business information tools (e.g., reports from Dun & 
Bradstreet \40\) to determine headcount and revenue of the small 
business.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ Certified equipment in the CCD is listed by equipment class 
and can be accessed at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/#q=Product_Group_s%3A* (Last accessed Apr. 4, 2023).
    \40\ Market research is available through the Dun & Bradstreet 
Hoovers login page at: app.dnbhoovers.com (Last accessed April 3, 
2023).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Issue 9: DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs 
of CUACs and CUHPs.
4. Description and Estimate of Compliance Requirements
    In this NOPR, DOE is proposing to revise the existing test 
procedure for CUACs and CUHPs (consolidating for ACUACs and ACUHPs, 
ECUACs, and WCUACs) at appendix A of subpart F of part 431 (appendix A) 
by adopting sections of AHRI 340/360-2022. DOE is also proposing an 
amended test procedure for CUACs and CUHPs at appendix A1 to subpart F 
of part 431 (appendix A1) that adopts the draft industry test standard 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft. Additionally, this NOPR seeks to amend 
representation and enforcement provisions for CUACs and CUHPs in 10 CFR 
part 429 and certain definitions for CUACs and CUHPs in 10 CFR part 
431. Specific cost and compliance associated with each proposed 
appendix are discussed in the subsections that follow.

[[Page 56439]]

a. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A
    In appendix A, DOE proposes to amend the existing test procedure 
for CUACs and CUHPs (relocated to appendix A for ECUACs and WCUACs, for 
which the current test procedure is located at 10 CFR 431.96) by 
incorporating by reference an updated version of the applicable 
industry test method, AHRI 340/360-2022, which includes the energy 
efficiency metrics IEER (required metric for ACUACs and ACUHPs), EER 
(required metric for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems), and COP 
(required metric for ACUHPs and double-duct heat pumps) and maintaining 
an existing reference to industry test method ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. The 
proposed test procedure at appendix A would not change efficiency 
ratings as compared to the current Federal test procedure, and 
therefore would not require retesting nor increase third-party 
laboratory testing costs per unit solely as a result of DOE's adoption 
of this proposed amendment to the test procedure, if made final. DOE 
estimates the current costs of physical testing to the current required 
metrics to be: $10,500 for ACUACs; $12,000 for ACUHPs; $6,800 for 
ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct air conditioners; and $8,300 for 
double-duct heat pumps. In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70, CUAC and CUHP 
manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs to rate models which significantly 
reduces costs to industry.
b. Cost and Compliance Associated With Appendix A1
    In appendix A1, DOE is proposing to adopt the test conditions and 
procedures in AHRI 1340-202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. The 
proposed test procedure in appendix A1 includes provisions for 
measuring CUAC and CUHP energy efficiency using the IVEC and IVHE 
metrics to be consistent with the updated draft industry test 
procedure. Should DOE adopt amended energy conservation standards in 
the future denominated in terms of IVEC and IVHE, the Department 
expects there would be an increase in third-partly lab testing cost 
relative to the current Federal test procedure, outlined in the 
following paragraphs:
    The proposed change in external static pressure (ESP) requirements 
discussed that apply to measuring the IVEC and IVHE metrics would 
require additional test setup that DOE expects would increase test 
costs. DOE has tentatively concluded that metal ductwork would need to 
be fabricated for testing to withstand the higher ESP requirements (as 
compared to foamboard ductwork typically used for testing to the 
current test procedure). DOE estimates a test cost increase ranging 
from $500 to $1500 per unit, depending on the unit size/cooling 
capacity, associated with this transition to metal ductwork. To meet 
the proposed requirement regarding split of ESP between return and 
supply ductwork, DOE estimates an increase of $200 per unit for the 
time required to apply return duct restrictions. In combination, DOE 
estimates a total test cost increase of between $700 and $1700 per unit 
to meet the proposed ESP requirements.
    For determining IVEC, DOE has tentatively concluded that there 
would not be an increase in testing cost as compared to measuring IEER 
per the current Federal test procedure, beyond the costs associated 
with the proposed ESP requirements discussed previously.
    For determining IVHE, there are two required heating tests and 
several additional optional heating tests. The required heating tests 
are full-load tests at 47 [deg]F and 17 [deg]F. The full-load test at 
47 [deg]F is already required for the current Federal test procedure 
for determining COP. The full-load test at 17 [deg]F which is currently 
required for the AHRI certification program. Because most CUHP 
manufacturers are AHRI members and participate in the AHRI 
certification program, DOE expects that that the required heating tests 
for IVHE would not increase test cost as compared to testing that is 
typically already conducted, beyond the costs associated with the 
proposed ESP requirements discussed previously.
    Optional heating tests for CUHPs would increase the cost of heating 
testing if conducted. The optional tests for IVHE are outlined in 
section III.F.5, which include: (1) an additional full-load test at 5 
[deg]F; (2) part-load tests at 17 [deg]F and 47 [deg]F (including up to 
2 part-load tests at each temperature); and (3) for variable-speed 
units, boost tests at 17 [deg]F and 5 [deg]F. DOE estimates that each 
optional test conducted would increase the cost of heating testing by 
$2,000 to $4,000 depending on the test condition.
    For ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems, the current Federal 
test procedure requires testing to EER for cooling tests--testing to 
IEER is not currently required for ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct 
systems. Because measuring EER requires only a single test while IVEC 
requires testing at four different test conditions, DOE expects that 
measuring IVEC for WCUACs, ECUACs, and double-duct systems would 
increase the cost of cooling testing. Specifically, DOE estimates the 
cost of additional cooling tests to be $3,700 per unit. Further, the 
previously discussed costs associated with the proposed indoor air ESP 
requirements ($700 to $1,700 depending on unit size) would also apply 
to ECUACs, WCUACs, and double-duct systems. In addition, for double-
duct systems DOE expects that testing to appendix A1 would require an 
additional $2,000 per unit for setup to meet the proposed non-zero 
outdoor air ESP requirement associated with the IVEC and IVHE metrics. 
Otherwise, DOE expects similar test burden for determining IVHE for 
double-duct systems as for determining IVHE for conventional ACUHPs as 
discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
    Table IV.1 shows DOE's estimates for testing to the current Federal 
test procedure and the proposed test procedure in appendix A1.

   Table IV.1--Test Cost Estimates for the Proposed Test Procedure in
                               Appendix A1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Test cost for
                                  Test cost for        proposed test
        Equipment type           current federal   procedure in appendix
                                  test procedure             A1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACUACs........................            $10,500  $11,200-$12,200.
ACUHPs........................             12,000  $12,700-$13,700 (plus
                                                    $2,000-$4,000 per
                                                    optional heating
                                                    test).
Double-duct air conditioners..              6,800  $13,200-$14,200.
Double-duct heat pumps........              8,300  $14,700-$15,700 (plus
                                                    $2,000-$4,000 per
                                                    optional heating
                                                    test).
ECUACs and WCUACs.............              6,800  $11,200-$12,200.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56440]]

    Testing in accordance with appendix A1 would not be required until 
such time as compliance is required with amended energy conservation 
standards for CUACs and CUHPs based on the proposed new IVEC and IVHE 
metrics, should DOE adopt such standards.
    If CUAC and CUHP manufacturers conduct physical testing to certify 
a 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 manufacturers may elect to use AEDMs.\41\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \41\ In accordance with 10 CFR 429.70.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Small businesses would be expected to have different potential 
regulatory costs depending on whether they are a member of AHRI. DOE 
understands that all AHRI members and all manufacturers currently 
certifying to the AHRI Directory will be testing their CUAC and CUHP 
models in accordance with the final version of the AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft, the industry test procedure DOE is proposing to adopt (if 
finalized and consistent with the AHRI 1340-202X Draft), and using 
AHRI's certification program.
    The proposed test procedure amendments would not add any additional 
testing burden to manufacturers which are members of AHRI. As 
discussed, DOE did not identify any small, domestic OEMs that are not 
AHRI members. Therefore, DOE has tentatively concluded that the 
proposed test procedure amendments would not add additional testing 
burden, as those members soon will be using the finalized version of 
the AHRI 1340-202X draft test procedure.
    Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on its estimate of the potential 
impacts of its proposed amendments to the test procedure for CUACs and 
CUHPs on small business manufacturers.
5. Duplication, Overlap, and Conflict With Other Rules and Regulations
    DOE is not aware of any rules or regulations that duplicate, 
overlap, or conflict with the rule being considered today.
6. Significant Alternatives to the Rule
    DOE proposes to reduce burden on manufacturers, including small 
businesses, by allowing AEDMs in lieu of physically testing all basic 
models. The use of an AEDM is less costly than physical testing of CUAC 
and CUHP models, including double-duct systems. DOE estimates the cost 
to develop an AEDM to be $19,000 per AEDM. The development of the AEDM 
would reduce the need for physical testing if the manufacturer expands 
its model offerings. Once the AEDM is developed, DOE estimates that it 
would take 1 hour of an engineer's time (calculated based upon an 
engineering technician's fully-burdened wage of $41 per hour) to 
determine efficiency for each basic model using the AEDM.
    Additionally, DOE considered alternative test methods and 
modifications to the proposed test procedures in appendices A and A1 
for CUACs and CUHPs, referencing AHRI 340/360-2022 and the AHRI 1340-
202X Draft, respectively. However, DOE has tentatively determined that 
there are no better alternatives than the proposed 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 CUACs and CUHPs through incorporation by reference 
of AHRI 340/360-2022 in appendix A, and adoption of AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft in appendix A1.
    In addition, individual manufacturers may petition for a waiver of 
the applicable test procedure. (See 10 CFR 431.401) Also, section 504 
of the Department of Energy Organization Act, 42 U.S.C. 7194, provides 
authority for the Secretary to adjust a rule issued under EPCA in order 
to prevent ``special hardship, inequity, or unfair distribution of 
burdens'' that may be imposed on that manufacturer as a result of such 
rule. Manufacturers should refer to 10 CFR part 1003 for additional 
details.

C. Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Manufacturers of CUACs and CUHPs 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 CUACs and CUHPs. 
(See generally 10 CFR part 429.) The collection-of-information 
requirement for the certification and recordkeeping is subject to 
review and approval by OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA). 
This requirement has been approved by OMB under OMB control number 
1910-1400. Public reporting burden for the certification is estimated 
to average 35 hours per response, including the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    DOE is not proposing to amend the certification or reporting 
requirements for CUACs and CUHPs in this NOPR. Instead, DOE may 
consider proposals to amend the certification requirements and 
reporting for CUACs and CUHPs under a separate rulemaking regarding 
appliance and equipment certification. DOE will address changes to OMB 
Control Number 1910-1400 at that time, as necessary.
    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, no person is 
required to respond to, nor shall any person be subject to a penalty 
for failure to comply with, a collection of information subject to the 
requirements of the PRA, unless that collection of information displays 
a currently valid OMB Control Number.

D. Review Under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969

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

E. Review Under Executive Order 13132

    Executive Order 13132, ``Federalism,'' 64 FR 43255 (August 4, 1999) 
imposes certain requirements for agencies formulating and implementing 
policies or regulations that preempt State law or that have federalism 
implications. The

[[Page 56441]]

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

F. Review Under Executive Order 12988

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

G. Review Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA) 
requires each Federal agency to assess the effects of Federal 
regulatory actions on State, local, and Tribal governments and the 
private sector. Pub. L. 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

[[Page 56442]]

the energy efficiency of CUACs and CUHPs is not a significant 
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866. Moreover, it would not 
have a significant adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use 
of energy, nor has it been designated as a significant energy action by 
the Administrator of OIRA. Therefore, it is not a significant energy 
action, and, accordingly, DOE has not prepared a Statement of Energy 
Effects.

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

    Under section 301 of the Department of Energy Organization Act 
(Pub. L. 95-91; 42 U.S.C. 7101), DOE must comply with section 32 of the 
Federal Energy Administration Act of 1974, as amended by the Federal 
Energy Administration Authorization Act of 1977. (15 U.S.C. 788; FEAA) 
Section 32 essentially provides in relevant part that, where a proposed 
rule authorizes or requires use of commercial standards, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking must inform the public of the use and background of 
such standards. In addition, section 32(c) requires DOE to consult with 
the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission 
(FTC) concerning the impact of the commercial or industry standards on 
competition.
    The proposed modifications to the test procedure for CUACs and 
CUHPs would incorporate testing methods contained in certain sections 
of the following commercial standards: AHRI 340/360-2022 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 they were developed in a manner that 
fully provides for public participation, comment, and review). DOE will 
consult with both the Attorney General and the Chairman of the FTC 
concerning the impact of these test procedures on competition prior to 
prescribing a final rule.

M. Description of Materials Incorporated by Reference

    In this NOPR, DOE proposes to incorporate by reference the 
following test standards:
    AHRI Standard 340/360-2022. This test standard is an industry-
accepted test procedure for measuring the performance of air-cooled, 
evaporatively-cooled, and water-cooled unitary air-conditioning and 
heat pump equipment.
    Copies of AHRI Standard 340/360-2022 can be obtained from AHRI, 
2311 Wilson Blvd., Suite 400, Arlington, VA 22201, (703) 524-8800, or 
found online at: www.ahrinet.org.
    AHRI Standard 1340-202X Draft. This test standard is in draft form 
and its text was provided to DOE for the purposes of review only during 
the drafting of this NOPR. DOE intends to update the reference to the 
final published version of AHRI 1340 in the subsequent final rule. If 
there are substantive changes between the draft and published versions 
for which DOE receives stakeholder comments in response to this NOPR 
recommending that DOE adopt provisions consistent with the published 
version of AHRI 1340-202X, then DOE may consider adopting those 
provisions. If there are substantive changes between the draft and 
published versions for which stakeholder comments do not express 
support, DOE may adopt the substance of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft or 
provide additional opportunity for comment on the changes to the 
industry consensus test procedure.
    ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. This test standard is an industry-accepted 
test procedure that provides a method of test for many categories of 
air conditioning and heating equipment.
    Copies of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009 is available on ASHRAE's website at 
www.ashrae.org.
    The following standards included in the proposed regulatory text 
were previously approved for incorporation by reference for the 
locations where they appear in this proposed rule: AHRI 210/240-2008 
and AHRI 340/360-2007.

V. Public Participation

A. Participation in the Webinar

    The time and date of the webinar meeting 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 
NOPR, 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. Such persons may submit to 
[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. 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 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. 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 and until the end of the 
comment period, interested parties may submit further comments on the 
proceedings and any aspect of the proposed rulemaking.
    The webinar will be conducted in an informal conference style. DOE 
will a general overview of the topics addressed in this proposed 
rulemaking, allow time for prepared general statements by participants, 
and encourage all interested parties to share their views on issues 
affecting this proposed 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. Participants should 
be prepared to answer questions by DOE and by other participants 
concerning these issues. DOE representatives may also ask

[[Page 56443]]

questions of participants concerning other matters relevant to this 
proposed rulemaking. The official conducting the webinar 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.
    A transcript of the webinar will be included in the docket, which 
can be viewed as described in the Docket section at the beginning of 
this NOPR. 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 before or after the public meeting, but 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.
    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. Otherwise, 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, hand delivery/courier, or postal 
mail. Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery/
courier, or postal mail 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 on a cover letter. 
Include your first and last names, email address, telephone number, and 
optional mailing address. The cover letter will not be publicly 
viewable as long as it does not include any comments.
    Include contact information each time you submit comments, data, 
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via postal mail 
or hand delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if 
feasible, in which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. 
No telefacsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
    Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE 
electronically should be provided in PDF (preferred), Microsoft Word or 
Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format. Provide documents that 
are not secured, that are written in English, and that are 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 seeks comment on its proposed definition for CUACs and 
CUHPs.
    Issue 2: DOE requests feedback on its proposal to adopt the IVEC 
and IVHE metrics as determined under AHRI 1340-202X Draft in appendix 
A1 of the Federal test procedure for ACUACs and ACUHPs (including 
double-duct systems), ECUACs, and WCUACs.
    Issue 3: DOE requests comment in its proposal to adopt the IVEC 
metric for ECUACs and WCUACs in appendix A1 as specified in the AHRI 
1340-202X Draft, including the test temperature requirements.
    Issue 4: DOE requests comment on its proposal to adopt the IVEC and 
IVHE metrics for double-duct systems in appendix A1 as specified in the 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
    Issue 5: DOE seeks comment on its proposals regarding specific 
components in 10 CFR 429.43, 10 CFR 429.134, and 10 CFR part 431, 
subpart F, appendices A and A1.
    Issue 6: DOE requests comment on its proposals related to 
represented values and verification testing of cooling capacity.
    Issue 7: DOE requests comment on its proposal to require that a 
basic model's representation(s) of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, as 
applicable) must be determined using a minimum part-load airflow that 
is no lower than the highest of the following: (1) the minimum part-
load airflow obtained using the as-shipped system control settings; (2) 
the minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system control 
settings specified in the manufacturer installation instructions

[[Page 56444]]

(as applicable); and (3) the minimum airflow rate specified in section 
5.18.2 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft. DOE also seeks feedback on the 
alternate option listed or any alternate options not listed that would 
ensure representations of IVEC and IVHE are based on minimum part-load 
airflow that is representative of field installations.
    Issue 8: DOE requests comment on its tentative understanding of the 
impact of the test procedure proposals in this NOPR, particularly 
regarding DOE's initial estimates of the cost impacts associated with 
the proposed appendix A1.
    Issue 9: DOE requests comment on the number of small business OEMs 
of CUACs and CUHPs.
    Issue 10: DOE seeks comment on its estimate of the potential 
impacts of its proposed amendments to the test procedure for CUACs and 
CUHPs on small business manufacturers.
    Additionally, DOE welcomes comments on other issues relevant to the 
conduct of this proposed rulemaking that may not be specifically 
identified in this document.

VI. Approval of the Office of the Secretary

    The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of 
proposed rulemaking and request for comment.

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 test procedures, Incorporation by 
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Signing Authority

    This document of the Department of Energy was signed on July 20, 
2023, by Francisco Alejandro Moreno, Acting 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 July 21, 2023.
Treena V. Garrett,
Federal Register Liaison Officer, U.S. Department of Energy.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, DOE proposes to amend parts 
429 and 431 of Chapter II of Title 10, Code of Federal Regulations as 
set forth:

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 (c)(2);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c)(6) through (7) as (c)(7) through (8); 
and
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c)(6).
    The revision and addition read as follows.


Sec.  429.4  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) AHRI Standard 340/360-2022 (I-P) (``AHRI 340/360-2022''), 2022 
Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial Unitary 
Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment, AHRI-approved January 26, 
2022; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  429.43 and 429.134.
* * * * *
    (6) AHRI Standard 1340-202X Draft (I-P) (``AHRI 1340-202XDraft''), 
202X Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-Conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment [publication expected 
2023]; IBR approved for Sec. Sec.  429.43 and 429.134.
* * * * *


Sec.  429.12  [Amended]

0
3. Amend Sec.  429.12 paragraph (b)(8)(ii) by removing the words 
``small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'', 
and adding in their place, the words ``commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps''.
0
4. Amend Sec.  429.43 by:
0
a. Revising the section heading;
0
b. Removing paragraph (a)(1)(iv);
0
c. Remove and reserve paragraph (a)(2)(ii);
0
d. Adding paragraph (a)(3)(v);
0
e. Revising introductory paragraphs of (b)(2)(i) and (ii);
0
f. In paragraph (b)(4)(i), in the first sentence removing the words 
``Commercial package air-conditioning equipment (except commercial 
package air conditioning equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h):'' and adding in their place, the 
words ``Commercial unitary air conditioners (except air-cooled, three-
phase, commercial unitary air conditioners with a cooling capacity of 
less than 65,000 Btu/h):''; and
0
g. In paragraph (b)(4)(ii), in the first sentence removing the words 
``Commercial package heating equipment (except commercial package 
heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h):'' and adding in their place, the words ``Commercial 
unitary heat pumps (except air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary 
heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h):''.
    The revisions and addition read as follows.


Sec.  429.43  Commercial heating, ventilating, air conditioning (HVAC) 
equipment (excluding air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 
British thermal units per hour and air-cooled, three-phase, variable 
refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps with less 
than 65,000 British thermal units per hour cooling capacity).

    (a) * * *
    (3) * * *
    (v) Commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding 
air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h). 
Before [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register], the provisions in Sec.  429.43 of this title as 
it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January 
1, 2023 are applicable. When certifying on or after [Date 360 days 
after date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], 
the following provisions apply.
    (A) Individual model selection:
    (1) Representations for a basic model must be based on the least-
efficient individual model(s) distributed in commerce among all 
otherwise comparable model groups comprising the basic model, with 
selection of the least-efficient individual model considering all 
options for factory-installed components and manufacturer-supplied 
components for field installation, except as provided in

[[Page 56445]]

paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section for individual models that 
include components listed in table 6 to paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) of this 
section. For the purpose of this paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A)(1), ``otherwise 
comparable model group'' means a group of individual models distributed 
in commerce within the basic model that do not differ in components 
that affect energy consumption as measured according to the applicable 
test procedure specified at 10 CFR 431.96 other than those listed in 
table 6 to paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) of this section. An otherwise 
comparable model group may include individual models distributed in 
commerce with any combination of the components listed in table 6 (or 
none of the components listed in table 6). An otherwise comparable 
model group may consist of only one individual model.
    (2) For a basic model that includes individual models distributed 
in commerce with components listed in table 6 to paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A) 
of this section, the requirements for determining representations apply 
only to the individual model(s) of a specific otherwise comparable 
model group distributed in commerce with the least number (which could 
be zero) of components listed in table 6 included in individual models 
of the group. Testing under this paragraph shall be consistent with any 
component-specific test provisions specified in section 4 of appendix A 
and section 4 of appendix A1 to subpart F of part 431.

  Table 6 to Paragraph (a)(3)(v)(A)--Specific Components for Commercial
                 Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
  [Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than
                              65,000 Btu/h]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component                           Description
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
Desiccant Dehumidification     An assembly that reduces the moisture
 Components.                    content of the supply air through
                                moisture transfer with solid or liquid
                                desiccants.
Evaporative Pre-cooling of     Water is evaporated into the air entering
 Air-cooled Condenser Intake    the air-cooled condenser to lower the
 Air.                           dry-bulb temperature and thereby
                                increase efficiency of the refrigeration
                                cycle.
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.
Indirect/Direct Evaporative    Water is used indirectly or directly to
 Cooling of Ventilation Air.    cool ventilation air. In a direct system
                                the water is introduced directly into
                                the ventilation air and in an indirect
                                system the water is evaporated in
                                secondary air stream and the heat is
                                removed through a heat exchanger.
Non-Standard Ducted Condenser  A higher-static condenser fan/motor
 Fans (not applicable to        assembly designed for external ducting
 Double-duct Systems).          of condenser air that provides greater
                                pressure rise and has a higher rated
                                motor horsepower than the condenser fan
                                provided as a standard component with
                                the equipment.
Non-Standard High-Static       The standard indoor fan motor is the
 Indoor Fan Motors.             motor specified in the manufacturer's
                                installation instructions for testing
                                and shall be distributed in commerce as
                                part of a particular model. A non-
                                standard motor is an indoor fan motor
                                that is not the standard indoor fan
                                motor and that is distributed in
                                commerce as part of an individual model
                                within the same basic model.
                               For a non-standard high-static indoor fan
                                motor(s) to be considered a specific
                                component for a basic model (and thus
                                subject to the provisions of
                                (a)(3)(v)(A)(2) of this section), the
                                following provisions must be met:
                               (i) If testing per appendix A to subpart
                                F of part 431, non-standard high-static
                                indoor fan motor(s) must meet the
                                minimum allowable efficiency determined
                                per section D4.1 of AHRI 340/360-2022
                                (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                429.4) for non-standard high-static
                                indoor fan motors or per section D4.2 of
                                AHRI 340/360-2022 for non-standard high-
                                static indoor integrated fan and motor
                                combinations.
                               (ii) If testing per appendix A1 to
                                subpart F of part 431, non-standard high-
                                static indoor fan motor(s) must meet the
                                minimum allowable efficiency determined
                                per section D4.1 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft
                                (incorporated by reference, see Sec.
                                429.4) for non-standard high-static
                                indoor fan motors or per section D4.2 of
                                AHRI 1340-202X Draft for non-standard
                                high-static indoor integrated fan and
                                motor combinations.
                               (iii) If the standard indoor fan motor
                                can vary fan speed through control
                                system adjustment of motor speed, all
                                non-standard high-static indoor fan
                                motors must also allow speed control
                                (including with the use of variable-
                                frequency drive).
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.
Process Heat recovery/Reclaim  A heat exchanger located inside the unit
 Coils/Thermal Storage.         that conditions the equipment's supply
                                air using energy transferred from an
                                external source using a vapor, gas, or
                                liquid.
Refrigerant Reheat Coils.....  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.
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.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils....  Coils used to provide supplemental
                                heating.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 56446]]

    (B) The represented value of total cooling capacity must be between 
95 percent and 100 percent of the mean of the total cooling 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 total cooling capacity output simulated by the AEDM as described in 
paragraph (a)(2) of this section.
    (C) Representations of IVEC and IVHE (including IVHEc, 
as applicable) must be determined using a minimum part-load airflow 
that is no lower than the highest of the following:
    (1) The minimum part-load airflow obtained using the as-shipped 
system control settings;
    (2) The minimum part-load airflow obtained using the default system 
control settings specified in the manufacturer installation 
instructions (as applicable); and
    (3) The minimum airflow rate specified in section 5.18.2 of AHRI 
1340-202XDraft.
    (b) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (i) Commercial unitary air conditioners (except air-cooled, three-
phase, commercial unitary air conditioners with a cooling capacity of 
less than 65,000 Btu/h): * * *
    (ii) Commercial unitary heat pumps (except air-cooled, three-phase, 
commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 
65,000 Btu/h): * * *
* * * * *


Sec.  429.67  [Amended]

0
5. Amend Sec.  429.67 by:
0
a. In the section heading and paragraphs (a)(1), (2), and (c)(1), 
removing the words ``small commercial package air conditioning and 
heating equipment'', and adding in their place, the words ``commercial 
unitary air conditioners and heat pumps'';
0
b. In paragraph (f)(2)(i), removing the words ``Commercial package air 
conditioning equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity of 
less than 65,000 Btu/h (3-Phase)'', and adding in their place, the 
words ``Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners 
with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h'';
0
c. In paragraph (f)(2)(ii), removing the words ``Commercial package 
heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity of less 
than 65,000 Btu/h (3-Phase)'', and adding in their place, the words 
``Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling 
capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h''; and
0
d. In paragraph (f)(3)(i), removing the words ``Air cooled commercial 
package air conditioning equipment with a cooling capacity of less than 
65,000 Btu/h (3-phase)'', and adding in their place, the words ``Air-
cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners with a cooling 
capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h''.
0
e. In paragraph (f)(3)(ii), removing the words ``Commercial package 
heating equipment that is air-cooled with a cooling capacity of less 
than 65,000 Btu/h (3-Phase)'', and adding in their place, the words 
``Air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary heat pumps with a cooling 
capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h''; and
0
6. Amend Sec.  429.70 by:
0
a. Removing the words ``commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment'' and adding in their place, the words ``commercial unitary 
air conditioners and heat pumps'' in paragraph heading (c);
0
b. Revising table 1 to paragraph (c)(2)(iv);
0
c. Revising table 2 to paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(B); and
0
d. Removing the words ``commercial package air conditioning and heating 
equipment'' and adding in their place, the words ``commercial unitary 
air conditioners and heat pumps'' in the headings for paragraph (l), 
and in paragraphs (l)(1)(i), (l)(1)(ii), and (l)(3).
    The revisions read as follows:


Sec.  429.70  Alternative methods for determining energy efficiency and 
energy use.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (2) * * *
    (iv) * * *

                     Table 1 to Paragraph (c)(2)(iv)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                            Minimum number of distinct
            Validation class              models that must be tested per
                                                       AEDM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 (A) Commercial HVAC Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air         2 Basic Models.
 Conditioners and Heat Pumps greater
 than or equal to 65,000 Btu/h Cooling
 Capacity.
Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air       2 Basic Models.
 Conditioners, All Capacities.
Evaporatively-Cooled, Commercial Unitary  2 Basic Models.
 Air Conditioners, All Capacities.
Water-Source HPs, All Capacities........  2 Basic Models.
Single Package Vertical ACs and HPs.....  2 Basic Models.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs...........  2 Basic Models.
Air-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant Flow     2 Basic Models.
 ACs and HPs.
Water-Cooled, Variable Refrigerant Flow   2 Basic Models.
 ACs and HPs.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Air       2 Basic Models.
 Cooled.
Computer Room Air Conditioners, Water-    2 Basic Models.
 Cooled and Glycol-Cooled.
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air    2 Basic Models.
 Systems, Air-cooled or Air-source Heat
 Pump, Without Ventilation Energy
 Recovery Systems.
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air    2 Basic Models.
 Systems, Air-cooled or Air-source Heat
 Pump, With Ventilation Energy Recovery
 Systems.
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air    2 Basic Models.
 Systems, Water-cooled, Water-source
 Heat Pump, or Ground Source Closed-loop
 Heat Pump, Without Ventilation Energy
 Recovery Systems.
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor Air    2 Basic Models.
 Systems, Water-cooled, Water-source
 Heat Pump, or Ground Source Closed-loop
 Heat Pump, With Ventilation Energy
 Recovery Systems.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
             (B) Commercial Water Heater Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water     2 Basic Models.
 Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons.
Gas-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water     2 Basic Models.
 Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to
 10 Gallons.

[[Page 56447]]

 
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water     2 Basic Models.
 Supply Boilers Less than 10 Gallons.
Oil-fired Water Heaters and Hot Water     2 Basic Models.
 Supply Boilers Greater than or Equal to
 10 Gallons.
Electric Water Heaters..................  2 Basic Models.
Heat Pump Water Heaters.................  2 Basic Models.
Unfired Hot Water Storage Tanks.........  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           (C) Commercial Packaged Boilers Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired, Steam Only Commercial          2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Gas-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Hot Water Only Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired, Steam Only Commercial          2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
Oil-fired Hot Water/Steam Commercial      2 Basic Models.
 Packaged Boilers.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                (D) Commercial Furnace Validation Classes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gas-fired Furnaces......................  2 Basic Models.
Oil-fired Furnaces......................  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
      (E) Commercial Refrigeration Equipment Validation Classes \1\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Self-Contained Open Refrigerators.......  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Open Freezers............  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open Refrigerators....  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Open Freezers.........  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed Refrigerators.....  2 Basic Models.
Self-Contained Closed Freezers..........  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Closed Refrigerators..  2 Basic Models.
Remote Condensing Closed Freezers.......  2 Basic Models.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The minimum number of tests indicated above must be comprised of a
  transparent model, a solid model, a vertical model, a semi-vertical
  model, a horizontal model, and a service-over-the counter model, as
  applicable based on the equipment offering. However, manufacturers do
  not need to include all types of these models if it will increase the
  minimum number of tests that need to be conducted.

* * * * *
    (5) * * *
    (vi) * * *
    (B) * * *

                   Table 2 to Paragraph (c)(5)(vi)(B)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Applicable
           Equipment                      Metric             tolerance
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Packaged Boilers....  Combustion Efficiency..       5% (0.05)
                                 Thermal Efficiency.....       5% (0.05)
Commercial Water Heaters or Hot  Thermal Efficiency.....       5% (0.05)
 Water Supply Boilers.           Standby Loss...........       10% (0.1)
Unfired Storage Tanks..........  R-Value................       10% (0.1)
Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary    Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Air Conditioners and Heat       Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Pumps greater than or equal to   2.                           5% (0.05)
 65,000 Btu/h Cooling Capacity.  Coefficient of
                                  Performance.
                                 Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance 2.
                                 Integrated Energy             10% (0.1)
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
                                 Integrated Ventilation,       10% (0.1)
                                  Economizing, and
                                  Cooling.
                                 Integrated Ventilation        10% (0.1)
                                  and Heating Efficiency.
Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Air Conditioners, All Cooling   Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Capacities.                      2.
                                 Integrated Energy             10% (0.1)
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
                                 Integrated Ventilation,       10% (0.1)
                                  Economizing, and
                                  Cooling.
Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Unitary Air Conditioners, All   Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Capacities.                      2.
                                 Integrated Energy             10% (0.1)
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
                                 Integrated Ventilation,       10% (0.1)
                                  Economizing, and
                                  Cooling.
Water-Source HPs, All            Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 Capacities.
                                 Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
                                 Integrated Energy             10% (0.1)
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
Single Package Vertical ACs and  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 HPs.

[[Page 56448]]

 
                                 Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
Packaged Terminal ACs and HPs..  Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
                                 Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
Variable Refrigerant Flow ACs    Energy Efficiency Ratio       5% (0.05)
 and HPs.
                                 Coefficient of                5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
                                 Integrated Energy             10% (0.1)
                                  Efficiency Ratio.
Computer Room Air Conditioners.  Sensible Coefficient of       5% (0.05)
                                  Performance.
                                 Net Sensible                  5% (0.05)
                                  Coefficient of
                                  Performance.
Direct Expansion- Dedicated      Integrated Seasonal           10% (0.1)
 Outdoor Air Systems.             Coefficient of               10% (0.1)
                                  Performance 2.
                                 Integrated Seasonal
                                  Moisture Removal
                                  Efficiency 2.
Commercial Warm-Air Furnaces     Thermal Efficiency.....       5% (0.05)
 Commercial Refrigeration        Daily Energy                  5% (0.05)
 Equipment.                       Consumption.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
0
7. Amend Sec.  429.134 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (g); and
0
b. In paragraph heading (y), removing the words ``small commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment'', and adding in their 
place, the words ``commercial unitary air conditioners and heat 
pumps''.
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  429.134  Product-specific enforcement provisions.

* * * * *
    (g) Commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding 
air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h). 
Before [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final rule in 
the Federal Register], the provisions in this section of this title as 
it appeared in the 10 CFR parts 200-499 edition revised as of January 
1, 2023 are applicable. On and after [Date 360 days after date of 
publication of the final rule in the Federal Register], the following 
provisions apply.
    (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 A or appendix A1 to subpart F of 10 CFR part 
431. The mean of the cooling capacity measurement(s) will be used to 
determine the applicable standards for purposes of compliance. If the 
mean of the cooling capacity measurements exceeds the certified cooling 
capacity by more than 5 percent of the certified value, the mean of the 
cooling capacity measurement(s) will be used to determine the 
applicable minimum external static pressure test condition specified in 
Table 7 of AHRI 340/360-2022 (incorporated by reference, see Sec.  
429.4) when testing in accordance with appendix A or in Table 5 of AHRI 
1340-202X Draft when testing in accordance with appendix A1.
    (2) Specific Components. If a basic model includes individual 
models with components listed at Table 6 to Sec.  429.43(a)(3)(v)(A) 
and DOE is not able to obtain an individual model with the least number 
(which could be zero) of those components within an otherwise 
comparable model group (as defined in Sec.  429.43(a)(3)(v)(A)(1)), DOE 
may test any individual model within the otherwise comparable model 
group.
    (3) Verification of cut-out and cut-in temperatures.
    (i) For assessment and enforcement testing of models of commercial 
unitary heat pumps subject to energy conservation standards denominated 
in terms of IVHE, the cut-out and cut-in temperatures may be verified 
using the method in paragraph (g)(3)(ii) of this section. If this 
method is conducted, the cut-in and cut-out temperatures determined 
using this method will be used to calculate IVHE for purposes of 
compliance.
    (ii) Test method for verification of cut-out and cut-in 
temperatures.
    (A) Capacity does not need to be measured. Measure a parameter that 
provides positive indication that the heat pump is operating in heat 
pump mode (e.g., power or discharge pressure). Also monitor the 
temperature of air entering the outdoor coil using one or more air 
samplers or parallel thermocouple grid(s) on each side of the heat pump 
that has air inlets. Record measurements at a time interval of one 
minute or shorter.
    (B) Ensure that the heat pump is operating. Compensation load on 
the indoor room may be reduced during the test to avoid compressor 
temporary boost mode or excessive room temperature reduction. Set 
outdoor chamber temperature to the lower of (1) 17.0 [deg]F or (2) 3.0 
[deg]F warmer than the certified cut-out temperature. Maintain the 
outdoor chamber at this temperature for 3 minutes to allow conditions 
to stabilize.
    (C) Reduce outdoor chamber temperature in steps or continuously at 
an average rate of 1.0 [deg]F every 5 minutes. When the heat pump stops 
operating, continue recording data for 5 minutes. At this point, 
reverse the temperature ramp and increase outdoor chamber temperature 
1.0 [deg]F every 5 minutes. Continue the test until 5 minutes after the 
heat pump operation restarts. Note the average outdoor coil air inlet 
temperature when the heat pump stops operation as the cut-out 
temperature and the temperature 30 seconds after it restarts as the 
cut-in temperature.
* * * * *

PART 431--ENERGY EFFICIENCY PROGRAM FOR CERTAIN COMMERCIAL AND 
INDUSTRIAL EQUIPMENT

0
8. 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
9. Amend Sec.  431.92 by:
0
a. Revising the definition for ``Basic model'' and ``Coefficient of 
performance, or COP'';
0
b. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Coefficient of 
performance 2, or ``COP2'' and ``Commercial unitary air conditioner and 
commercial unitary heat pump'';
0
c. Revising the definitions for ``Double-duct air conditioner or heat 
pump'' and ``Energy efficiency ratio, or EER'';
0
d. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``Energy efficiency 
ratio 2, or EER2'';
0
e. Revising the definition for ``Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or 
IEER''; and
0
f. Adding in alphabetical order definitions for ``Integrated 
ventilation and heating efficiency, or IVHE'' and ``Integrated 
ventilation, economizing, and cooling, or IVEC''.
    The revisions and additions read as follows:

[[Page 56449]]

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

* * * * *
    Basic model means:
    (1) For air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 
Btu/h and air-cooled, three-phase, variable refrigerant flow multi-
split air conditioners and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less 
than 65,000 Btu/h: All units manufactured by one manufacturer, having 
the same primary energy source, and, which have essentially identical 
electrical, physical, and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics 
that affect energy consumption, energy efficiency, water consumption, 
or water efficiency; where essentially identical electrical, physical, 
and functional (or hydraulic) characteristics means:
    (i) For split systems manufactured by outdoor unit manufacturers 
(OUMs): all individual combinations having the same model of outdoor 
unit, which means comparably performing compressor(s) [a variation of 
no more than five percent in displacement rate (volume per time) as 
rated by the compressor manufacturer, and no more than five percent in 
capacity and power input for the same operating conditions as rated by 
the compressor manufacturer], outdoor coil(s) [no more than five 
percent variation in face area and total fin surface area; same fin 
material; same tube material], and outdoor fan(s) [no more than ten 
percent variation in airflow and no more than twenty percent variation 
in power input];
    (ii) For split systems having indoor units manufactured by 
independent coil manufacturers (ICMs): all individual combinations 
having comparably performing indoor coil(s) [plus or minus one square 
foot face area, plus or minus one fin per inch fin density, and the 
same fin material, tube material, number of tube rows, tube pattern, 
and tube size]; and
    (iii) For single-package systems: all individual models having 
comparably performing compressor(s) [no more than five percent 
variation in displacement rate (volume per time) rated by the 
compressor manufacturer, and no more than five percent variations in 
capacity and power input rated by the compressor manufacturer 
corresponding to the same compressor rating conditions], outdoor 
coil(s) and indoor coil(s) [no more than five percent variation in face 
area and total fin surface area; same fin material; same tube 
material], outdoor fan(s) [no more than ten percent variation in 
outdoor airflow], and indoor blower(s) [no more than ten percent 
variation in indoor airflow, with no more than twenty percent variation 
in fan motor power input];
    (iv) Except that,
    (A) For single-package systems and single-split systems, 
manufacturers may instead choose to make each individual model/
combination its own basic model provided the testing and represented 
value requirements in 10 CFR 429.67 of this chapter are met; and
    (B) For multi-split, multi-circuit, and multi-head mini-split 
combinations, a basic model may not include both individual small-duct, 
high velocity (SDHV) combinations and non-SDHV combinations even when 
they include the same model of outdoor unit. The manufacturer may 
choose to identify specific individual combinations as additional basic 
models.
    (2) For commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps 
(excluding air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air conditioners 
and heat pumps with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h): All 
units manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, 
having the same or comparably performing compressor(s), heat 
exchangers, and air moving system(s) that have a common ``nominal'' 
cooling capacity.
    (3) For computer room air conditioners: All units manufactured by 
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same 
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same 
or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving 
system(s) that have a common ``nominal'' cooling capacity.
    (4) For direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air system: All units 
manufactured by one manufacturer, having the same primary energy source 
(e.g., electric or gas), within a single equipment class; with the same 
or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, ventilation 
energy recovery system(s) (if present), and air moving system(s) that 
have a common ``nominal'' moisture removal capacity.
    (5) For packaged terminal air conditioner (PTAC) or packaged 
terminal heat pump (PTHP): All units manufactured by one manufacturer 
within a single equipment class, having the same primary energy source 
(e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or comparable 
compressors, same or comparable heat exchangers, and same or comparable 
air moving systems that have a cooling capacity within 300 Btu/h of one 
another.
    (6) For single package vertical units: All units manufactured by 
one manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same 
primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same 
or comparably performing compressor(s), heat exchangers, and air moving 
system(s) that have a rated cooling capacity within 1500 Btu/h of one 
another.
    (7) For variable refrigerant flow systems (excluding air-cooled, 
three-phase, variable refrigerant flow air conditioners and heat pumps 
with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 Btu/h): All units 
manufactured by one manufacturer within a single equipment class, 
having the same primary energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and 
which have the same or comparably performing compressor(s) that have a 
common ``nominal'' cooling capacity and the same heat rejection medium 
(e.g., air or water) (includes VRF water source heat pumps).
    (8) For water-source heat pumps: All units manufactured by one 
manufacturer within a single equipment class, having the same primary 
energy source (e.g., electric or gas), and which have the same or 
comparable compressors, same or comparable heat exchangers, and same or 
comparable ``nominal'' capacity.
* * * * *
    Coefficient of performance, or COP means the ratio of the produced 
cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump (or its produced 
heating effect, depending on the mode of operation) to its net work 
input, when both the cooling (or heating) effect and the net work input 
are expressed in identical units of measurement. For air-cooled 
commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment 
with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), COP is measured per 
appendix A to this subpart.
    Coefficient of performance 2, or COP2 means the ratio of the 
produced cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump (or its 
produced heating effect, depending on the mode of operation) to its net 
work input, when both the cooling (or heating) effect and the net work 
input are expressed in identical units of measurement. COP2 must be 
used with a subscript to indicate the outdoor temperature in degrees 
Fahrenheit at which the COP2 was measured (e.g., COP217 for 
COP2 measured at 17 [deg]F). For air-cooled commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment with a cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/

[[Page 56450]]

h), COP2 is measured per appendix A1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    Commercial unitary air conditioner and commercial unitary heat pump 
means any small, large, or very large air-cooled, water-cooled, or 
evaporatively-cooled commercial package air-conditioning and heating 
equipment that consists of one or more factory-made assemblies that 
provide space conditioning; and does not include:
    (1) Single package vertical air conditioners and heat pumps,
    (2) Variable refrigerant flow multi-split air conditioners and heat 
pumps,
    (3) Water-source heat pumps,
    (4) Equipment marketed only for use in computer rooms, data 
processing rooms, or other information technology cooling applications, 
and
    (5) Equipment only capable of providing ventilation and 
conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air, or marketed only for 
ventilation and conditioning of 100-percent outdoor air.
* * * * *
    Double-duct air conditioner or heat pump means an air-cooled 
commercial unitary air conditioner or heat pump that meets the 
following criteria--
    (1) Is either a horizontal single package or split-system unit; or 
a vertical unit that consists of two components that may be shipped or 
installed either connected or split; or a vertical single packaged unit 
that is not intended for exterior mounting on, adjacent interior to, or 
through an outside wall;
    (2) Is intended for indoor installation with ducting of outdoor air 
from the building exterior to and from the unit (e.g., the unit and/or 
all of its components are non-weatherized);
    (3) If it is a horizontal unit, the complete unit shall have a 
maximum height of 35 inches or the unit shall have components that do 
not exceed a maximum height of 35 inches. If it is a vertical unit, the 
complete (split, connected, or assembled) unit shall have components 
that do not exceed a maximum depth of 35 inches; and
    (4) Has a rated cooling capacity greater than or equal to 65,000 
Btu/h and less than 300,000 Btu/h.
* * * * *
    Energy efficiency ratio, or EER means the ratio of the produced 
cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump to its net work 
input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour. For commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), EER is measured per appendix 
A to this subpart.
    Energy efficiency ratio 2, or EER2 means the ratio of the produced 
cooling effect of an air conditioner or heat pump to its net work 
input, expressed in Btu/watt-hour. For commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), EER2 is measured per appendix 
A1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
    Integrated energy efficiency ratio, or IEER, means a weighted 
average calculation of mechanical cooling EERs determined for four load 
levels and corresponding rating conditions, expressed in Btu/watt-hour. 
IEER is measured:
    (1) Per appendix A to this subpart for commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h);
    (2) Per appendix D1 to this subpart for variable refrigerant flow 
multi-split air conditioners and heat pumps (other than air-cooled with 
rated cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h); and
    (3) Per appendix G1 to this subpart for single package vertical air 
conditioners and single package vertical heat pumps.
* * * * *
    Integrated ventilation and heating efficiency or IVHE, means a sum 
of the space heating provided (Btu) divided by the sum of the energy 
consumed (Wh), including mechanical heating, supplementary electric 
resistance heating, and heating season ventilation operating modes. 
IVHE with subscript C (IVHEC) refers to the IVHE of heat 
pumps using a cold-climate heating load line. For air-cooled commercial 
unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), IVHE and IVHEC are 
measured per appendix A1 to this subpart.
    Integrated ventilation, economizing, and cooling or IVEC, means a 
sum of the space cooling provided (Btu) divided by the sum of the 
energy consumed (Wh), including mechanical cooling, economizing, and 
cooling season ventilation operating modes. For commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), IVEC is measured per appendix 
A1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
10. Amend Sec.  431.95 by:
0
a. Revising paragraph (b)(4);
0
b. Redesignating paragraph (b)(10) as paragraph (b)(11);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (b)(10); and
0
d. In paragraph (c)(2), removing the words ``appendices A'' and adding 
in its place, the words ``appendices A, A1''.
    The revision and addition reads as follows:


Sec.  431.95  Materials incorporated by reference.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (4) AHRI Standard 340/360-2022 (I-P), (``AHRI 340/360-2022''), 
``2022 Standard for Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' published in 
January 2022; IBR approved for appendix A to this subpart.
* * * * *
    (10) AHRI Standard 1340(I-P)-202X Draft, (``AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft''), ``202X Performance Rating of Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-conditioning and Heat Pump Equipment,'' [publication 
expected 2023]; IBR approved for appendix A1 to this subpart.
* * * * *
0
11. Amend Sec.  431.96 by revising Table 1 to paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


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

* * * * *
    (b) * * *

                                Table 1 to Paragraph (b)--Test Procedures for Commercial Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                      Additional test
                                                                                                                  Use tests,        procedure provisions
             Equipment                      Category            Cooling capacity       Energy efficiency       conditions, and      as indicated in the
                                                                                           descriptor         procedures \1\ in     listed paragraphs of
                                                                                                                                        this section
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners  Air-Cooled AC and HP    >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER, IEER, and COP...  Appendix A \3\ to      None.
 and Heat Pumps.                      (excluding double-      <760,000 Btu/h.                                this subpart.
                                      duct AC and HP).
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners  Air-Cooled AC and HP    >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER2, COP2, IVEC, and  Appendix A1 \3\ to     None.
 and Heat Pumps.                      (excluding double-      <760,000 Btu/h.         IVHE.                  this subpart.
                                      duct AC and HP).

[[Page 56451]]

 
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners  Double-duct AC and HP.  >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER, IEER, and COP...  Appendix A \3\ to      None.
 and Heat Pumps.                                              <300,000 Btu/h.                                this subpart.
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners  Double-duct AC and HP.  >=65,000 Btu/h and      EER2, COP2, IVEC, and  Appendix A1 \3\ to     None.
 and Heat Pumps.                                              <300,000 Btu/h.         IVHE.                  this subpart.
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners  Water-Cooled and        <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and IEER.........  Appendix A \3\ to      None.
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled                                                   this subpart.
                                      AC.
Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners  Water-Cooled and        <760,000 Btu/h........  EER2 and IVEC........  Appendix A1 \3\ to     None.
                                      Evaporatively-Cooled                                                   this subpart.
                                      AC.
Water-Source Heat Pumps............  HP....................  <135,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  ISO Standard 13256-1   Paragraph (e).
                                                                                                             (1998).
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....................  <760,000 Btu/h........  SCOP.................  Appendix E to this     None.
                                                                                                             subpart \3\.
Computer Room Air Conditioners.....  AC....................  <760,000 Btu/h or       NSenCOP..............  Appendix E1 to this    None.
                                                              <930,000 Btu/h \4\.                            subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     AC....................  <65,000 Btu/h (3-       SEER.................  Appendix F to this     None.
 split Systems.                                               phase).                                        subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     AC....................  >=65,000 Btu/h and      SEER2................  Appendix F1 to this    None.
 split Systems.                                               <760,000 Btu/h.                                subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <65,000 Btu/h (3-       EER and COP..........  Appendix F to this     None.
 split Systems, Air-cooled.                                   phase).                                        subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  >=65,000 Btu/h and      IEER and COP.........  Appendix F1 to this    None.
 split Systems, Air-cooled.                                   <760,000 Btu/h.                                subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  Appendix D to this     None.
 split Systems, Water-source.                                                                                subpart \3\.
Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-     HP....................  <760,000 Btu/h........  IEER and COP.........  Appendix D1 to this    None.
 split Systems, Water-source.                                                                                subpart \3\.
Single Package Vertical Air          AC and HP.............  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER and COP..........  Appendix G to this     None.
 Conditioners and Single Package                                                                             subpart \3\.
 Vertical Heat Pumps.
Single Package Vertical Air          AC and HP.............  <760,000 Btu/h........  EER, IEER, and COP...  Appendix G1 to this    None.
 Conditioners and Single Package                                                                             subpart \3\.
 Vertical Heat Pumps.
Direct Expansion-Dedicated Outdoor   All...................  <324 lbs. of moisture   ISMRE2 and ISCOP2....  Appendix B to this     None.
 Air Systems.                                                 removal/hr.                                    subpart.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Incorporated by reference; see Sec.   431.95.
\2\ Moisture removal capacity applies only to direct expansion-dedicated outdoor air systems.
\3\ For equipment with multiple appendices listed in this table, consult the notes at the beginning of those appendices to determine the applicable
  appendix to use for testing.
\4\ For upflow ducted and downflow floor-mounted computer room air conditioners, the test procedure in appendix E1 of this subpart applies to equipment
  with net sensible cooling capacity less than 930,000 Btu/h. For all other configurations of computer room air conditioners, the test procedure in
  appendix E1 applies to equipment with net sensible cooling capacity less than 760,000 Btu/h.

* * * * *
0
12. Amend Sec.  431.97 by:
0
a. Revising paragraphs (a) and (b);
0
b. Redesignating paragraphs (c) through (h) as paragraphs (d) through 
(i);
0
c. Adding new paragraph (c);
0
d. In newly redesignated paragraph (d), removing the words ``tables 7 
to this paragraph (c)'' and adding in their place ``table 6 to this 
paragraph'', removing the words ``Table 7 of this section'' and adding 
in their place ``table 6 to this paragraph'', removing the words 
``table 8 to this paragraph (c)'' and adding in their place ``table 7 
to this paragraph'', redesignating Table 7 to Sec.  431.97(c) as Table 
6 to Sec.  431.97(d), and redesignating Table 8 to Sec.  431.97(c) as 
Table 7 to Sec.  431.97(d);
0
e. In newly redesignated paragraph (e), redesignating Table 9 to Sec.  
431.97(d)(1) as Table 8 to Sec.  431.97(e)(1), redesignating Table 10 
to Sec.  431.97(d)(2) as Table 9 to Sec.  431.97(e)(2), and 
redesignating Table 11 to Sec.  431.97(d)(3) as Table 10 to Sec.  
431.97(e)(3);
0
f. In newly redesignated paragraph (f), removing the words ``table 12 
to this paragraph (e)(1)'' and adding in their place ``table 11 to this 
paragraph'', redesignating Table 12 to Sec.  431.97(e)(1) as Table 11 
to Sec.  431.97(f)(1), removing the words ``tables 13 and 14 to this 
paragraph (e)(2)'' and adding in their place ``tables 12 and 13 to this 
paragraph'', redesignating Table 13 to Sec.  431.97(e)(2) as Table 12 
to Sec.  431.97(f)(2), and redesignating Table 14 to Sec.  431.97(e)(2) 
as Table 13 to Sec.  431.97(f)(2);
0
g. In newly redesignated paragraph (g), removing the words ``table 15 
to this paragraph (f)(1)'' and adding in their place ``table 14 to this 
paragraph'', redesignating Table 15 to Sec.  431.97(f)(1) as Table 14 
to Sec.  431.97(g)(1), removing the words ``table 16 to this paragraph 
(f)(2.)'' and adding in their place ``table 15 to this paragraph.'', 
and redesignating Table 16 to Sec.  431.97(f)(2) as Table 15 to Sec.  
431.97(g)(2);

[[Page 56452]]

0
h. In newly redesignated paragraph (h), removing the words ``table 17 
to this paragraph (g)'' and adding in their place ``table 16 to this 
paragraph'', and redesignating Table 17 to Sec.  431.97(g) as Table 16 
to Sec.  431.97(h); and
0
i. Revising newly redesignated paragraph (i).
    The revisions and addition read as follows:


Sec.  431.97  Energy efficiency standards and their compliance dates.

    (a) All basic models of commercial package air-conditioning and 
heating equipment must be tested for performance using the applicable 
DOE test procedure in Sec.  431.96, be compliant with the applicable 
standards set forth in paragraphs (b) through (i) of this section, and 
be certified to the Department under 10 CFR part 429.
    (b) Each commercial unitary air conditioner or heat pump (excluding 
air-cooled equipment with cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) 
manufactured starting on the compliance date listed in the 
corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy efficiency 
standard level(s) set forth in Tables 1 through 4 of this section.

Table 1 to Sec.   431.97(b)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and
Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to 65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-Duct Air-Conditioners
                                                 and Heat Pumps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Compliance date:
                                                    Supplementary    Minimum  efficiency         equipment
       Cooling capacity            Subcategory      heating type             \1\           manufactured starting
                                                                                                  on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Air-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps with a Cooling Capacity Greater Than or Equal to
                      65,000 Btu/h (Excluding Double-Duct Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     AC..............  Electric          IEER = 14.8..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     AC..............  All Other Types   IEER = 14.6..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     HP..............  Electric          IEER = 14.1..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance       COP = 3.4............
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     HP..............  All Other Types   IEER = 13.9..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.      COP = 3.4............
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    AC..............  Electric          IEER = 14.2..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    AC..............  All Other Types   IEER = 14.0..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    HP..............  Electric          IEER = 13.5..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance       COP = 3.3............
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    HP..............  All Other Types   IEER = 13.3..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.      COP = 3.3............
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000    AC..............  Electric          IEER = 13.2..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000    AC..............  All Other Types   IEER = 13.0..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000    HP..............  Electric          IEER = 12.5..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance       COP = 3.2............
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000    HP..............  All Other Types   IEER = 12.3..........  January 1, 2023.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.      COP = 3.2............  January 1, 2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per section 3 of Appendix A to this Subpart, COP standards for commercial unitary heat pumps are based on
  performance at the ``Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady-State Heating)'' condition specified
  in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022.


    Table 2 to Sec.   431.97(b)--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air
                                                  Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Compliance date:
           Cooling capacity             Supplementary heating      Minimum efficiency     equipment manufactured
                                                 type                                       starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                Water-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000 Btu/h........................  All....................  EER = 12.1.............  October 29, 2003.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h....  No Heating or Electric   EER = 12.1.............  June 1, 2013.
                                        Resistance Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h....  All Other Types of       EER = 11.9.............  June 1, 2013.
                                        Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h...  No Heating or Electric   EER = 12.5.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Resistance Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h...  All Other Types of       EER = 12.3.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h...  No Heating or Electric   EER = 12.4.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Resistance Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h...  All Other Types of       EER = 12.2.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  Table 3 to Sec.   431.97(b)--Minimum Cooling Efficiency Standards for Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Unitary
                                                Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                             Compliance date:
           Cooling capacity             Supplementary heating      Minimum efficiency     equipment manufactured
                                                 type                                       starting on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                            Evaporatively-Cooled Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<65,000 Btu/h........................  All....................  EER = 12.1.............  October 29, 2003.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h....  No Heating or Electric   EER = 12.1.............  June 1, 2013.
                                        Resistance Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/h....  All Other Types of       EER = 11.9.............  June 1, 2013.
                                        Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h...  No Heating or Electric   EER = 12.0.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Resistance Heating.

[[Page 56453]]

 
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000 Btu/h...  All Other Types of       EER = 11.8.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h...  No Heating or Electric   EER = 11.9.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Resistance Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <760,000 Btu/h...  All Other Types of       EER = 11.7.............  June 1, 2014.
                                        Heating.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Table 4 to Sec.   431.97(b)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Double-Duct Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Compliance date:
                                                    Supplementary     Minimum efficiency         equipment
       Cooling capacity            Subcategory      heating type             \1\           manufactured starting
                                                                                                  on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   Double-Duct Air-Conditioners and Heat Pumps
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     AC..............  Electric          EER = 11.2...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     AC..............  All Other Types   EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     HP..............  Electric          EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance       COP = 3.3............
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000     HP..............  All Other Types   EER = 10.8...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.      COP = 3.3............
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    AC..............  Electric          EER = 11.0...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    AC..............  All Other Types   EER = 10.8...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    HP..............  Electric          EER = 10.6...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance       COP = 3.2............
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=135,000 Btu/h and <240,000    HP..............  All Other Types   EER = 10.4...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.      COP = 3.2............
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000    AC..............  Electric          EER = 10.0...........  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000    AC..............  All Other Types   EER = 9.8............  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000    HP..............  Electric          EER = 9.5............  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            Resistance       COP = 3.2............
                                                   Heating or No
                                                   Heating.
>=240,000 Btu/h and <300,000    HP..............  All Other Types   EER = 9.3............  January 1, 2010.
 Btu/h.                                            of Heating.      COP = 3.2............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Per section 3 of Appendix A to this Subpart, COP standards for commercial unitary heat pumps are based on
  performance at the ``Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady-State Heating)'' condition specified
  in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022.

    (c) Each water-source heat pump manufactured starting on the 
compliance date listed in the corresponding table must meet the 
applicable minimum energy efficiency standard level(s) set forth in 
Table 5 of this section.

  Table 5 to Sec.   431.97(c)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Water-
              Source Heat Pumps (Water-to-Air, Water-Loop)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                       Compliance date:
                                                           equipment
        Cooling capacity          Minimum efficiency     manufactured
                                                       starting on . . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
           Water-Source Heat Pumps (Water-to-Air, Water-Loop)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
<17,000 Btu/h...................  EER = 12.2........  October 9, 2015.
                                  COP = 4.3.........
>=17,000 Btu/h and <65,000 Btu/h  EER = 13.0........  October 9, 2015.
                                  COP = 4.3.........
>=65,000 Btu/h and <135,000 Btu/  EER = 13.0........  October 9, 2015.
 h.                               COP = 4.3.........
------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
    (i) Each air-cooled, three-phase, commercial unitary air 
conditioner and heat pump with a cooling capacity of less than 65,000 
Btu/h and air-cooled, three-phase variable refrigerant flow multi-split 
air conditioning and heating equipment with a cooling capacity of less 
than 65,000 Btu/h manufactured on or after the compliance date listed 
in the corresponding table must meet the applicable minimum energy 
efficiency standard level(s) set forth in Tables 17 and 18 of this 
section.

[[Page 56454]]



 Table 17 to Sec.   431.97(i)--Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Commercial Unitary Air
Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Small
  Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling Capacity of Less
                                                Than 65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Compliance date:
                                                                                                 equipment
        Equipment type          Cooling capacity     Subcategory      Minimum efficiency   manufactured starting
                                                                                                  on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Unitary Air          <65,000 Btu/h...  Split-System....  13.0 SEER............  June 16, 2008.\1\
 Conditioners.
Commercial Unitary Air          <65,000 Btu/h...  Single-Package..  14.0 SEER............  January 1, 2017.\1\
 Conditioners.
Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps.  <65,000 Btu/h...  Split-System....  14.0 SEER............  January 1, 2017.\1\
                                                                    8.2 HSPF.............
Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps.  <65,000 Btu/h...  Single-Package..  14.0 SEER............  January 1, 2017.\1\
                                                                    8.0 HSPF.............
VRF Air Conditioners..........  <65,000 Btu/h...  ................  13.0 SEER............  June 16, 2008.\1\
VRF Heat Pumps................  <65,000 Btu/h...  ................  13.0 SEER............  June 16, 2008.\1\
                                                                    7.7 HSPF.............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ And manufactured before January 1, 2025. For equipment manufactured on or after January 1, 2025, see Table
  19 to paragraph (h) of this section for updated efficiency standards.


   Table 18 to Sec.   431.97(i)--Updated Minimum Efficiency Standards for Air-Cooled, Three-Phase, Commercial
Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat Pumps With a Cooling Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h and Air-Cooled, Three-
    Phase, Small Variable Refrigerant Flow Multi-Split Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment With a Cooling
                                       Capacity of Less Than 65,000 Btu/h
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                              Compliance date:
                                                                                                 equipment
        Equipment type          Cooling capacity     Subcategory      Minimum efficiency   manufactured starting
                                                                                                  on . . .
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Unitary Air          <65,000 Btu/h...  Split-System....  13.4 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Conditioners.
Commercial Unitary Air          <65,000 Btu/h...  Single-Package..  13.4 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Conditioners.
Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps.  <65,000 Btu/h...  Split-System....  14.3 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
                                                                    7.5 HSPF2............
Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps.  <65,000 Btu/h...  Single-Package..  13.4 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
                                                                    6.7 HSPF2............
Space-Constrained Commercial    <=30,000 Btu/h..  Split-System....  12.7 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Unitary Air Conditioners.
Space-Constrained Commercial    <=30,000 Btu/h..  Single-Package..  13.9 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Unitary Air Conditioners.
Space-Constrained Commercial    <=30,000 Btu/h..  Split-System....  13.9 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Unitary Heat Pumps.                                                7.0 HSPF2............
Space-Constrained Commercial    <=30,000 Btu/h..  Single-Package..  13.9 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Unitary Heat Pumps.                                                6.7 HSPF2............
Small-Duct, High-Velocity       <65,000 Btu/h...  Split-System....  13.0 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Commercial Unitary Air
 Conditioners.
Small-Duct, High-Velocity       <65,000 Btu/h...  Split-System....  14.0 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
 Commercial Unitary Heat Pumps.                                     6.9 HSPF2............
VRF Air Conditioners..........  <65,000 Btu/h...  ................  13.4 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
VRF Heat Pumps................  <65,000 Btu/h...  ................  13.4 SEER2...........  January 1, 2025.
                                                                    7.5 HSPF2............
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
13. Appendix A to subpart F of part 431 is revised to read as follows:

Appendix A to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Unitary Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps (Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a 
Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h)

    Note: Prior to [Date 360 days after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register], representations with respect to 
the energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners 
and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance 
certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance 
with:
    (a) The applicable provisions (Appendix A for air-cooled 
equipment, and Table 1 to Sec.  431.96 for water-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled equipment) as they appeared in subpart F of 
this part, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of 
January 1, 2023; or
    (b) This appendix.
    Beginning [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register], and prior to the compliance date of 
amended standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat 
pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h) based on integrated ventilation, economizing, and 
cooling (``IVEC'') and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency 
(IVHE), representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of 
commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-
cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), 
including compliance certifications, must be based on testing 
conducted in accordance with this appendix.
    Beginning on the compliance date of amended standards for 
commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding 
equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on 
IVEC and IVHE, representations with respect to energy use or 
efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps 
(excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on 
testing conducted in accordance with appendix A1 to this subpart.
    Manufacturers may also certify compliance with any amended 
energy conservation standards for commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on IVEC or IVHE prior 
to the applicable compliance date for those standards, and those 
compliance certifications must be based on testing in accordance 
with appendix A1 to this subpart.

1. Incorporation by Reference

    DOE incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.95, the entire 
standard for AHRI 340/360-2022 and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. However, 
certain enumerated provisions of AHRI 340/360-2022 and ANSI/ASHRAE 
37-2009, as set forth in paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2 of this section are 
inapplicable. To the extent there is a conflict between the terms or 
provisions

[[Page 56455]]

of a referenced industry standard and the CFR, the CFR provisions 
control.

1.1. AHRI 340/360-2022:

    (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
    (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
    (c) The following subsections of Section 3 Definitions are 
inapplicable: 3.2 (Basic Model), 3.4 (Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Air-conditioning Equipment), 3.5 (Commercial and Industrial 
Unitary Heat Pump), 3.7 (Double-duct System), 3.8 (Energy Efficiency 
Ratio (EER)), 3.12 (Heating Coefficient of Performance 
(COPH)), 3.14 (Integrated Energy Efficiency Ratio 
(IEER)), 3.23 (Published Rating), 3.26 (Single Package Air-
Conditioners), 3.27 (Single Package Heat Pumps), 3.29 (Split System 
Air-conditioners), 3.30 (Split System Heat Pump), 3.36 (Year Round 
Single Package Air-conditioners),
    (d) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is 
inapplicable,
    (e) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable,
    (f) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable,
    (g) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable,
    (h) Appendix B References--Informative is inapplicable,
    (i) Sections D1 (Purpose), D2 (Configuration Requirements), and 
D3 (Optional System Features) of Appendix D Unit Configuration For 
Standard Efficiency Determination--Normative are inapplicable,
    (j) Appendix F International Rating Conditions--Normative is 
inapplicable,
    (k) Appendix G Examples of IEER Calculations--Informative is 
inapplicable,
    (l) Appendix H Example of Determination of Fan and Motor 
Efficiency for Non-standard Integrated Indoor Fan and Motors--
Informative is inapplicable, and
    (m) Appendix I Double-duct System Efficiency Metrics with Non-
Zero Outdoor Air External Static Pressure (ESP)--Normative is 
inapplicable.

1.2. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009:

    (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable
    (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable, and
    (c) Section 4 Classification is inapplicable.

2. General

    Determine the applicable energy efficiency metrics (IEER, EER, 
and COP) in accordance with the specified sections of AHRI 340/360-
2022 and the specified sections of ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009.
    Sections 3 and 4 of this Appendix provide additional 
instructions for testing. In cases where there is a conflict, the 
language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 
340/360-2022, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Any subsequent 
amendment to a referenced document by the 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.

3. Test Conditions

    The following conditions specified in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-
2022 apply when testing to certify to the energy conservation 
standards in Sec.  431.97. For cooling mode tests for equipment 
subject to standards in terms of EER, test using the ``Standard 
Rating Conditions Cooling''. For cooling mode tests for equipment 
subject to standards in terms of IEER, test using the ``Standard 
Rating Conditions Cooling'' and the ``Standard Rating Part-Load 
Conditions (IEER)''. For heat pump heating mode tests, test using 
the ``Standard Rating Conditions (High Temperature Steady State 
Heating)''.
    For equipment subject to standards in terms of EER, 
representations of IEER made using the ``Standard Rating Part-Load 
Conditions (IEER)'' in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 are optional. 
For equipment subject to standards in terms of IEER, representations 
of EER made using the ``Standard Rating Conditions Cooling'' in 
Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 are optional. Representations of COP 
made using the ``Standard Rating Conditions (Low Temperature Steady 
State Heating)'' in Table 6 of AHRI 340/360-2022 are optional.

4. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components

    When testing equipment that includes any of the features listed 
in Table 1, test in accordance with the set-up and test provisions 
specified in Table 1.

            Table 1--Test Provisions for Specific Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component                Description         Test provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
Evaporative Pre-cooling of    Water is evaporated   Disconnect the unit
 Air-cooled Condenser Intake   into the air          from a water supply
 Air.                          entering the air-     for testing i.e.,
                               cooled condenser to   operate without
                               lower the dry-bulb    active evaporative
                               temperature and       cooling.
                               thereby increase
                               efficiency of the
                               refrigeration cycle.
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.
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.
High-Effectiveness Indoor     Indoor air filters    Test with the
 Air Filtration.               with greater air      standard filter.
                               filtration
                               effectiveness than
                               the filters used
                               for testing.

[[Page 56456]]

 
Power Correction Capacitors.  A capacitor that      Remove power
                               increases the power   correction
                               factor measured at    capacitors for
                               the line connection   testing.
                               to the equipment.
Process Heat recovery/        A heat exchanger      Disconnect the heat
 Reclaim Coils/Thermal         located inside the    exchanger from its
 Storage.                      unit that             heat source for
                               conditions the        testing.
                               equipment's supply
                               air using energy
                               transferred from an
                               external source
                               using a vapor, gas,
                               or liquid.
Refrigerant Reheat Coils....  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.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils...  Coils used to         Test with steam/
                               provide               hydronic heat coils
                               supplemental          in place but
                               heating.              providing no heat.
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.
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

0
14. Add appendix A1 to subpart F of part 431 to read as follows:

Appendix A1 to Subpart F of Part 431--Uniform Test Method for the 
Measurement of Energy Consumption of Commercial Unitary Air 
Conditioners and Heat Pumps (Excluding Air-Cooled Equipment With a 
Cooling Capacity Less Than 65,000 Btu/h)

    Note: Prior to [Date 360 days after date of publication of the 
final rule in the Federal Register] representations with respect to 
the energy use or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners 
and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling 
capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), including compliance 
certifications, must be based on testing conducted in accordance 
with:
    (a) The applicable provisions (Appendix A for air-cooled 
equipment, and Table 1 to Sec.  431.96 for water-cooled and 
evaporatively-cooled equipment) as it appeared in subpart F of this 
part, in the 10 CFR parts 200 through 499 edition revised as of 
January 1, 2023; or
    (b) Appendix A to this subpart.
    Beginning [Date 360 days after date of publication of the final 
rule in the Federal Register], and prior to the compliance date of 
amended standards for commercial unitary air conditioners and heat 
pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less 
than 65,000 Btu/h) based on integrated ventilation, economizing, and 
cooling (IVEC)) and integrated ventilation and heating efficiency 
(IVHE), representations with respect to energy use or efficiency of 
commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-
cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h), 
including compliance certifications, must be based on testing 
conducted in accordance with appendix A to this subpart.
    Beginning on the compliance date of amended standards for 
commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-
cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) 
based on IVEC and IVHE, representations with respect to energy use 
or efficiency of commercial unitary air conditioners and heat pumps 
(excluding air-cooled equipment with a cooling capacity less than 
65,000 Btu/h), including compliance certifications, must be based on 
testing conducted in accordance with this appendix.
    Manufacturers may also certify compliance with any amended 
energy conservation standards for commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps (excluding air-cooled equipment with a 
cooling capacity less than 65,000 Btu/h) based on IVEC or IVHE prior 
to the applicable compliance date for those standards, and those 
compliance certifications must be based on testing in accordance 
with this appendix.

1. Incorporation by Reference

    DOE incorporated by reference in Sec.  431.95, the entire 
standard for AHRI 1340-202X Draft and ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. However, 
certain enumerated provisions of AHRI 1340-202X Draft and ANSI/
ASHRAE 37-2009, as listed in this section 1 are inapplicable. To the 
extent there is a conflict between the terms or provisions of a 
referenced industry standard and the CFR, the CFR provisions 
control.

1.1. AHRI 1340-202X Draft:

    (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable,
    (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable,
    (c) The following subsections of section 3 Definitions: 3.3 
(Basic Model), 3.5 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Air-
conditioning Equipment), 3.6 (Commercial and Industrial Unitary Heat 
Pump), 3.12 (Double-duct System), 3.14.3 (Standard Energy Efficiency 
Ratio), 3.18 (Heating Coefficient of Performance 2), 3.21 
(Integrated Ventilation, Economizing, and Cooling Efficiency), 3.22 
(Integrated Ventilation and Heating Efficiency), 3.29 (Published 
Rating), 3.32 (Single Package Air-Conditioners), 3.33 (Single 
Package Heat Pumps), 3.34 (Split System Air-conditioners), 3.35 
(Split System Heat Pump), 3.41 (Year Round Single Package Air-
conditioners) are inapplicable,
    (d) The following subsections of section 6 Rating Requirements 
are inapplicable: 6.4 (Rating Values), 6.5 (Uncertainty), and 6.6 
(Verification Testing),
    (e) Section 7 Minimum Data Requirements for Published Ratings is 
inapplicable
    (f) Section 8 Operating Requirements is inapplicable,
    (g) Section 9 Marking and Nameplate Data is inapplicable,
    (h) Section 10 Conformance Conditions is inapplicable,
    (i) Appendix B References--Informative is inapplicable, and
    (j) Sections D1 (Purpose), D2 (Configuration Requirements), and 
D3 (Optional System Features) of Appendix D Unit Configuration For 
Standard Efficiency Determination--Normative are inapplicable.

1.2. ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009:

    (a) Section 1 Purpose is inapplicable
    (b) Section 2 Scope is inapplicable, and
    (c) Section 4 Classification is inapplicable.

2. General

    For air conditioners and heat pumps, determine IVEC and IVHE (as 
applicable). Representations of energy efficiency ratio 2 (EER2) and 
IVHEC may optionally be made. Representations of 
coefficient of performance 2 (COP2) at 5 [deg]F, 17 [deg]F, and 47 
[deg]F may optionally be made.

[[Page 56457]]

    Sections 3 and 4 of this appendix provide additional 
instructions for testing. In cases where there is a conflict, the 
language of this appendix takes highest precedence, followed by AHRI 
1340-202X Draft, followed by ANSI/ASHRAE 37-2009. Any subsequent 
amendment to a referenced document by the 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.

3. Test Conditions

    The following conditions specified in AHRI 1340-202X Draft apply 
when testing to certify to the energy conservation standards in 
Sec.  431.97. For cooling mode, use the rating conditions in Table 7 
of AHRI 1340-202X Draft. For heat pump heating mode tests, use the 
rating conditions in Table 26 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft and the IVHE 
U.S. Average building load profile in Table 25 of AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft.
    Representations of EER2 made using the ``Cooling Bin A'' 
conditions in Table 7 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft are optional. 
Representations of IVHEC made using the IVHEC 
Cold Average building load profile in Table 25 of AHRI 1340-202X 
Draft are optional. Representations of COP247 made using 
the H47H test, COP217 made using the H17H test, and 
COP25 made using the H5H test in Table 26 of AHRI 1340-
202X Draft are optional.

4. Set-Up and Test Provisions for Specific Components

    When testing equipment that includes any of the features listed 
in Table 1 of this appendix, test in accordance with the set-up and 
test provisions specified in Table 1 of this appendix.

            Table 1--Test Provisions for Specific Components
------------------------------------------------------------------------
          Component                Description         Test provisions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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.
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.
Evaporative Pre-cooling of    Water is evaporated   Disconnect the unit
 Air-cooled Condenser Intake   into the air          from a water supply
 Air.                          entering the air-     for testing i.e.,
                               cooled condenser to   operate without
                               lower the dry-bulb    active evaporative
                               temperature and       cooling.
                               thereby increase
                               efficiency of the
                               refrigeration cycle.
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.
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.
High-Effectiveness Indoor     Indoor air filters    Test with the
 Air Filtration.               with greater air      standard filter.
                               filtration
                               effectiveness than
                               the filters used
                               for testing.
Power Correction Capacitors.  A capacitor that      Remove power
                               increases the power   correction
                               factor measured at    capacitors for
                               the line connection   testing.
                               to the equipment.
Process Heat recovery/        A heat exchanger      Disconnect the heat
 Reclaim Coils/Thermal         located inside the    exchanger from its
 Storage.                      unit that             heat source for
                               conditions the        testing.
                               equipment's supply
                               air using energy
                               transferred from an
                               external source
                               using a vapor, gas,
                               or liquid.
Refrigerant Reheat Coils....  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.
Steam/Hydronic Heat Coils...  Coils used to         Test with steam/
                               provide               hydronic heat coils
                               supplemental          in place but
                               heating.              providing no heat.
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.

[[Page 56458]]

 
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.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Test Provisions for Coil-Only Systems

    5.1. When testing coil-only systems, follow the applicable 
provisions in sections 5.17.4, 5.18.4, 6.2.4.2, and 6.3.6 of the 
AHRI 1340-202X Draft, as modified by the following instructions.
    5.2. For tests using the full-load cooling airflow, use the 
applicable airflow capacity adjustment and fan power adjustment 
specified for full-load tests in Table 8 of AHRI 1340-202X Draft.
    5.3. For tests with a manufacturer-specified airflow that is 
lower than the full-load cooling airflow, set airflow using a target 
airflow rate that is the higher of: (1) the manufacturer-specified 
airflow for the test; or (2) 67 percent of the airflow measured for 
the full-load cooling test. Calculate the capacity adjustment and 
fan power adjustment using the following equations.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AU23.115

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP17AU23.116

Where:

DFPCadj = adjusted default fan power coefficient for test using 
airflow lower than full-load cooling airflow

DFPCFL = default fan power coefficient specified for full-load tests 
in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft

DFPCPL = default fan power coefficient specified for part-load tests 
in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft

%FL Airflow = airflow measured for the test divided by the measured 
airflow for the full-load cooling test

DCAadj = adjusted default capacity adjustment for test using airflow 
lower than full-load cooling airflow

DCAFL = default capacity adjustment specified for full-
load tests in Table 8 of the AHRI 1340-202X DraftDCAPL = 
default capacity adjustment specified for part-load tests in Table 8 
of the AHRI 1340-202X Draft

Appendix F to Subpart F of Part 431 [Amended]

0
15. Amend appendix F to subpart F of part 431 by:
0
a. In the appendix heading, removing the words ``Small Commercial 
Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment'', and adding in their 
place, the words ``Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps''; and
0
b. In the appendix note, and paragraph 2.1, by removing the words 
``small commercial package air conditioning and heating equipment'', 
and adding in their place, the words ``commercial unitary air 
conditioners and heat pumps''.

Appendix F1 to Subpart F of Part 431 [Amended]

0
16. Amend appendix F1 to subpart F of part 431 by:
0
a. In the appendix heading by removing the words ``Small Commercial 
Package Air Conditioning and Heating Equipment'', and adding in their 
place, the words ``Commercial Unitary Air Conditioners and Heat 
Pumps''; and
0
b. In the appendix note by removing the words ``small commercial 
package air conditioning and heating equipment'', and adding in their 
place, the words ``commercial unitary air conditioners and heat 
pumps''.

[FR Doc. 2023-15857 Filed 8-16-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P

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